User talk:Merzul/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Jesus Myth

What, exactly, was dubious about my claims? You won't find any scholar who agrees with what is on there, and the position I cite about Q as "instruction" is prominent among NT scholars (most notably argued by Kloppenborg). "Wisdom" refers to personified wisdom found in Proverbs, Q 11:49, Chokmah in Hebrew or Sophia in Greek. Nothing that is said on that page about Q is noteworthy (if true) or accurate, especially the total lack of narrative. Do you have any proper sources? The page as a whole requires major revision, especially its near-total reliance on radical sources for accurate information, something Wikipedia explicitly discourages. Zeichman 02:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Added stuff on the talk page. If there's anything else that I need to clarify, let me know. Zeichman 15:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Refs

Thanks for the tip:) These references are quite hard work and I still haven't got the hang of them. I haven't had to do them like this on any of the other articles, but some of the others were so particular on the talk page. I should cultivate pity really, life can't be easy for them what with their Asperger syndrome:)Merkinsmum 12:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Gillian McKeith

You say "This is not something I'm very happy about." Sorry to hear that. Relax. Have a cookie.

You also note that "I'm essentially following this to learn about how difficult articles are handled on wikipedia." SlimVirgin and I handle difficulties very differently as our personalities differ quite a bit. She enjoys winning battles and wins many every day, helping wikipedia in numerous ways both large and small. I enjoy learning and teaching and every day I spend far more time reading and learning than engaging in battles. Wikipedia is helped by different types of people each helping in ways that are enjoyable for them. As I tell people, if you aren't having fun, you aren't doing it right. If you want to follow a dispute from a year ago to learn one way of dealing with article disputes; I encountered Northmeister and Will Beback on the article Mixed economy and wound up refereeing their dispute concerning the American System as archived here:Talk:American School/archive1 and it was all nicely tied up with a bow here Talk:American School (economics). What started with Northmeister's rants at "WILL BEBACKS ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR" on 24 May 2006 ended with "I want to thank WILL and WAS --Northmeister" on 28 June 2006. It was fun and I learned a lot. WAS 4.250 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Omnibenevolence

Hey no problem. It is weird why someone would seem to have a grudge against the word, I've come across it quite a bit in (academic) philosophy...Killtacular 08:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for your kind words on my talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your keep vote on The Dawkins Delusion AfD debate. But I'm genuinely puzzled by you comment about personal attacks. Which persons were being attacked? Wasn't it a comment on the arguments? NBeale 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

SPCK

You may be interested in Talk:SPCK#Requested move. — coelacan talk — 07:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Mike Huckabee

Hi, I've left a comment about your third opinion over at the talk page. Please check in on that? thank you. ThuranX 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins article - thanks for that source

Thanks! Metamagician3000 04:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your kind words. I strongly believe that facts should speak for themselves, and try to edit/comment in accord with that (i.e., leaving my POV out of it). Further, I believe that everyone deserves the same degree of respect -- whether I agree with them or not (probably more if I don't). One of my undergrad profs used to not allow us to argue/debate with each other until we could sympathetically describe our opponent's position to his/her satisfaction ... a good rule of thumb I think. Anyhow, thanks again for your kind words. -- Pastordavid 16:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747 and all that jazz

What a fab article. I'm so glad it was kept - shows how a wiki can really work well!

The Rescue from Deletion Award Awarded to Merzul for turning a biased article into a shining example of NPOV! Sophia 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Truth Shall Set You Free

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to Merzul in honor of converting a grossly biased article into one that is informative... No small task considering the topic!--Random Replicator 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

--Random Replicator 02:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-refuting idea

Another "NBeale" unique creation - do you think there is any hope for it? It seems a little used phrase [1] and again is being used to push the views of some of his philosophical "pets".

Also I'm wondering about calling an RfC on this guy as a lot of effort by a lot of people is having to be made chasing him around NPOVing his edits. Soon he is going to accuse me of stalking. Sophia 08:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re WP:ATT discussion

Thank you for your friendly message on my talk page. I look forward to discussing with you. I believe (as does practically everyone, I think) that Wikipedia articles often need to quote or mention material which is false or which may be false. Also, it can be useful to include a lot of statements from a reasonably reliable source when there are probably a small number of false statements in there but we don't know which ones they are. What I object to is policy that invites Wikipedian editors who know that something is false to place it in a Wikipedia article as a plain statement without prose attribution (ot to place it in at all if the intention is to deceive the reader into believing something the editor knows is false).

A Wikipedia article can and should say things like "Acquinas argued that God exists"; it should not say things like "God exists" even if a footnote can be supplied to a book that says this. This example doesn't fully illustrate all the points I make above but does illustrate the importance of whether prose attributions are there or not; this distinction is an important factor in many of the points I'm making. Perhaps you could restate your point making it clear which type of statement you're talking about, i.e. with or without prose attribution. --Coppertwig 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No include

Thank you for fixing this, Merzul, it's been driving me crazy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium essay

I like the We aren't Citizendium essay. I think you should put it up on the Community Portal to get more exposure and contributions. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We can put it in both places. I was thinking of something like this. I'm not sure if the external link is necessary though. Let me know, and I'll post it. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An essay, Wikipedia:We aren't Citizendium, has been written in response to Larry Sanger's blog post. Please make appropriate changes and place feedback on the talk page.

It's up at the community portal and I'm going to post it at the village pump, as well. Good night. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 21:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or has the Citizendium essay been infiltrated by Citizendium editors. I think it's gotten progressively biased since I listed it on the Community Portal. :/ Are you still happy with the essay? Mahanga^{Talk to me} 03:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is your essay. You're free to insert whatever you want. It's going to become policy or anything, so you don't need to worry about POV or anything like that. Most essays exist without much trouble, but since this essay appears to be in response to Citizendium's letter, then everyone (including Citizendium users) want to change it up. But this is your essay and not an official response, so as far as I know, you can modify however you please, including re-inserting the 'family friendly section'. I'm not sure what to do now. A couple links about essays on WP. Wikipedia:Essays, Wikipedia:Don't worry about writing essays. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 16:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent)About stable versions, I've been promoting that for the longest time now and it looks like some stuff is getting done. Wikimedia recently hired a contractor to develop some sort of stable versions implementation. From what I've read, we should see some preview in a couple of months. Also, the German Wikipedia has been testing their own implementation. I think when the English Wikipedia gets stable/approved versions, it'll change the entire dynamic of the site, which will be great for both readers and editors. Mahanga^Talk 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

God

• Yeah, I'm really not sure what that was. But it was there for a good hour before I reverted it. :/ JuJube 02:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

An article on God. I can only imagine the level of vandalism on such a topic. If you have the skills and patience to contibute to that topic, you deserve a barnstar much bigger and bolder than the one I left. If I get myself in a jam out here in Wiki World I know where I'm coming for help. Cheers --Random Replicator 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD on those FRSs with/without religious beliefs

Merzul - many thanks for adding those comments about our friends Laura and Mclaugb (and the new one - amazing that a newcomer can so quickly find his/her way to such a place, and then know exactly what to do!). Yes, best done as you have done it rather than after the event, and done so eloquently by you. I wasn't too keen on doing it myself - I don't want it to look too much like a personal argument between me and NB. Snalwibma 05:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs 'n stuff

Yes, you may well be right. That may be the source of the anti-AfD campaign. Interesting to see the reference on the blog to "one Charlie Gere of Lancaster", in a tone which clearly suggests that the blogger has never previously heard of Gere. But now our friend is the author of a WP page on Charlie Gere, and has tried to insert the Gere quote into the Richard Dawkins article. I conclude, with Plumbago, that the Gere article was created solely to justify including the quote in the Dawkins article - see Talk:Richard Dawkins#Gere quote. It's the same procedure as was adopted in the case of H. Allen Orr - creating a WP article about a person solely in order to use that person as a pawn in an anti-Dawkins campaign. By the way, I am a defender of Dawkins in the same sense that I would be a defender of John Polkinghorne or the Man in the Moon, if they were subject to the same sort of attack that has been launched on RD since NB came on the WP scene. Snalwibma 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)