User talk:CheeseDreams/November 2004

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 14:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

James I

I have removed the section in question but kept some important information on rumours elsewhere in the article. (The article mentions the rumours of Jame's relationship and the effect on the Treasury.) Irrelevant and completely unsubstantiated rumours (such as the one that James called Buckingham his "wife") have been completely removed. I hope that this satisfies your objections... -- Emsworth 14:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am once again attempting to work towards a compromise, and have put the information in the "Queen James" section into a more NPOV style. The section was not deleted; neither were the allegations. It is just that the discussion was changed to one that is from a more unbiased and impartial standpoint. -- Emsworth 17:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

deleting

To speedy delete a page, it must meet one of the the speedy deletion criteria. Pages that do not meet any of these criteria are passed through WP:VFD. I took the liberty of adding the appropriate tag.Dunc|☺ 20:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

thanksCheeseDreams 20:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Thanks for your work on this article. I think we've achieved something neutral and informative in the Mystery Religions section. Mpolo 09:04, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

It appears you've aquired "help" on Historicity of Jesus/ . I have not reviewed the edits overnight, but they appear somewhat extensive. - Amgine 17:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeh, I noticed that. Its some anonymous IP though, so I don't know if they will get the message I left them for help on other partial articles like John 21. CheeseDreams 19:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jesus

Please don't accuse me of "POV vandalism" without evidence. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is meant to be a factual book, whereas The Last Temptation of Christ is meant to be a novel. Therefore it's clearly more appropriate to cite the former. Many scholars (including, for example, J. M. Robinson and I. Wilson) do believe that the Gospel of Philip is late - with the implication being that some disagree. I've left the discussion on mediaeval homosexuality in for the time being, but, as was discussed on the talk page, you're going to need to give a reference to this assertion to stop it being deleted again. --G Rutter 09:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very few people know the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The last temptation of christ is meant to be an extrapolation from a collection of gnostic text, and although it is not percieved of as a non-fiction work, I must point out that Plato primarily used the method of binding an idea into a story as well, and Plato's works are usually considered as Science/Philosophy/Politics rather than fiction.

I agree many scholars think the Gospel of Phillip is late, however, it is also true to say many scholars believe the Gospel of Phillip is early.

I am still, when I have time, searching for a quotable reference for the mediaeval sexuality, however, the belief survived well into modern times - for example, Oscar Wilde used it at his famed Libel trial (there is probably a quote for this too somewhere, though I do not know where)

Cutting this from the article is POV because they are evidence of how commonly held the belief was, and removing them is suggesting it was a belief on the fringes/ modern speculation, which is not true.

I may put Oscar Wilde into the article as well, to read something like "this belief persisted even into modern times, for example, Oscar Wilde used similar defence at his trial" and then try to find a quote. CheeseDreams 19:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. What book/website did you get the information on mediaeval homosexuality from? The article doesn't necessarily need a quote, it just needs a reference to someone who's said this and presented evidence (I assume there are trial documents or whatever). I think mentioning fictional works and Oscar Wilde will muddy the waters somewhat (though the Oscar Wilde thing is interesting - could you put it on his page?). Also, you say "the belief survived well into modern times" - I'd have thought it more likely to have reoccured independently in modern times, rather than surviving. Anyway, I'd be very interested in reading whatever source you got this info from. --G Rutter 15:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was not referring to fictional works but rather the ACTUAL libel trial that Oscar Wilde took part in. It was his. He lost and was imprisoned. It was a libel trial set up by his boyfriend's father as a trap (his boyfriend was Bosey (Lord Alfred Douglas)) CheeseDreams 19:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By fictional works I was referring to The Last Temptation - I was just dealing with both issues at the same time. Perhaps "fictional works and also Oscar Wilde" would have been clearer. --G Rutter 20:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is a quote from King James I of England Jesus had his John, and I have my George - a reference to George Villiers, whom most historians consider to have been King James I's boyfriend. Clearly the belief survived well into James I's time. CheeseDreams 19:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but you still haven't provided references for mediaeval homosexuals. I'm happy if you want that part changing to a more general comment that a small minority of people through history have believed that Jesus was homosexual, but the specific assertion currently in the article still needs backing up. --G Rutter 20:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From my memory of the article when I last looked at it it says Middle Ages. King James I is from the Middle Ages.

No, he is not. Also, is this a myth, or a fact? What is the historical source (I mean, the original text)? I know it is supposed to be a comment he made to his ministers, but where is the documentary proof? Slrubenstein

Its in the Privy Council records. You can look for yourself if you want. They are held in the Public Record Office at Kew, (west) London.

The records also show he called Buckingham his wife. CheeseDreams 09:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am still looking for the exact reference, the word combinations aren't exactly guarenteed to find it immediately. I take it you mean "provide references from mediaeval homosexuals", or are you contesting that there are any? Nethertheless, you can see that no less than the King of England in the middle of the middle ages had the POV. I am thinking of inserting the King James quote into the article, so that readers can see that it isn't just a spurious claim. CheeseDreams 20:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meant references for mediaeval homosexuals claiming that Jesus was homosexual as a defence in a trial which is the specific claim currently in the article- where did you get this information from? --G Rutter 13:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh right, I think thats about the Primate of All Ireland who was hung for homosexuality (with a bishop). That stands a better chance of being easy to find. CheeseDreams 18:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have found these, whilst searching:

Mervyn Touchet, Earl of Castlehaven used it in his defence at trial for sodomy.

The bishop I was on about was in fact John Atherton, Lord Bishop of Waterford.

CheeseDreams 19:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Both these individuals (and James I) were from the 17th century, which is the Early Modern period. They were both executed for homosexuality, but for John Atherton this [1] website states that the trial records were destroyed shortly afterwards and does not mention that he used this defence (it does say he denied the charge at his trial). For Mervyn Touchet, the same website [2] states:

"Castlehaven began by quoting Scripture in defence of his love of Skipwith (his exact reference is not cited, but it was probably an allusion to the love of David and Jonathan, perhaps even the "heresy" about Christ and St John being lovers)."

which is hardly conclusive. Other websites seem to concur. So, I'll use the quote from James and reword the sentence in the Jesus article. --G Rutter 21:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its odd that the website should mention Jesus having St. John as a boyfriend, unless, of course, that the heresy existed at the time? CheeseDreams 21:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not really - it depends on when the speculation about what the Biblical quotation was started. I'm glad you think the changes to this section are now OK. --G Rutter 09:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Historical and Cultural background to Jesus (dispute)

Hi CheeseDreams, I got your message on my talk page so I took a look at the Jesus stuff. I think that Slrubenstein's version is mostly NPOV and I'm not sure why you're reverting him. Judea is a more accurate historical term, in my view, than Palestine - but maybe "Judea (also called Palestine, present-day Israel)" would be a better phrasing. The messianic sects and such don't really seem to be related to Jesus directly, so why must they be present? Anyway, that's my opinion, but Jesus isn't one of the pages I really care a lot about so I'm not going to get too involved. Feel free to ask me any questions or anything. Andre (talk) 21:24, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Judea is not ALL of Palestine, it is only part of it. That is the (minor) issue I have with the term.

The whole point about backgrounds to things is that they do not relate to the things directly, as then they would be foreground, surely? CheeseDreams 21:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.s. The roman province of Palestine is much larger than modern day Israel. CheeseDreams 18:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus

copied from Pedant's discuss page: Please take a look at the section of the talk page on "edits as of Nov. 1." I am in an editing dispute with CheeseDream and someone has protected the article until the matter is resolved. I would appreciate it if you would look at the last version of eh article by me, before it was protected, and compare that to the last version by Cheese Dream, and then go over my discussion with him on the talk page, and comment. Thanks, Slrubenstein

Ok, I made extensive comments, not sure why you think I'm the one to ask, but thanks for the implications that seems to make. I'm going to consider it a complimentPedant 03:07, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

I notice Slrubenstein is trying to bring people who he sees as supporters of his POV into the discussion (see his contributions list). I do not think this is a very NPOV thing to do. CheeseDreams 00:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The point is not to get one's POV into the article, the point is to make a good article, that's factual. I hope you read my comments, and that you see that my point of view is that the article's subject is defined in its title, and that it's an article that presupposes an actual man named jesus from 1st century Judea, and that all information in the article shoould relate to that, as its subject.

You should note that I didn't agree with either of you entirely, and that in one case I disagreed with you both. So what, right? My agreement doesn't make either of you right or wrong, and I suspect you both know more about some aspects of the topic than I do. Good information that doesn't belong one place can always find a home where it fits perfectly. This situation won't go forever, let it play itself out. The wiki always works, it just sometimes takes a while. we all have tha same goals here, writing a good encyclopedia... people that don't share that goal just slip away unnoticed, the articles they worked on get polished to near perfection and nobody get's hurt. It really works.

I actually think that if you two are both really good wikipedians that you can find a way to make a good team. Opposing viewpoints work great together, if they are trying to make good articles, and not just debate. You both have added value to the article and to its discussion. Feel free to link to this thread, on my page or yours, or copy it somewhere... and let me know if I can be useful in any way. Thanks for dropping by.Pedant 00:34, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

copied from my talk pagePedant 00:36, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of POV bias. I left the note to merely point out to Slrubenstein that I have discovered what he is up to. By the way, he has started threatening to delete a whole section which disagrees with his POV from the Historicity of Jesus article now. As well as slandering my name on the Talk page for Cultural and historical background of Jesus against thencivility policy. CheeseDreams 00:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Posting this to both your pages: Would you and he like me to mediate this? I think we could wrap it up pretty quickly, and I am interested in the topic, and you both are, and seems like a lot of others don't want to get involved. I'd think some sort of informal friendly discussion on a neutral page would be good ... we are all active so we can probably work this out fast. I'd be happy to do it.Pedant 02:19, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

I would like this mediated. However, I would like it mediated by someone neither of us has requested to enter the debate. I think this would appear more neutral. CheeseDreams 08:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CD, I just wanted to note that, while I can understand your concerns, I didn't feel as though Slr was "recruiting" me to assist him. I agree with him in some ways, but not in all ways, and as his note didn't ask me to do anything more than look at a discussion, I didn't feel I was being asked to take his side. I recognize it does look that way on the face of it, and of course it is true that Slr and I agree on more things than you and I seem to. But I just wanted to let you know that I don't feel any personal obligation to agree with Slr, and on at least one occasion on that page I've disagreed with him already, I think. I hope my actions will prove to you I'm acting on my own behalf (and Wikipedia's best interests, if my intentions match my deeds). Jwrosenzweig 14:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheexe is upset by my contributing to two or three pages. The passage I threaten to delete in the Historicity of the Bible article is one that literally makes no sense (the writing is obscure) and that seems to be based on no research, and does not reflect scholarly views. I explained this on the talk page and provided time for discussion. Slrubenstein

In what way makes no sense? If the writing is only obscure, then clarify it yourself. I am sure you are able to work out what it is getting at. That seems clear enough from the comments on the talk page. CheeseDreams 19:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No one (as of last night) was able to explain the non-sequitors, provide evidence, or scholarly citations. I think it is completely within the Wikipedia policies for an editor to point out a problem in an article, suggest deletion, provide reasons, and allow for debate on the discussion page before making any changes. That is all I did and I don't see how anyone could criticize me for it. CheeseDream's acts would have the effect only of censoring my views. Slrubenstein

Note the phrase suggest deletion. You threatened it. That is not the same thing at all. CheeseDreams 19:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Similarly, I have serious problems with the cultural and historical background of Jesus article, but I have taken great pains to explain my views on the talk pages. CheezeDream seldom replies to specific questions or criticisms, or replies with tangents and defensively (or offensively).

Exactly how have I not replied to specific question? If you look at the comments section I have replied there. In your section, I have replied there. I even went to the effort of seperating your response into different points and addressing each one specifically. CheeseDreams 19:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If CheeseDreams is asking for mediation, and Pedant is offering, I have no problem with that.

I do not think Pedant is NPOV. This is because you asked him to comment before he was brought into the debate, along with others whose comments on their pages and previous articles suggest that they share your POV to an extent.

I would much rather someone independant of either of us took that place. For example, a Shinto-Buddhist. CheeseDreams 19:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, I must clarify my own (or original) position: CheeseDream says my action is "not a very BPOV thing to do" which to me is just one more prrof that he does not understand NPOV or the Wikipedia process, which is collaborative. There was a little revert war brewing on a page, and I thought that rather than engage in an endless discussion with CheeseDream, who seems either not to understand or agree with anything I say, the best sollution (in my opinion, better than mediation) is to braoden the discussion -- to get more Wikipedians involved. I thus asked Pedant if he would comment. Note: I did not ask him for support, and I did not ask him to take any action against CheeseDream. I asked only for comment. Pedant himself wonders why I asked him. It certainly isn't because of some conspiracy against NPOV, as CheeseDream suggests. The fact is, I know little about Pedant and have no idea whether he agrees with me or not. What I do know is this: he commended on an earlier version of the article, or he made some edit, or somehow expressed some interest in the topic earlier. That is the only reason I asked him to comment. I looked at the history of the article and talk pages and left messages for a few people who had been involved earlier. That's it. I do not see how inviting a broader discussion is in any way bad; on the contrary it is what we should strive for at Wikipedia. CheeseDream is now slandering me by accusing me of orchestrating a conspiracy; he is exploiting the concept of NPOV to justify his exclusion of points of view other than his own; he is discouraging a more general discussion which is essential to the collaborative process of Wikipedia. These are procedural issues and on these alone I think CheeseDream has been acting in a malicious and damaging way. Slrubenstein

I note

That you did not explicitely ask him for support. With the emphasis on explicitely.
That you only attempted to bring in people whose POV seems similar to yours rather than everyone on the article, e.g. you didn't ask the Rev of Bru.
That you didn't approach a neutral method first, such as Requests for Comment, as I have done.

Points 2 and 3 are why I did (and still do) regard your action with respect to these various people as not NPOV. CheeseDreams 19:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that RFC is normally supposed to be after ordinary methods, like the Talk page and calling in other opinions, have been exhausted. (In this case, we had an edit war, and there was nothing wrong with going to RFC directly, IMO.) I have never knowingly worked closely with Slrubenstein on any articles, yet I was one of the people he contacted. Many of the others seem to have been surprised by being contacted. I think that he was simply trying to call in several of the people who had edited that article, and so might be interested. Since you and Bru are both very active in those articles, you both saw the argument without being invited, so no harm, no foul. (Actually, I saw the page before I noticed the "new messages" flag as well.) I think that we should just assume good faith and go on with solving the problems with the article. Mpolo 20:12, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think he looked at article edit histories and chose people that way. When I noticed, via his contributions list, that he was doing it, I looked at the contributions of the people he chose to see whether they were neutral or shared his POV. It seems to me that they are the latter, even if for some of them they in general appear to act in as NPOV as they are aware.

CheeseDreams 20:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and chose the two people who had earlier made comments, but were not as yet involved in this particular discussion. Those were my only criteria. In the first two topics on the talk page, there are only three people involved: Pedant, Mpolo, and CheeseDreams. CheeseDream was already making comments, so I asked Mpolo and Pedant to as well. Slrubenstein

You asked at least 3 people. One of whom was Wesley, who doesnt satisfy the qualification give above. CheeseDreams 09:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I explained elsewhere, I went to Wesley because he knows the full history of the Jesus page as he has been working on it on and off for a year or more. Also, as I explained elsewhere, he and I have radically different points of view and have argued often, but I have always found him fair and thoughtful, so he seemed like a good person to get another opinion from. Slrubenstein

From your comments on the Cultural and historical background talk page, and his, it doesn't really seem as if there is much difference between your POV, to the extent that I wondered for a time if his sudden appearance was as a second username used by you. CheeseDreams 19:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi folk! Glad you are discussing this. As I said before, I think the two of you would make a good team. I pretty much don't have any bias here, I am just interested in the discussion. I don't even remember which of you had what POV, as they both seemed really close to me. It could have been worse. For the record, I wasn't really 'offering to act as a mediator' I was more suggesting that you two seemed so close to agreement that it seemed to me that you could work this out informally. It looks like you are doing so, so I'll butt out, and let you get there. Let me know if I can be of any use, or if you want a second opinion or anything at all I can do to help either of you in any way.Pedant 23:36, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

I really don't think that Slrubenstein and I agree on anything in the Jesus series of articles. However, it is re-assuring to note that the majority consensus does (despite the inherent POV of many of the discussing persons). However, I have suspicion that once the page is unprotected, and the majority consensus acted upon, Slrubenstein will change it all, and claim he is acting to change things to the majority consensus. CheeseDreams 23:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Cheese

Thanks for the cheer on my Talk page! I don't have any ambition to become an admin, though.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 13:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus (ongoing edit)

Regarding this: If you are doing a major rewrite of an article, it's customary to work on it in a sandbox, either in your user space (e.g. User:CheeseDreams/Historicity of Jesus) or in a temporary subpage (e.g. Historicity of Jesus/Temp) and to note that on the top of the talk page. —No-One Jones ^(m) 01:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm in UTC + 0100, so was already asleep when you left your message. Sorry. Mpolo 08:07, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Its protected now, so no need to worry about Sam.

HE still hasn't explained on the talk page why he disputes Factual accuracy or NPOV, or why it should be merged to Cultural and historical background. CheeseDreams 08:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Authorship of John

Check out the talk page on John. As I note that you and I are the only ones to edit since Nov. 4th, it figured I'd drop you a note. Thanks. --TheGrza 07:13, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I did a major rewrite of the article... It would be good if you could check to make sure I haven't skewed the article toward one POV. (I do state what the majority opinion is, but I hope that I leave it open enough as to not be imposing "truth by majority opinion".) Mpolo 15:12, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Request help on Creation and evolution in public education ..

I don't know if you care, Cheese, but Ungsst is fighting to remove the POV on an article that he moved off of Creationism in order to get the tags off Creationism.. could you look at the article and say whether you think it deserves some tags? -Fleacircus 18:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Editor list

Please don't keep hate lists on your user page. People (e.g. user:Wik) have been banned for such behavior. Thanks. Gady 20:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You will note that they are empty despite that I could fill them in, except for mentioning sam spade, and he signed it himself (check the edit history). Do you feel threatened by them? CheeseDreams 20:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We all do, it was part of what got User:Wik banned. I signed it to make fun of you, and to get the jump on you, not to suggest making such lists is acceptable. if you want a list, make it on your notepad, or desktop, not on the wiki. We are here to make an encyclopedia, not create tensions and havok. Sam [Spade] 21:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't have signed it and declared your POV.

I deliberately left it blank for that very purpose Sam.

If you are foolish enough to fall into the trap then thats your fault.

I really don't know why people who are (a) not holocaust deniers, (b) not fundamentalist bigots, (c) not homophobic should be concerned. What is there to be afraid of? Unless of course you are a homophobic fundamentalist bigot who denies the holocaust.

CheeseDreams 21:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So what if they are? Fundamentalists, holocaust deniers, and homophobes have as much right to edit here as you do. Rhobite 19:02, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

So what have they to be afraid of? Or is it that they are afraid of having their traits exposed, because they prefer to be able to misrepresent themselves? CheeseDreams 19:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have a very interesting talk page, by the way. CheeseDreams 19:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a stalker. Rhobite 20:01, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said a stalker so much as a regulator, monitoring abusers of administration rights. CheeseDreams 20:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I (we all) would love to see on your User page the names of some of the Wikipedians you have worked with successfully or found to be particularly helpful and patient. These kind of good vibes are what we all thrive on. Cheers! Tom - Talk 03:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

At the moment that would be a list containing User:Mpolo, and thats about it really. CheeseDreams 08:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That sez alot. Looks like Mpolo deserves some compliments all around! Sam [Spade] 12:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Help Request

I am not a Bible expert or even above average knowledgeable about it, is there another article you know of that needs clean up that might be more appropriate for me? Zen Master 01:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ok, will take a look but I admit to not being inspired. Zen Master 01:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been submitted to Vfd... Zen Master 09:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just did a major rewrite (without much source-citing, admittedly). Why don't you take a look and see if it can be at least a basis for the article? Mpolo 10:53, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Um ...

heya. just wanted to make clear, i don't believe in biblical inerrancy, and i'm not a creationist per se. so you don't have to point out all the contradictions in scripture. i've read the thing and i know they're there. i also know the church has done some extremely evil things in the past. those are not battles we're fighting. i just want npov. that's it:). thanks:). Ungtss 01:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I was asking you to help edit the article, not demonstrating that the content of it exists. CheeseDreams 08:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your user page

I just noticed your user page. Would you consider voluntarily removing your "enemies" list? Having a list of this sort can only turn people against you. In my opinion, it's hostile and unproductive. Rhobite 19:00, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Since when was it an "enemies" list? If you check the edit history, youll find out that it was empty until Sam filled his own name in. CheeseDreams 19:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alleged textual evidence of Jesus

I went through and did a lot of editing. Mostly to make it less "bulleted points", but also a few tone ("point out" can be seen as implicitly siding with the group you are citing) and content edits. Mpolo 15:20, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good now. I didn't think "point out" was controversial, what is being pointed out is simply fact, its how its interpreted thats siding with one view, surely? CheeseDreams 17:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's mentioned on one of the myriad of Style pages... The point made (wherever it is) is that when you say "The UFOlogists say that ..., while the Cattle Mutilators point out...", you are making a very slight (so slight that I would normally ignore it) indication that the UFOlogists have missed something that the clever Cattle Mutilators found, thus slightly favoring the Cattle Mutilator POV. Mpolo 17:59, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Sam has moved the page again. I would suggest that we discuss this on the (current) Talk page Talk:Jesus and textual evidence#Page move before getting into a "move war". Mpolo 08:20, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was predicting that he would do that. Its terribly easy to move back again (he hasn't even moved it properly, so its messing up the page history). CheeseDreams 10:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of Bible stories

This is not by any means a candidate for speedy deletion. I don't believe it is a particularly good votes for deletion candidate either, so I didn't put it there (lists are considered acceptable), but if you still believe it should be deleted, please list it at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its a silly list, and POV. The bible can be broken into stories in many different ways, and what constitutes a whole story to one is just part of one for another. Some stories run as threads throughout large chunks of text, others do not. Some run in parrallel. Some people take some stories to be seperate, others identify them as the same. The list is POV. In addition, I object to having the link for "Creation" to "Creation Belief" which is only the view of one small section of Christianity, and should go to "Creation according to Genesis" instead. I feel that there are other POV links, and in addition, each story that is linked to is predominantly POV, i.e. "This means...." rather than "Some think it can mean .... others that it means .... still others think it is just a forgery supporting ....". CheeseDreams 17:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Silly, but "mostly harmless", IMO. Most of the "Lists" are pretty silly and unmaintainable, which is whay we're moving more in the direction of categories as a general tendency. You could, of course, change the links to point to better articles, and go improve the linked articles. I think we're wasting our time and effort by trying to delete silly lists. Mpolo 20:51, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

this is how lists are rendered not as seperate list articles. CheeseDreams 23:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What you describe sounds more like a reason to fix an article than a reason to delete an article. There is plenty of precedent for having lists on Wikipedia. For example, sometimes the items in the list are not articles (or are not yet articles), or they are contained within articles that would not belong in the category. See also Category:Lists, a good example of how categories and lists coexist (they do not function in precisely the same way). You can scan recent VFD discussions and find some cases where it was decided that a list was precisely what was needed—a list can contain items that do not deserve to be separate articles but are still valuable information in a list. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Punctuation question

I noticed you replaced the IE "smart quotes", &c., with ISO characters, which I applaud (I myself am generally too lazy to do so even in my own text.) Since I am such a newbie here and am learning constantly, is there a reason to use the ISO characters on Wikipedia which I am not aware of? - Amgine 15:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No reason. Just looks tidier. CheeseDreams 16:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Might be even better to turn the smart quotes into straight quotes " ' (suggested in Style Guide), but the entities are better than the Windows characters in any case. — and the like are a bit more readable than the Unicode number, though. Mpolo 17:16, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

It is a requirement of Wikipedia policy that you are informed of the following link's existence: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Slrubenstein

It is also a requirement to inform of the following link (although Slrubenstein failed to comply with the requirement): Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Users CheeseDreams and Amgine

CheeseDreams, I don't know if you're aware of it, but Sannes is interested in your preferences regarding a mediator on the Requests for mediation. I have stated I do not have a preference.

Son of Man

I don't know if you'd be interested... I came across the Son of man page as a copyright infringement dispute, which annoyed me. So I contacted the author and received permission to post the article to Wikipedia. Mirv moved the copyright permission to the talk page (The page is back, which is probably the important issue.)

Do you who might be interested in this? - Amgine 23:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The talk page has dissappeared. User:Mpolo may be able to help.CheeseDreams 23:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, why isn't the page just a redirect to Son of man????? That article isnt copyvio as far as I know. Can't it just be merged in a non-copyvio manner?CheeseDreams 23:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spelling of "grammar" and "separate"

According to the UK-based Cambridge U dictionary[3], neither "seperate" nor "grammer" are proper spellings in UK English either, so this edit summary[4] seems to be an unwarranted, personal attack. Niteowlneils 19:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your expansion, clean-up and NPOV template additions

CheeseDreams, if you are to add these templates to articles you should note on the talk page why you think they are necessary. In particular the NPOV template. If your comments are generally considered to be valid, it is only proper that they are acted upon. If they are not, your additions will (regardless of your intentions) be perceived as disruptive. Also, I hope you'll agree that your concerns cannot be addressed unless you say what they are.

I have reverted a number of your insertions of these templates into articles. I would ask that you do not reinsert them unless you also note on the talk pages why you have added them. Many thanks. jguk 23:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Expansion and cleanup are self explanitory. I add cleanup when articles are not in Wikipedia style, e.g. no links, long long long paragraphs rather than having sections etc. Expansions have been added for the reason that the article is seriously lacking, either because it is (a) a stub, (b) lacking valuable information - usually historicity or non-biblical evidence, or (c) lacking information on Jewish/Islamic views which are often a 1 sentance section. NPOV- usually presented from the point of view of biblical inerrancy, or similar. CheeseDreams 23:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am just going to go through all 53 and re-revert them. Please note that I have been adding the articles to a catagory, not just adding the tags, reverting my edits removes the catagory too. CheeseDreams 23:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you add an NPOV tag, you are expected to note on that article's talk page the specific reason for it. If you refuse, then Jguk would be correct to go through and remove them. If you edit war over it, an admin would be fully justified in banning you. →Raul654 23:21, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

If you actually had the patience to wait a few moments, the talk pages will gain the respective sections. Have you any idea how long it takes to edit 53 talk pages? CheeseDreams 23:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, please edit the relevant talk page immediately prior to or following your adding the NPOV tag. It isn't reasonable to wait for you to do all of your additions and then make all the comments in one batch. Deal with one article, fully, at a time please. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:35, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Using edit summaries is also an excellent way of noting your objections, as you have now begun doing. Thanks. As a side note, did I do something to make you feel I wouldn't be an unbiased mediator or did you just notice that I'm on sabbatical from the MC? Just curious . --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

You have become involved in articles based on religion. CheeseDreams 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I hadn't when you changed your mind, I had only posted my first message to your talk page. But it's your decision anyway, cheers! Besides, I've been known to take a rather hostile attitude towards organized religion, so I probably wouldn't be the world's MOST impartial person. But I like to think I do a good job. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:48, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

You had become involved in debate over what I ought to do or not. You therefore become an involved party, not a bystander. This is why I changed my mind. CheeseDreams 00:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. As a side note, it seems that some people may be taking your POV headers (erroneously I would guess) to mean that you're asserting some sort of agenda. This is liable to make people defensive. That being said, I'm not entirely certain that all the articles that you claim come from a POV of Biblical inerrancy actually do. It's a fine line at times, and some probably do need more clarification (David for example), but I don't think Golden Calf comes from such a POV. Then again, that's just my opinion. I'm going home for tonight, but I'll be sure to look tomorrow and see if I can help you modify the articles so that they're more "Wikipedish". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

David cuts out Jonathon. The only people who do this are the ones who object to the homosexual undertones to that element of David. This is a POV cutting.

If you notice, David was one of the articles that I agreed needed attention, you're preaching to the choir here. ;) Aside from that your second and third sentences there illustrate the point I was raising above. It is possible that the omission is one of ignorance, but you seem to be stating that it is an intentional witholding as part of an agenda. Surely you realize that a work in progress like Wikpedia, filled as it is with stubs, is going to have incomplete information. Not all information that is missing has been censored, some of it just hasn't made it in yet. Now, if you've looked in the history and seen that people have been REMOVING parts of the article that are relevant that's quite another issue. I don't know, I haven't looked. But then again, this isn't my area of expertise, I have no idea who Jonathon is/was and I'm certainly no authority on David. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:46, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, 53 articles is just too many. If you feel these are all deficient, either start (or contribute to an existing) WikiProject to improve them. This allows everyone who wishes to contribute, plus means that people can view these articles in the interim without the ugly templates. (Every article on Wikipedia can be improved, and we don't have these templates on them all). I would also recommend it as being more in line with community spirit. However, all said and done I would certainly support you in making valid constructive improvements to these articles. jguk 23:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

53 articles is not too many, thats about how many I already edit. Just because you can't cope with 53 things at once doesn't mean you should think that others can't. CheeseDreams 00:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was adding a catagory to the 53 articles. You need templates on all that are not NPOV, to warn the reader that this is not a neutral article, and should be read with suspicion. Adding the expansion and cleanup tags lists the article on the expansion and cleanup list pages that people who like expanding, and those who like cleaning up, look at. CheeseDreams 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You need to explain yourself. Why are the articles NPOV? If you do not say why, your concerns cannot be addressed. Every article could, in theory, need expansion - so again, you need to explain on the talk page why that page is deficient enough to warrant the template. Clean-up is different from either NPOV and expansion or putting into grammatical English, with correct spellings everywhere. Clean-up ,may also mean an article needs wikifying. Many incomplete and POV articles do not need clean-up (read any political party manifesto - it is likely to be POV, incomplete, but very well written). Please do not use these tags willy-nilly, and where you do use them please always, directly after using them, note on the talk page why you have used them. Otherwise, as I've noted before, your concerns cannot be addressed. jguk 23:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I second the opinions of User:jguk. If you have a problem with 53 articles, help fix them. Don't just slap a bunch of NPOV notices on articles you have never contributed to.--Josiah 00:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) I am going round adding the comments in. It takes time to do.

Dear Mr Jesus, I can do what I damn well want. Wikipedia is an open editing policy. If one user thinks that an article is NPOV he can add the tag. he doesn't have to justify it. When people add tags to articles I edit regularly, I ask them why they have before removing them. AND I wait at least 48 hours. Patience is a virtue. I advise you to buy some. CheeseDreams

Unwelcome at the Wikipedia

A "Welcome to the Wikipedia" is automatically extended to all new users, of which you are quite a recent arrival. Sometimes the welcome proves to have been premature. Among irritating and irresponsible behavior unwelcome at wikipedia is the practice of liberally pasting NPOV and cleanup labels on articles where others have been laboring to achieve clarity, fairness, historical accuracy and balance, but where one has not actually made any significant contribution oneself. Perhaps you'd be willing to return to the pages you have recently labelled and set to work, keeping an open mind and the interests of the reader in the forefront. Thank you. --Wetman 00:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Among irritating and irresponsible behavior is

lack of patience
aggression
arrogance
vanity to think one has the right to tell others what to do

Please grow up.

CheeseDreams 00:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress#CheeseDreams you might want to take a look at this entry. How are you doing these days?Pedant 03:10, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Please don't misuse article tags...

You added the tags {{stub}}, {{npov}}, and {{expansion}} to the Elijah article.

The article, whatever its other faults, is not a stub. Hence the stub and expansion tags were inappropriate.
If you believe an article is not written in an NPOV style, as well as adding a NPOV warning tag you should explain on the talk page why you think the article has NPOV problems.

More generally, can I offer some advice? You seem to be a) antagonizing a lot of other editors, and b) not achieving very much else here so far. You might be wise to rethink your approach. --Robert Merkel 03:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have a general tendency to antagonise most people with narrow minds. CheeseDreams 11:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask you to please not add various tags to articles without explaining your reasons. Cleanup signifies that an article is sloppily written or has major style problems. NPOV signifies that an article violates the NPOV policy by expressing a point of view. When adding either one of these tags, you should explain your reasons. Also, please remember to maintain civility, even if others do not. Rhobite 20:53, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Problems with Category:Bible stories (it is not needed)

Hi CheeseDreams: Your new Category:Bible stories is very confusing and not needed. You seem to be adding into it anything that you "think" is a Bible "story". Here are some problems that you have overlooked:

First of all there is a big difference between the Old Testament which is referred to on Wikipedia as Hebrew Bible (as many people of the Jewish faith who accept and believe in the Bible are offended by the name "Old" Testament) and the New Testament accepted by Christians.
You are including entire BOOKS of the Bible , such as Book of Daniel, Book of Job, Book of Exodus in this category of "stories" with articles that are just "one topic pieces" such as Creation according to Genesis
There are already categories Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and Category:Bible that deal with these topics.

You are NOT being careful enough, and I will suggest that Category:Bible stories category be deleted as it is not needed. Thank you. IZAK 05:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vote for deletion

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories. Thank you. IZAK 05:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Bible stories. Ta. CheeseDreams 20:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it and voted on that too, it's Keep for the "List" and Delete for the "Category". You'll find the explanations on my talk page and on the talk pages for the deletion proposals. Thanks. IZAK 04:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mistaken comment?

A few days ago, you put this message on my Talk page:

Biblical inconsistencies is currently a messy list. Could you help tidy it up (it is huge)?

It will probably need to be cut into sections (e.g. by part of bible) and each section moved to a new page.CheeseDreams 00:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't ever edited a page concerning religious topics, and I'm just wondering whether you meant to send me this message? CNash 11:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes I did. I thought you seemed like a good editor. CheeseDreams 21:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but I generally don't edit religious pages; I'm feel that I'm in no way qualified to do so. Say I were to move a section around, or give it a new page - this could open up a huge discussion, which WOULD eventually become some sort of religious debate, on whether I was right to do so or not. Once again, thanks, but I'll pass on this one. CNash 23:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Email

Is there any way to reach you other than the Talk page? If so, please go to my user page and click "E-mail this user" on the left-hand side. I wanted to discuss a few things with you. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas 01:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No there is not. Talk here. I believe in being open. CheeseDreams 01:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cain and Abel

Please let me know what you think of the changes to Cain and Abel. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:36, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

FT2

I'm posting this to both of you. The article's unlocked, but this does not mean wholesale revert and edit disputes. Please don't edit for a few minutes. I want to see what BOTH of you have written, and my aim will be to ask you BOTH to stop editing for a bit, stop reverting, and let me take a look 1st. For what its worth in passing my initial impression is the same as that on the article's talk page: SIrubenstein's initial edits were superior to my own wording. I also want to see Cheesedreams wordings if he's added any, and will remove either of both that seem radically POV. I plan to an extent not just to mediate the talk, but to try and guide the two of you as you write the article each contributing valuable information and points to improve it.

When I'm done I'll remove the header and at that point please both COMMENT on the articles talk page on whether you can live with whats there as a starting point. If you cant I may ask for the PROT to go back if you cant both agree something as a basis for going forward.

Please say on my talk page if this is agreeable. FT2

I am in the process of reviewing critically his edits. I'd like you both to stop editing a bit, let me sort it out (its not quick or easy). When Im done then let me know if you feel okay. I will say this - I am watchful of POV and I am not taking the view that all edits are beneficial ones, nor that all are wrong. FT2 00:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

See talk page for latest... will be another update within 10-30 mins depending how fast it goes FT2 01:54, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Please do NOT edit the current version, except for small errors. I have included the most neutral versions of everything that people have done, and tried to do an honest job. I think its good and I think its broadly neutral but yet pays tribute to both secular and christians, and allows both to find what they need. Comments (brief and summary!!) on the talk page for now. hen see where we are at. FT2 03:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

At this point it appears I and Slrubenstein have agreed to Llywrch's offer to mediate. Would you care to comment on the offer at #Mediators? - Amgine 14:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I went clubbing, so I wasn't paying attention. CheeseDreams 19:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Msgs

By the way, I may have accidentally overwritten your messages with Tigermoon on Tigermoon's talk page. I apologize if I have done anything inappropriate. - Amgine 22:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Im sure he will sort it out or something. CheeseDreams 22:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment listing

In cleaning up the discussion that had been incorrectly placed on the main Requests for comment page, I moved around some of your statements, which are now located either on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa knott or Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Theresa knott. This was done to comply with the standard format for listing user conduct disputes on Requests for comment. None of the text you wrote has been altered in any way. Please direct any further discussion of Theresa knott's actions as an admin to those pages. --Michael Snow 00:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. CheeseDreams 21:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

darling

remember the response to your warning: "all my alliances are frontroom -- you're welcome to rejoin the rest of us in reality anytime you'd like." Ungtss 01:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

darling, Im the one in reality, rather than a fundamentalist fantasy world of god and direct intervention. CheeseDreams 01:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

condemnations

The best condemnation of you is your own edits. Please review Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and 3 revert rule. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 02:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ditto darling, you made the 6th revert. I only had 4. If you count them up, I was not the first to go above 4. CheeseDreams 02:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Darling is a an offensive term of endearment. Please do not use it in the future, or I will consider it a personal attack. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Darling, if you are offended by "darling" then you have serious personal issues and should see a counsellor.CheeseDreams 15:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't been following too much of what is going on here but I did catch elsewhere on this page user Sam Spade bragging about himself making fun of User:CheeseDreams. It would be prudent for one not to throw bricks when their house is made of glass. Grice 13:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think its "People in glass houses ought not to throw stones"CheeseDreams 15:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment on page locking:

"*The page was being discussed but reverted back to an edit war. CheeseDreams has tried hard to support the edit process and consensus in the last few days, but I can't fault the re-locking of the page, and *if* re-locking is right then it is almost arbitrary and not a "fault" item for theresa which version its locked at. Sadly." FT2 03:26, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

---

Keep up the good fight =)

Yeago 04:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi CheeseDreams! In order to streamline the process of mediation, I'd like to handle this via email. Do you have an email address that you can use? You don't have to supply your personal email address -- an address at a free mail site like yahoo or hotmail works just as well (I think those still exist), or you can get an address that will redirect any mail received there to your own hidden address. If you need help finding one, let me know & I'll help. -- llywrch 04:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you not just paste comments here? I have no problem with that. Or somewhere like User:CheeseDreams/Mediation?

See reply on my usertalk. Yeago 18:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CD - it wouldnt be right for me to submit the page for arbitration. Im not one of the disputants. But if either you or SIrubenstein does, I will support it and give reasons. FT2 19:04, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Me as Fundamentalist

You write:

I believe you to be the sort of fundamentalist that misrepresents themselves in order to appear to have a disinterested stance, thus able to persuade weak-willed editors that their views are unreasonable (see User:Rednblu for this tactic, and various comments about it in his talk page archives, and on an ongoing RfC) CheeseDreams 02:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make ridiculous claims like this?

How can anyone take Slrubenstein seriously when he makes ridiculous claims such as "most historians do not believe hinduism existed before the 18th century". CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From my very limited knowledge of South Asian history, my understanding is that many scholars do, in fact, believe that Hindusim in its modern form developed relatively recently. john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes, but thats relatively recently compared to 1500BC, and is much earlier than the 18th century.

Aside from my comments here and at Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus, I have rarely, so far as I can recall, intervened in disputes over religious issues. In these particular instances, I see nothing I have done that indicates that I am a fundamentalist, unless the only way to disagree with CheeseDreams is to be a fundamentalist. For the record, I am utterly areligious. I am certainly not a Christian fundamentalist. My father is an entirely lapsed Catholic who has not gone to worship since well before his marriage to my mother, who is Jewish, but in a very loose, extraordinarily Reform kind of way, and she doesn't believe in God. Such religion as I was raised in was this very loose sort of Judaism, which has mostly led to me feeling alien from Jewish people who actually follow the traditions of the Jewish faith, especially the Orthodox, who seem about as alien to me as any group can. My vague sense of Jewishness has further not prevented me from having feelings about the State of Israel that range from ambivalent to utterly disgusted, and I find ultra-Orthodox zionism to be one of the most horrific ideologies in the world. My own personal beliefs are entirely agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I certainly can think of no particular connection I have to fundamentalist protestantism. I do not believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; I do not believe in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. I don't believe that he descended into hell, or that on the third day he rose again from the dead. I also do not believe that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Furthermore, I do not believe that from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I do not believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church;

Probably because you don't know what "catholic" means. CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It means "universal"...since I don't believe in Christ, I can't believe in a universal church that believes that Christ is God. john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Im not convinced you understand "universal". CheeseDreams 11:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that I do believe in a universal church, without realizing it? I'm confused. john k 17:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Im saying that you don't exhibit a full comprehension of the word universal. CheeseDreams 17:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins;

If you don't believe in the forgiveness of sin then what sort of man are you? CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sigh... john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the resurrection of the body; or the life everlasting. I can barely conceive how one could be less religious than I am. Furthermore, on the matter at hand, I have absolutely no idea whether Jesus lived or not. My criteria for determining if he did, however, would be those of a historian. As far as I am aware, most historians have taken the gospels and the epistles of Paul as good enough evidence for the existence of someone at least vaguely Jesusy. I have no idea whether they're right or not, and I certainly don't think that the Gospels are anything like an accurate description of what that man's life was like.

Most historians reckon at least some of the epistles of Paul are forgeries. CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not forgeries, but they think that Hebrews, and some of the others, were written by somebody else. Others, like Romans and Corinthians, seem pretty generally accepted to have been written by Paul.john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forgeries=not written by who they claim to be. CheeseDreams 11:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pseudepigraphic is the term usually preferred. Hebrews, though, never claims to be written by Paul. I'm not sure which of the others are thought to be pseudepigraphic. By your standards, I'd note, all of the gospels could be called forgeries as well, since they're all highly unlike to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. To call this "forgery" is to impose modern standards of authorship on a time where they don't apply. john k 17:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And you say that you don't believe that someone called Jesus died (above), which is rather confusing if you think that someone called Jesus lived but is not in anyway supernatural. Of course, such contradictions could be explained simply by your attempts at covering yourself up not being efficient enough. CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sigh...I don't believe he died and was resurrected. I don't know whether he died under Pilate, because I don't know for sure whether he existed or not, although if I had to guess I would assume that he did die under Pilate. john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suppose I may just be lying about all this (although I don't imagine there are too many Christians who would deny the entire apostles' creed in order to win an argument on the internet), or I suppose that my description of my own religious beliefs may fit into your definition of a fundamentalist. But perhaps, just possibly, one doesn't have to be a religious fundamentalist to disagree with you. You're entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to force your arrogant and extremist POV onto wikipedia. And you are certainly not entitled to engage in ridiculous name-calling against anyone who disagrees with you. john k 09:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re. "although I don't imagine there are too many Christians who would deny the entire apostles' creed" - if you knew why the creed was invented in the first place (you can probably find out via the Marcionism page) , you would think quite differently

My understanding is that the creed elaborated orthodox christian doctrine against various sects in the Roman period. But it is generally considered today to mark a basic definition of what a Christian is. At least, in my understanding as an outsider. john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly what do you think is my "arrogant and extremist" POV?CheeseDreams 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Satanism? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not see what the connection is between my POV and Satanism - see the article then explain CheeseDreams 22:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say your POV is "Jesus didn't exist" - all of your edits seem designed to push this POV. But since I'm apparently a fundamentalist Christian, I suppose my viewpoint is worthless. God, do you realize how ridiculous you look with this nonsense? john k 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think God is going to reply. CheeseDreams 11:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hilarious. You should take that one on the road. john k 17:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alleged tomb of Jesus

This article is extremely new, and the user as well. I left a welcoming message, including a suggestion to read NPOV. Give it a couple days, see if the article improves further (ongoing edits today, and not excessively POV imo. Needs to be more verifiable, less hearsay.) - Amgine 19:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and historical background of Jesus - Compromise discussion

CheeseDreams;

Slrubenstein has said he will not further discuss compromise unless others are involved. Would you care to read or comment on Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#Compromise discussion? - Amgine 20:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have stated that he is welcome to edit The historical Jesus instead, about 4 or 5 times, so I think he is referring to others apart from us two CheeseDreams 20:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have specific concerns and questions about the "compromise." If CheeseDreams wishes to answer any of the questions i raise/address any of my concerns I will read what she has to say with interest and attention. I hope that after several other people similarly answer my question and respond to my concerns (and perhaps raise more questions and concerns we can address) we may reach some sort of consensus, but that remains to be seen Slrubenstein

Christology

Deleting after a merge is not acceptable under the terms of the GFDL, which requires us to retain authorship information. I have replaced your speedy deletion tags with redirects to Christian views of Jesus. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While in a technical sense the histories could be merged, we don't want to. The histories overlap in time, which means that a merge would produce a jumbled mess where it's difficult to sort out just what was edited when. We generally only perform history merges for cut and paste moves, not merges. See the "How articles should be merged" section of Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

email

I may have the ability to offer you an e-mail account on one of my servers, if you would like an e-mail account. If so, best contact me at my userpage. - Amgine

<grin> I quite understand your position/decision re: e-mail. I'm sure some form of accomodation can be developed for this mediation. - Amgine 23:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please

CheeseDreams, I know tempers are short over at Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus, but would you moderate your tone? There is nothing for you to gain -- & much to lose -- by resorting to reversion threats with JDG. Your patience would truly help me. -- llywrch 02:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was JDG who made the reversion threat. I was merely responding to it. CheeseDreams 11:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He may also have been trying to provoke a reaction from you, so he can claim that you are not agreeable to discussing this issue, & perhaps get you banned. Some threats are best handled by ignoring them, if you can't disfuse them with, say, humor or a similar tactic. -- llywrch 02:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was blatently obvious he was trying to get a reaction. I gave him one. I made sure I pointed out that he was making a threat, and that he was the one who first threatened reversions.

I am aware that a lot of fundamentalists want me banned so that they can return articles to the nice cosy versions they had before I NPOVd many of them.

I designed my response to provoke him. CheeseDreams 02:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From what you have just written, it appears to me your primary intent on Wikipedia is to stir up controversy. However, the point of Mediation is not to enable creating controversy or disharmony, but to find a common ground between the parties & to attempt to create a consensus. That means acknowledging that people with viewpoints different from yours may be correct in some points -- or at least deserve to be heard with respect. I hope you know what you are doing. -- llywrch 03:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, What I wrote was to state that if someone tries to provoke me so as to cause a ban, I will react in such a way as to put them in the same situation. CheeseDreams 12:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reply from Cheesegoduk

Quote: I am slightly concerned that you are editing similar articles to me and have a similar name. Any suggestions? CheeseDreams 23:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kinda confused has to why this is an issue, I only corrected a typo on one(has far as I can tell) of your articles, because I noticed it whist I was reading it, has for the user name thing, I think our user names are different enough its unlikly that we would be mistaken for each other, also there are probally a number of other "cheese" alias's on wikipedia. I apologize for any concern I may have caused. Cheesegoduk 23:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obelism

And I start off by apologizing: only just this minute noticed your question of 3 weeks ago; I've been wikipedizing much less recently. "What is obelism?" An obelos is a certain kind of symbol put by ancient Greek editors in the margins of manuscripts, especially in Homer, to indicate lines that were doubtfully Homer's; there were many other such shorthand symbols, to indicate corrections, emendations, deletions, additions, etc. Loosely, all these symbols, and the act of annotation by means of them, are "obelism"; which is what our pal is claiming for the chi-rho sign, and that I'm unsure of but tend not to believe; I've certainly never seen it in any list of obeloi yet. (Sorry again for my delay in getting back to you.) Best, Bill 00:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thanks CheeseDreams 00:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abusive Language

Please do not use abusive language, such saying "point out the patheticness of the counter argument" or "the stupidity of early christian attempts to explain it away speaks for itself".--Josiah 17:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you actually look at the history of the article in question you will note that I wrote ALL of it, it could only be considered as abusive towards myself. CheeseDreams 17:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rudeness

Don't be so rude! What's your problem anyway? Piglet 01:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With respect to? (O ye of 10 edits) CheeseDreams 01:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

U C? Piglet 03:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

University of Cambridge? CheeseDreams 08:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nope! Piglet 09:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uncircumcised? CheeseDreams 22:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you? But someone called U a JEW! *LOL* Piglet 01:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Really? I don't remember that. CheeseDreams 01:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A Last Request

CheeseDreams, I have asked you once before to write with more tact & consideration. Since then, you have engaged in a reversion war at Jesus, & written abusively about Slrubenstein at Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus.

Actually, he said those things himself. Im only summarising the discussion - check the edit history. CheeseDreams 08:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can hardly believe they engaged in the sexual act that you clearly imply. What you wrote was not only insulting, but juvenile.

Please stop stirring up trouble or I will be forced to not only drop you from the mediation process, but possibly take further actions against you. -- llywrch 03:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you want to drop me, that is fine, but I don't regard it as even handed. Note that Slrubenstein's groupies continue to try to antagonise, all I am doing is reacting to them. CheeseDreams 08:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, as I pointed out to Slrubenstein Wikipedia is like a massive castle of sand, that can be changed by any one contributor at practically any time; its shape & usefulness depends on all of us working in a consensus to preserve & improve it. Unilaterally kicking over the parts that you do not approve of only serves to create a consensus opposed to you -- whether you are wrong or right.

You have been acting antagonisticly towards not only Slrubenstein, but many other editors during this mediation period. The whole point of mediation is to attempt to restart a civil exchange of opinions & ideas when some event or action has caused a breakdown of that exchange. I can't facilitate the restart of a civil exchange when you behave rudely during the process; that's a simple fact. I'm sorry that you feel I am not being even-handed, but I have been more than patient with you. If you truly have no interest in working out any sort of compromise or understanding in this situation, then I will remove you from this process. -- llywrch 17:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "The whole point of mediation is to attempt to restart a civil exchange of opinions" with Slrubenstien. I don't remember asking or agreeing to mediation with "other editors". Nor do I ask such a burden of you. And as far as I am aware, there has been very little mediation so far, so I am unsure why there should be any expectation of a significant difference in the state of play.

I am aware that anarchic entities such as Wikipedia are like sandcastles, but it is my opinion that Slrubenstein and company are like those gangs of bullies who go around kicking everyone else's sandcastle down and only allowing those who subscribe to theirs to do anything.

I feel I must point out that whilst I could quite easily organise a gang of people supporting my POV on many articles, to enforce it, and argue down any opposition on the talk pages. I do not, and have not done. CheeseDreams 22:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can I convince Slrubenstein that you are acting in good faith & want to be amenable, while you are being hostile to others? Wikipedia is not a free-fire zone. -- llywrch 23:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In which case, I would suggest that you ask Slrubenstein to stop trying to amass groupies onto that talk page to slag me off. CheeseDreams 23:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the history page for the last 2 days, there are no new names there, simply the same half-dozen or so people who have been interested in this article from the beginning. And most of the edits have been yours in that time period. -- llywrch 00:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is predominantly because I was trying to reduce the remarkably large page size by summarising, causing a lot of edits. I was trying to see what was outstanding. And what the actual justification for each position was. CheeseDreams 00:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And since Slrubenstein brought in his cabal, Jwrozenzweig, Mpolo, Rev of Bru, and all the other reasonable people dissappeared from the article. (FT2 and Amgine arrived from some unknown location later into the dispute) CheeseDreams 00:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about? The Rev of Bru has never edited Cultural and historical background of Jesus, nor contributed to its Talk page. Further, a critical remark from Rev of Bru appears at the top of Slrubenstein's Talk page; in any case that person contributed to Wikipedia for only a few days earlier this monthn & late last month. And many of the same names who were at the beginning of the creation of that article -- such as Mpolo -- are still contributing: only Gadykozma & Paradiso appear to have stopped contributing. Doesn't it appear that you are overreacting by claiming that there is a "cabal" here? -- llywrch 05:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rev of Bru - somewhere right at the start of the archive. Mpolo could hardly be said to be contributing, he has hardly said anything on that talk page in ages, likewise pedant (though I note him returning yesterday).

The Cabal:

(copied from the Request for Mediation)

Rebuttal of Slrubenstein's explanation: In a third event, Slrubenstein posted to four user talk pages (see User talk:FT2#cultural and historical context of Jesus and User talk:Wesley#Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus and User talk:Jayjg#help? and User talk:Jwrosenzweig#help?), with the more neutral of these editors receiving named sections and the more POV editors sections entitled "help?" - Amgine 01:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An additional incident after opening this Request for mediation: on a consensus vote which was not decisive in any direction, contacted User talk:AndyL#request for help, User talk:172#request for comments, and User talk:John Kenney#request for help to gain votes for his text. Amgine

I regard such behaviour by Slrubenstein as absolutely abhorrent, and would now like a decision via arbitration to prevent any further such incidence of it. CheeseDreams 21:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have just discovered another comment of this gerrymandering kind added to User talk:El C (and hidden by deleting from the talk page - it is only viewable via the history). CheeseDreams 22:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yet more of this at User_talk:JDG CheeseDreams 20:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought you had read the whole of the mediation request? CheeseDreams 08:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfC on yourself

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CheeseDreams--Josiah 04:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know about that. Im the one who put it there (check the edit history). CheeseDreams 08:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Karaite groupies?

On your user page you characterize Kraites as fundamentalists -- I am not sure why as I do not think this is a good characterization -- and you say they have been following your edits. I know of no Karaites who have been following your edits. What do you mean? Slrubenstein

Darling reader some time ago I stated "Since Slrubenstein has failed to comply with the Civility policy and refuses to apologise, I hereby refuse to communicate with him" CheeseDreams 08:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi, I thought you might be in need of a friendly note, you don't seem to be getting enough of them. It's amusing that I was leaving this comment here, when you made your most recent post on my talk page. It's nice to know you were thinking of me as well. I just dropped by to say Hi, really. I do hold some of the same opinions as that 'cabal' (like you could be a little less aggressive, and that stuff) but I'm not going to join in ganging up on you. Just want you to know you have a friend here, whether you know it or not, and if you ever want some advice, or just a chat, I'm making myself available for it. Of course you know I'll give advice whether its welcome or not, I'm probably a bit too aggressive as well. I'm trying to work on it though. Anyway, Hi!.Pedant 00:51, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Yes, I know you are a reasonable editor.

I have no problem with other people holding different views.

Nor do I have any issue with people who think I should suppress my aggression more.

They do. CheeseDreams 00:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)