User talk:CheeseDreams/December 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Three revert rule[edit]

FYI, the three revert rule starts with "This guideline applies to each person". See Wikipedia:Three revert rule. jguk 17:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FYI, it further states "A growing consensus is that, since the mere incidental fact of one side outnumbering the other does not, alone, make the majority right, each side of an argument should be limited to 3 reverts per day" CheeseDreams 17:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hang on. Where did you get that from. It doesn't say that at all. Instead, it says the exact opposite: "3RR specifically does not apply to groups" jguk 17:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If it does not say that now then someone has been changing the policy to suit their POV, it was there last week. CheeseDreams 18:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So when will an admin block cheese so that we can go back to editing an encyclopedia? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So when will an admin ban Sam Spade so we can go back to editing an NPOV encyclopedia? CheeseDreams 18:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't seem to find a version of the article that says that. Please point it out to me as I would find it interesting to know who included it. Cool Hand Luke 03:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't delete or edit other people's comments[edit]

CheeseDreams, please don't delete or edit other people's comments on the Talk pages. You've done it to me personally twice now (that I've noticed), once in the talk page of the Cultural and Historical Jesus, and (at least) once before on the Wikiproject:Jesus discussion page, when you made most of the discussion of Christology in the strikethrough font. You seem to be relatively new to Wikipedia, so I'm asking nicely. Say what you need to say, but let others say what they say and let their words stand on their own. Thank you. Wesley 03:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you mean a comment in the summary, that is because I summarised the text. Your comments can be viewed at archives 2-5.
And on Wikiproject:Jesus, I struckthrough (but did not delete) items which had been actioned. This is the standard practice for todo lists is it not?

CheeseDreams 08:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meant the comment on the summary itself, encouraging people to read those archives instead of relying on someone's summary. On Wikiproject:Jesus, the text you marked as strikethrough were not part of a todo list, it was a discussion of whether to do anything with Christology at all. In both cases it appears that you were trying to delete or conceal my objections to your proposals, rather than actually respond to them. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but it certainly had that appearance. Wesley \
It already says that the full text is in the archive, and that the summary is by me, and disputed by you.
W.r.t. the wikiproject, if you note the talk page, you will see that I struck through everywhere that there was discussion which I had actioned. If I had intended to delete or conceal your objections, I would merely have deleted the text, or put <!-- --> tags round it. CheeseDreams 19:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also regarding your summary of Slrubenstein's comments, "yanking someone's chain" doesn't have anything to do with masturbation in the U.S., at least when used in the context Slrubenstein used it. It just means he wondered if FT2 were saying things just to get a reaction from him. That's probably an honest misunderstanding between the two of you, but it might be helpful if you acknowledged it and corrected that part of your summary. Thanks. Wesley 14:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If Slrubenstein agrees to retract his uncivility toward FT2 such as "charicature of a nut", "ar eyanking my chain", "your reasoning is specious and ignorant", and apologise for them, then I am perfectly willing to remove the comments from the summary. Until that time, they remain, since this is how I and other non-US (remember that the majority of english speakers are not in the US) readers read the text.
I have also just looked the phrase up in a slang dictionary, and cannot find an alternative meaning to the phrase. CheeseDreams 19:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree, most English speakers are outside the US, so it's a very understandable misunderstanding. Here are links to a couple of definitions that I think are better than the one I gave, and probably closer to what SLR meant: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yank+one's+chain and http://www.ozyvoyuer.com/aussieslangdictionary.html#Y. (The second looks Australian, so it's not a strictly US-centric usage.) Wesley 02:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the RfA. A lot of familiar names in that crew! I don't know that I'd call them a cabal but I know what you mean. They've learned that the best way to push a POV is to gather a small gang. The way Wikipedia is structured it's easy to subvert consensus by doing so. I'll try to have a look at what's passed and if I can comment constructively, I'll do that. Dr Zen 06:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Regarding arbitration, CheeseDreams, I was not implying at all that I didn't agree that I should recuse myself -- I did so, as I hope you noticed. I was noting that it is Arbitration Committee practice for someone involved peripherally in a dispute (or directly, of course) to recuse themselves, and that in the past no one has needed to prompt arbitrators to do this. We're intelligent, we're committed to fairness, and we police ourselves pretty effectively in this regard. I was just wishing you'd have given me the courtesy of waiting to see if I would recuse myself from the case, rather than assuming I wouldn't. I will note, though, that the standard you suggest is generally considered too high for arbitration here. In a case like yours, it's obvious that with so many involved parties (in a relatively small community), all of those people will know at least one arbitrator -- mere acquaintance does not require an arbitrator to recuse. We recuse when we're involved in the case itself, or when one of the involved parties is either a long time enemy or close friend. If arbitrators could only hear cases involving users they had never before encountered, we couldn't arbitrate any case effectively. Just thought I'd offer my thoughts, and let you take them as you please.

On another note, I am not sure if it was you who wrote the phrase "cabal of 'fundamentalists'" in your arbitration request, but if you did, I'd suggest to you that it might be wise not to use that phrase. The list of users who oppose you includes at least one very dedicated atheist and at least one other person who is openly hostile to Christianity -- characterizing the list as "fundamentalist" will be seen as a blanket generalization. Obviously you can do as you please, but I think other users will notice the word and the users, as I did, and be confused or else draw negative assumptions (i.e., characterizing atheists as "fundamentalists" might be seen as an indication that one is hasty to judgment, etc.).

Now, I'm sure you don't much like getting a note from me, so I'll disappear, but if you ever do feel like talking, I want you to know that I'd be happy to. As I hope you can see above, I'm not "out to get you". I'd like to understand you a little better, and I'd like to be able to work with you productively if I can. If you'd like to talk about it, drop me a note. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 21:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unlike most of the arbitration committee, as far as I am aware, you have actually engaged in debate over controversial issues with me. I regard that as being "an involved party". CheeseDreams 21:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, I wrote the phrase 'cabal of "fundamentalists"', please note the quotes around the word "fundamentalist"
I have absolutely no issue with getting a note from you. CheeseDreams 21:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad -- here's another note then. You seem to misunderstand me (perhaps I'm not communicating well). I have agreed with you on two separate pages already that I most certainly am an involved party. I don't want to sound at all rude, but I have to admit that your continued responses to me are making me wonder if you understand what I mean when I say that I have "recused" myself from the case. If I am wrong, please forgive my suggestion. But if you are unclear on what it means, it means that I have openly declared that I am an involved party and that I will not offer any arbitrator opinions (or any votes) on your case, should it be accepted. I apologize if it is unclear -- I had thought that "recuse" was common in the English court system as well, but I confess I do not know it well, and perhaps that is the source of the confusion. As far as the quotation marks around "fundamentalist"...well, as I said, it's your choice. I can't claim that I understand what difference in meaning is implied by the quotes, but I don't suppose it's important for me to understand. Thanks for replying nicely -- I appreciate it. Jwrosenzweig 22:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I understand the use of the word "recuse", I worked it out from the context of the other arbitrations. It is equivalent to the english term "abstain", which is significantly clearer and more readable, and actually is able to lend itself to a noun formation such as "abstention" rather than the problem "recuse" suffers from - "recusation" sounds too similar to "accusation" whereas "recusement" and "recusementation" are blatantly stupid words.

try "recusal" Slrubenstein

try civility. CheeseDreams

try "recusal," please. Slrubenstein

I was unaware that quotation marks were not comprehended in the US. Here, its use means that the text inside the quotation marks is a quotation. Perhaps this logic is not understood in the US. Also, this is the source of the famed quotation marks in the air gesture that so irritates people. We take 'the "xxxxx"' to mean 'the so-called xxxxx'. CheeseDreams 22:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. The arbitration committee differentiates between recusal (the noun form, so you know) and abstention -- if I had voted to abstain, it would merely have indicated that I was non-committal about accepting the case, but it would not have removed me as an active arbitrator. It was necessary that I recuse myself in order to be inactivated for the case. I agree, by the way...recusementation would indeed be blatantly stupid. As far as the quotation marks, you're playing with me a bit there -- you know I wasn't implying that the quotation mark is unknown in my country (although I admit the semicolon is endangered here). It's just that the contemporary usage of the quotation mark is too broad, in my experience -- people place things in quotes because they've heard it somewhere, because they want to distance themselves from the assertion, as a substitute for an adjective such as "so-called" or "putative", or for a variety of other reasons about which I won't speculate because I imagine I'd be wrong. At any rate, I appreciate your explanation...I admit, I don't know of anyone who calls Wetman a fundamentalist (certainly not he himself) and I can't imagine why he'd be a "so-called fundamentalist" if no one has so called him. But then I really am taking too much of your time over a trifle of a comment of mine. Thank you for giving more than the attention it merited. Have a good day, Jwrosenzweig 22:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's night time here. This is UTC land. CheeseDreams 22:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed! My apologies, I'm normally better at stopping to adjust my signoffs for other people's time zones. A pleasant night to you, then, Jwrosenzweig 22:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein[edit]

Can you please show some diffs or other evidence for shrubstein reverting and protecting the page, because I can't see any in the page history. Also you have to show evidence of two people attempting and failing to resolve the dispute -again we need the diffs otherwise the rfc is invalid and may be deleted early. TIA Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus article edit summary[edit]

My reference in the edit summary to "weasel" was a reference to the terms being weasel as described in the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms (which is not a policy and is disputed). (The term in my edit summary is used as an adjective of the word "phrase".) On reflection, I can see how my usage of the term was open to interpretation to someone unfamiliar with the term "weasel terms" and "weasel words" and I apologise for any offence I (albeit inadvertently) caused. jguk 08:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3 revert rule warning[edit]

I just wanted to let you know about the Three revert rule, which allows administrators to block editors from editing for 24 hours if they revert an article more than three times in a 24 hours period. According to my count, you've reverted the Jesus article 4 times in the last 24 hours. I'm not going to impose a block right now, but anymore excesive reverts may result in a block. Have a good day, and please play nice. Gentgeen 09:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't count that revert in my total, as reverting vandalism is generally considered to be an accecptable action, and I thank you for cleaning up the page after that very strange edit. Gentgeen 09:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hello[edit]

About that article you are in a huge argument over. Am i right? Tigermoon 14:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

Why do you believe I am not impartial? -- llywrch 21:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see no point in discussing it, the fact remains that I have lost trust in you. I am amazed that you acted in a way which managed to seriously offend Amgine. Once trust has been lost, there is little that can be done to regain it. Therefore your position as mediator is now untenable. Goodbye. CheeseDreams 21:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit conflict[edit]

I am looking to see what should be done. Just a quick note acknowledging I heard you. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 20:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom "election"[edit]

Hello CheeseDreams,

I want to let you know about a message I've just put on te ArbCom elections endorsements page. I'm letting you know because I've seen from your comments on that page and in its history, that you are concerned about the fairness of these "elections". So am I. "Neutrality" has had a grudge against me since I voted against him in his admin elections and has made it %^&$ hell for me to try and continue to use the Wikipedia since then.

He keeps blocking me. I have disabled hands and it's very hard to try and stand up against this abuse by this bully. Please help me stop this stich-up of the election by publicising what's going on and demanding proper fair dealing from Danny and the other organisers. Thanks. - WikiUser.

(P.S. They should stop keeping the "elections" as quiet as they can, i.e. put a notice on the Main Page. They should stop trying to prevent people from taking part, all they want they say is for the candidates to praise themselves, their friends to praise them- and anyone else to shut up and no criticising. Some elections! It's a stich up for the same old group of users.)WikiUser 20:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I will deal with the main page thing.
Why is neutrality blocking you? What is the given reason? CheeseDreams 20:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi-he blocked me twice over the past week or so. Both times other admins unblocked me. He had no justification. First time he never told me why, which is against the blocking policy. Second time claimed I'd made legal threats on the mailing list. I didn't as anyone who can read and understand basic English would see. And one can't be blocked for legal threats anyway: he blocked me for "infinite". Don't vote for this bloke.WikiUser 21:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You can be blocked for legal threats. There is an established Wikipedia policy on this, and is a result of an arbitration decision. If you wish to appeal, post to RfC. I will ask him to justify his actions. CheeseDreams 21:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom header at the Main Page talk[edit]

I removed it; the Main Page talk is not for advertising current Wikipedia events. We have Wikipedia:Goings-on for that (the ArbCom vote is mentioned on Recent Changes, so serious editors can't really miss it). Plus, I hate people adding posters all over the place. :-) If you really feel it has to be on the Main Page talk, I'm not going to stop you, but I do ask you to reconsider. Cheers! JRM 20:51, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Annotation: I just read the above comment. I still disagree, but now I know where you're coming from. JRM 20:53, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
I think its important that the masses rather than just the hacks vote. Its not as if its propaganda for one or other side. CheeseDreams 20:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FYI - (a) The main page is not for any sort of advertisement at all. As has been said a million times previously, the main page is for our readers, and the community portal is for our writers. (b) I agree with JRM about not posting banners all over the place. Plus, it just makes more work when it comes time to get rid of them. →Raul654 21:00, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

No, (A) its at the main page TALK, not the article. (b) And we can get rid of them by simply changing the template to "please remove this template". Easy. CheeseDreams 21:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The elections are a special case. They'll be over soon anyway so it's not as if it's any big deal. It takes people ages to find their way around the Wiki- so people may not check the recent changes. Readers may have donated money, they may want to become involved. Why would anyone want to LIMIT the knowledge that an election's going on? It is after all about who runs the Wikipedia, these arbcoms control user's rights. Seems they want to keep the powers "in the family" as much as possible.WikiUser 21:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't know about Raul, but I admit it—I have been offered lollipops and adminship by the cabal, and I succumbed to the temptation. (The lollipops, that is, not the adminship—that's just a lot of hard work.) You heard it here first. JRM 12:15, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

you should know about this: [1] Slrubenstein 21:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was going to go for arbitration on the page, it seemed more likely to produce a result rather than continuance of the talk page. CheeseDreams 21:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If either of you was the least bit interested in "mediation" that particular dispute would have been settled a long time ago. The problem is that you have a fundamental difference of opinion, and it's rather easy to sympathise with both sides.Dr Zen 22:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was, thats why I was supporting FT2. Slrubenstein took against him. Thus the more formal mediation. CheeseDreams 23:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

I rather feel that those "certifying" the dispute are pretty much the ones who've done least to try to resolve it and most to stoke it up. However, you know that I don't think you've done yourself any favours. I know you feel you've been ganged up on, and I think that some of the people involve do believe in, erm, concerted action, but you'd be far better off not to help them perpetuate the quarrel. The RfAr was not a great idea, although it's thoroughly amusing watching it slowly dawn on them that you are asking for them to be censured. Perhaps you should note on the RfC that they have disregarded the policy and that you will make no further comment. Let them post all the further "evidence" they like and serenely ignore it. Dr Zen 22:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I was going to ignore the RfC anyway, far too amusing watching the "evidence" they present. I did enjoy watching them slowly realise what was really going on. (IMO) Nasse (Piglet) seems to have lost a level of sanity, and is by far the most amusing (IMO) of the group.
The most amusing comment so far is the one on the talk page stating "this RfAr [the one I put up against me] is most likely going to fail" as if that would be a good thing for them. CheeseDreams 23:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I know that my edit's won't win me any favours. But as Winston Churchill said you've got enemies? Good, that means you had the courage to stand up for something in your life CheeseDreams 23:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, there's something to be said for that. I have a small gang opposing me at Yasser Arafat and Ma'alot Massacre. They play the game much the same way -- chucking in an attack and then pompously writing "Don't make personal attacks" when they feel that they've been outwitted.
As for the John Kenney thing, it looks very much like he's abused the policy. As for the page, be bold and re-create it, why not? Dr Zen 00:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikiuser[edit]

Hello, CheeseDreams. Basically, 'WikiUser' is a troll. He spams people's talk pages with unformatted personal attacks, interjects himself into controversy, awards barnstars to people like Irismeister, and makes crackpot claims and psuedo-legal threats on the mailing list. I've blocked him; other people disagree, so I just try to ignore him. Check his contribs. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 23:10, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Note the following

  • Accusing someone of being a troll is a personal attack and violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
  • He has a right to choose who he wants to award barnstars to - its not up to you
  • He is allowed to make claims even if you think they are Crackpot - remember NPOV, claiming he is crackpot is POV.
  • Unformatted personal attacks should result in RfC or RfAr not blocking, ESPECIALLY as others disagree.
  • Entering controversy is NOT a violation of wikipedia principles
If the reasons you have given above are the only justification then you have committed an abuse of adminship, and I will consider making an RfC against you for such action.
If this is the case, then I insist on you unblocking him.CheeseDreams 23:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He's been unblocked for a week. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 23:48, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. CheeseDreams 00:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi CheeseDreams. I appreciate your assistance and that, like me, you don't like to see users being discriminated against. But note that "Neutrality" is due no thanks because, as he might have made clear to you, as you asked so specifically, he did not un-block me, just posted an offensive response.

    From the Block log: 20:50, 26 Nov 2004 Mirv unblocked WikiUser (that is not a legal threat, but a complaint. In any case, legal threats are not a valid reason for blocking)

    20:25, 26 Nov 2004 Neutrality blocked WikiUser with an expiry time of infinite (Legal threats, see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/032220.html.)

    06:22, 24 Nov 2004 Gentgeen unblocked WikiUser (A one month block for POV pushing is a bit extreme withouth an Arb Com ruling to back it up)

    13 Nov 2004 Neutrality blocked WikiUser (Maliciously acting in bad faith to disrupt Wikipedia)

    Sorry to see that you are being put to further trouble because of "Neutrality". What he says is untrue and just the sort of goading activity I'm concerned about. And not the sort of activity expected from a person who wants people to let him be an arbcom. They have to deal with heated disputes and should be the kind of person suitable for that.

    To cut a long story short- it's as I've said. I saw this user up for admin- I had seen that he was totally unsuitable so I voted against him, and he's been seriously hassling me ever since. Discriminating against me/misusing his position. He seems to be the only candidate removing "oppose" comment about him from the election pages. And he's also archived his page since you posted. He always does remove stuff that doesn't put him in a good light.WikiUser 17:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest you put together a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration against him then. CheeseDreams 18:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am considering doing that. But he's in with the committee and will probably be elected and be in with the next lot. That's how the Wikipedia works. Also it involves compiling a lot of material and I'm partially disabled. It can take me 1,2 or 3 hours to create a post like the one above and the ones I've done on the "endorsements" page. They're still calling it endorsements only- they don't want disindorments, ie no opposer's comments. They've said so. See botttom of the endorsements page.WikiUser 18:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:IsisAndHorus20BC.JPG[edit]

Hey there. Can you verify the legal status of this image? There's no license tag and the source site you list doesn't have any permissions info I can find. —Tkinias 01:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Try [2] at the base of the page CheeseDreams 07:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. That doesn't look good:

Copyright © 2004 by Kenneth Humphreys.
Copying is freely permitted, provided credit is given to the author and no material herein is sold for profit.

The noncommercial bit makes it nonfree (not GFDL compatible). —Tkinias 07:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John Kenney's RfC[edit]

quote: SOMEONE HAS DELETED THE EVIDENCE - CHECK DELETION LOG [3]

What are you talking about? Give me some sort of idea, because it doesn't seem to be in page history. We're not able to delete single revisions, you know: its all or nothing. If it's on a page that was deleted, I'll undelete it immediately. As it is, I can't figure out what you're refering to and am inclined to remove this header comment and the provacative description from the RfC page. Cool Hand Luke 04:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The evidence that was deleted is on the page Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be. The page was deleted by Snowspinner. CheeseDreams 06:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
At the time of writing it appears to have been undeleted. CheeseDreams 06:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I undeleted it, as I explained on the talk page. john k 07:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring it, I think it helps show that your conduct has been reasonable. I'm surprised Snowspinner deleted it. Although turning the page into a redirect requires no consensus, the redirect should be placed on RfD or gain consensus to delete because it's not a speedy—not simple vandalism or a typo. Cool Hand Luke 07:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi! CheesDreams.

From reading the policy guidelines at "Wikipedia:Protection policy" I see he did break them. I've spent 2 hours (since I came on-line today), reading the page in question and it's history, and the RfC page. But the policy is stacked against you in typical Wikipedia fashion. It says: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts,"

I haven't "tried to resolve a dispute", with him, let alone "the same dispute". So what should I do? I can only be on-line until 9.50 pm (GMT) tonight. So I can't "certify it by signing this page". I can only put a an endorsement at the bottom of that section which I have done. Have you contacted directly FT2 or anyone else involved? If you can enter an e-mail address on your preferences page, you can perhaps contact them quicker.

One thing; some of the people listed in "Users who endorse this summary": (Mackensen, Chris0, Proteus, Neutrality, Rhobite, Antandrus), shouldn't be there as the page says that section should be used: "by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy." They should use the Outside Comments section as he admits he did violate the policy and it's a matter of record that he did. You can take this further perhaps because the RfC page isn't fair. WikiUser 21:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thats a good point, Ill point that out. CheeseDreams 21:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You have done what you can. You really mustn't waste 2 hours like that though, there are more interesting things to do. Thanks for your time.
It's okay, Anything I do on the computer takes me awhile. I've just edited my comment above and removed the " none of them have been involved in the editing of the page " bit. As I misunderstood the RfC rules a bit.WikiUser 21:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If it takes you a while you should treasure it more. Reading someone's RfC for 2 hours isn't as good as writing an article or learning something else. Im glad you thought it worth the effor though. CheeseDreams 21:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: theophory[edit]

I couldn't find your talk page and you don't seem to accept emails, so I'm posting your reply here. The reason I removed the article request for "theophory" was that I incorporated the information you provided into the article "theophory", which is currently a stub. You and anyone else is welcome to edit and add to the article however you wish. Once "theophory" became an active link, it could be removed. I hope this clears up the confusion. DavidA 17:09 6 December 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that does explain it. I was concerned by the edit summary "n/a". Thanks. CheeseDreams 20:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I use "n/a" when I'm removing active links to designate now active; it saves space. DavidA 23:33, 6 December 2004 (UTC)

Ah, right. The standard UK usage of "n/a" is not applicable. CheeseDreams 19:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Bible stories[edit]

Why have you recreated a just deleted category? Isn't it against the deletion/undeletion policy? -- Naive cynic 00:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The category actually survived the Category for Deletion vote. Deleting it was therefore against policy. CheeseDreams 00:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi! I saw this note about you:

"Bible stories Was this category deleted? I tried to figure it out and am confused. But if it was, you should check out what User:CheeseDreams has been up to. Slrubenstein 21:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neutrality"WikiUser 21:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. CheeseDreams 21:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project[edit]

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

RFC pages[edit]

I'm considering removing these pages from VfD as an administrator action. We don't (or at least shouldn't) remove RFC pages of users from Wikipedia. I'm going to consult with some other admins to see what they have to say. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I said this on Ta bu shi da yu's talk page:

I'm not a policy maven. This is just my opinion.
a) The RFC pages shouldn't be removed. Generally speaking, anything that's a record of past controversies is important. I sympathize with Cheesedreams, but I'm afraid that if one is working in controversial areas, getting flamed goes with the territory. In reality, the likelihood is that nobody other than the people involved in the controversy know or care about the existence of these pages will ever read them.
b) The VfD listings shouldn't be removed, either. I am very much opposed to removing items from VfD on the grounds that they "shouldn't have been listed." Once they've been listed, let the discussion proceed openly and let the string of "keeps" tell the story. A strong remark that the discussion does not need to continue would be fine. Also, personal attention to moving the article to /Old immediately when the five days are up would be fine, too. If a custom of removing items from VfD becomes prevalent, we will soon need to develop all sorts of metapolicy, pages for voting on whether items should be relisted on VfD, etc. etc.
Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have removed. See the overwhelming support for this on WP:AN. I'd advise you don't list them again. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See the ban you recieved for producing the issue on WP:AN. Cheesedreams 22:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wow. You got the wrong end of the stick. I got a five minute block for posting a message to many admins regarding your VfD actions. Oh, you might want to note that I created WP:AN directly as a result of this. So you might just want to check your facts next time. HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Your statement on arbitration page[edit]

The arbitration request regarding you has been accepted. As the complaint is quite confusing and your responses are scattered, please goto Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams#Statement_by_affected_party and make a response to the complaint. You had created arbitration cases and evidence pages for your prior request and I used the space for this case. The prior material remains in history for reference. Fred Bauder 00:15, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

What you put in your statement contains statements signed by other parties. If they wish to make statements they should do it in a separate section. Please remove all statements you are not making yourself. For your information, your presentation is very poor and unlikely to be seriously considered by the arbitrators due to its rambling, disorganized nature. Fred Bauder 16:58, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I wish to make the statements that they made the statements.

Shouldn't it be considered in whatever form it is? To go oh this evidence is ugly is highly POV, and inappropriate for an arbitrator. Cheesedreams 22:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.s. I may tidy it up at some point, but there are other things I consider more important, so I might not. Cheesedreams 22:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

24-hour block[edit]

The reason Neutrality gave for blocking you is Recreated and repopulated Category:Bible stories in disregard for community consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Made NO attempt to discuss why he was recreating the category. If you want me to look into the situation, it would be helpful if you were to explain what led up to your blocking in your words. Andre (talk) 00:42, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I blocked you for 24 hours because you had twice recreated and repopulated a category in which the consensus to delete was establish through CfD. It is regrettable that I had to do this, and I take no joy in blocking you. However, I feel that you must understand that you cannot simply recreate categories that have been legitimately deleted without comment. I hope when you return from your block you keep this in mind. Warmest regards --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:06, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
you take no joy..., I'm sorry, I don't believe you.
According to Aranel's counting of the votes, it needed 80% to delete. According to Aranel that required her vote. According to Aranel she did not give it. Therefore it failed to meet consensus to delete.
P.s. I believe you have to unblock me in 30 minutes. Cheesedreams 22:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Under what rule did you block this user?WikiUser 19:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users should note the following. The page "Wikipedia:Blocking policy" - which we users should be able to rely on to know what we can and can't do-, is not really valid. As, if you check you will see that it is - although listed under the category; "Articles in category "Wikipedia official policy"" - being edited by admins and anonymous editors. UninvitedCompany has recently done an edit which makes an important change to the policy. Who asked for this change? Admins should not control the entire Wikipedia in this way, but obey rules they're given. They've volunteered to help the users of this noticeboard not lord it over them.

Even as the page stands I don't see any justification for "Neutrality" to block CheeseDreams, on it. He should also block himself, as it says: "According to our username policy, inflammatory, deliberately confusing, and other inappropriate usernames are not allowed, and in certain circumstances, sysops may block accounts with such usernames." He must know his name is confusing to people. For one thing users have told him it is.WikiUser 20:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of what Aranel said, I think that there is a clear consensus to delete that category, based on its VfD. However, recreating the page is not the proper way to challenge it, and would deserve a block under the blocking policy (being disruptive). As for Neutrality, his name is fine by me and fine to most others - Tony Sidaway kindly provided me with this link on the matter. Andre (talk) 03:50, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly how is adding a category to a series of articles disruptive? CheeseDreams 13:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Bible stories[edit]

This category was, according to consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, deleted. You recreated it. It was deleted again. You recreated it again.

Note that, according to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion, articles that have been deleted according to deletion policy and have been recreated are candidates for speedy deletion. It isn't immediately clear whether this point applies to categories (I don't believe it has been tested), but it covers a comparable situation.

As it currently stands, there is a consensus to delete. If you disagree with the counting of the votes, that can be discussed, but please do not continue to recreate and repopulate the category without discussion. Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion might be a good place to bring this up, since there doesn't seem to be a clear category undeletion process. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to your counting of the votes, it needed 80% to delete. According to you that required your vote. According to you you did not give it. Therefore it failed to meet consensus to delete. Cheesedreams 22:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An 80% agreement is not required to delete. The commonly-used figure is 2/3, or 67%. With my vote, there would be a 2/3 majority to delete. However, with rename votes included (note that categories cannot be moved or redirected, so the only way to rename is to create a new category and delete the old one), the total is 80%, which is over the standard level for consensus to delete by a substantial margin, whether I vote or not.
I will assume that you previous recreations of the category were the result of confusion regarding the margin for consensus. But please, do not recreate it again. Even if it were deleted out of process (and I do not believe it has been), the correct place for discussion would be Votes for undeletion. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to wikipedia deletion policy, votes to rename DO NOT COUNT. Discussions about renaming must occur on the talk page, not CfD. CheeseDreams 10:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Categories don't work quite the same way articles do. Articles can be moved. Categories cannot. The goal is to have a rough consensus, which is defined somewhat loosely. A consensus to delete is what is necessary to delete, not some percentage of "delete" votes. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies does not address the wording of individual votes. CfD is not as strictly structured as VfD. (To be honest, until very recently, there was very little voting on Categories for deletion, period.) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, your antagonists might like to read the section of the deletion policy that suggests that if an article (and one presumes a category) is created and deleted several times it should perhaps be allowed to exist. These people tend to quote the policy that suits and ignore what doesn't, eh?Dr Zen 01:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Condolences[edit]

I see you're trying to get your RfC requests deleted and the cabal won't let you. That's awfully dickheaded of them.

The thing about Wikipedia is that there's a powerful faction of people (the admins in the cabal) who may not have the same opinions on all matters, but they've formed a coalition and work to push their POV and Policy viewpoints. It's really detrimental to the community. (Err: What am I saying? There is no community here.)

Regarding your early 3RR spat: in my mind, the 3RR as written sucks. To apply it to each person is junk science, because there are so many undiagnosed sock puppets on this thing, even among established, powerful users. I'd bet that 90% of the "popular kids" in the cabal have 2-3 accounts for back-up. If they use their socks mostly on different topics, they'll never get found out and anyone who detects the sockitude will be silenced by fear of retribution. I caught several sock-puppets last year when I was on, but didn't say anything (also, I really don't care that much; I'm just saying that it invalidates the 3RR as stated.)

The only way to make 3RR in any way reasonable is to apply it to each side of an argument; the illusion of multiple people is just too easy to manufacture.

At any rate, I'm offering my condolences, and wishing you good luck. It's sick that people here just refuse to forget any history; they're so punitive they must be jaundiced. Hopefully it'll be in you still to fight the good fight; I know it's in me. I left Wikipedia in 2003 under a different name because of incivility on the forum; it's five times worse now that I'm back but, luckily, I haven't had any directed at me yet. I figure that if I edit reasonably for a year, and don't step on any toes, then I can state a case to these people. Not all of them are pricks.

Regards,

EventHorizon 06:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, what bullshit. Many members of the "cabal", which I assume in this case means users who have previously expressed our distaste for CheeseDreams, have in fact supported deletion of the RFCs. Most of the people who have voted to keep are not only not members of any "cabal" by any reasonable standard, they are not even familiar with wikipedia guidelines concerning RfCs. I won't even comment on the absurd cabal/sock puppet nonsense. john k 19:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can I quote your vulgarity please? It would make excellent evidence against you. CheeseDreams 19:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If vulgarity is not a personal attack (which it isn't in this case), then I'd suggest that it will become invalid evidence. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to quote anything I write in Wikipedia, of course. I have given up any rights to have it not quoted by publishing it on the World Wide Web, haven't I? Are you going to start another RfC, then, based on my using the word "bullshit"? john k 00:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So tell me-- why is there so much distaste for User:CheeseDreams? Feel free to address this on my talk page if the user in question is opposed to the idea. EventHorizon 00:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear CheeseDreams[edit]

I haven't been much on Wikipedia, but I can see that you are so full of anger and frustration. You want to rewrite the history of Christianity in your own way, but you know that Wikipedia is a NPOV project. Please create a wiki of your own. There you may write a whole new history of Christianity, where you are the supreme god yourself. Please stop pestering other users here! God isn't pleased with your actions! You abuse other users verbally, use foul language and post heretical views... QUI BONO? Lady Tara 11:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Hypocrisy, Vanity, Petty, False and Arrogance Cheesedreams 13:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.s. Heresy is in the eye of the beholder. Cheesedreams 13:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.P.S. your comments claiming my views are heresy are not NPOV, and evidence your own POV campaign. Cheesedreams 13:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dear CheeseSqueeze, look up the articles on Hypocrisy, Vanity, Petty, False and Arrogance. You seem to be misinformed, honey! :-D Lady Tara 17:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Misinformed about what? I did not state they referred to or implied anything, merely that they should be seen. If you think they imply something about you, or that they can be seen as such, then that says something about you, and about your own opinion of you. Think. Cheesedreams 19:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This psycho jibberish does NOT become you! Why do you hurt people here on Wikipedia? Why are you so full of hatred and bitterness? Didn't your parents (poor people) love you? Is your soul just a big black hole, and why do you have to fill that huge void with hatred? I truly pity you! You belong to the refuse of this world! Lady Tara 14:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Psycho? Gibberish (note it has a G)? Hatred? Bitterness?
Look at yourself, darling.
The refuse of the world, my dear, are those people who launch personal attacks on people because they hold opinions opposed to their own. For example, those claiming other people commit heresy.
P.s. Winston Churchill once said You have enemies? GOOD, that means you stood up for something in your life. CheeseDreams 15:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If persuing truth, fair play, and NPOV, means I amass enemies,

SO BE IT. CheeseDreams 15:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please check yer definitions of Fair play and NPOV, before you speak again! Thank you! Lady Tara 20:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear CheeseDreams! If you are a female, I truly pity you! A Lady of class would NEVER act like you do! If you are a male, you are a queer faggot, and then I pity you even more! Have a ball of a life, honey bum! Lady Tara 19:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A lady of class never calls themself "lady" because for such a lady it is self evident. CheeseDreams 20:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.s. You are aware that referring to someone as a "queer faggot" will result in your being blocked from wikipedia? As well as your IP address. And any other sock puppet which uses it. CheeseDreams 20:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Lady Tara, please refrain from personal attacks. Telling another editor (s)he "belongs to the refuse of this world" and calling him/her a "queer faggot" is a serious violation of Wikipedia:Civility. --MPerel 20:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
And by that you mean that CheeseDreams never violates "Civilty"? Lady Tara 23:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What it means, Lady Tara, is that you're responsible to be respectful toward others and follow Wikipedia policy just like the rest of us. --MPerel 01:59, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Darling,
1. Magnitude
2. Two wrongs
CheeseDreams 23:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to note that I've blocked Lady Tara. I may frequently disagree with you, CheeseDreams, and, to be honest, not really think that you're a good faith editor of the wikipedia, but that doesn't justify the kind of garbage trolling and personal attacks coming from Lady Tara. john k 00:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Orange, France[edit]

I always thought that Oranges had something to do with Orange, Netherlands, and William, Prince of Orange (the same Orange) They do. See orange (word) for the long story. The short story is this: the word "orange" ultimately comes from Sanskrit, it and the name of the town mutually influenced each other so eventually both were named "orange", and then (much later) the Oranges moved in, and took the color and the fruit (which were already associated with the town) as their symbols. In turn, many things were named after them, but the fruit wasn't one of them. Maybe I should consider adding a note for people who want to know this when reading the article on the village. Hmmm. JRM 21:48, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

I didn't think they had much connection to the place in france. CheeseDreams 23:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia knows everything. :-) See also House of Orange-Nassau. The House was a "merger", so to speak, and one side happened to be the royalty based in Orange. So yes, the Dutch monarchy really comes from France if you trace it all the way back, and the motto of the Oranges ("je maintiendrai", "I will maintain") is the motto originally from the French family (the modern village also has "je maintiendrai" as its motto). JRM 23:48, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
So the queen is french then. CheeseDreams 23:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Don't forget German. That's the "Nassau" part. And since I'm Dutch, I guess that means I'm French and German too. Damn, this is some freaky stuff... :-) Take care, CD. I'm going to go off for a good night's rest. JRM 00:12, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)


Hi[edit]

Thanks for contacting me. Just wanted to let you know, as mentioned on my talk page, that I'm very busy and have unpredictable access to the internet at the moment, so you should really ask another admin to help you with your various requests.

Ok, thanks anyway. CheeseDreams 19:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppets[edit]

Replied on my talk page. —No-One Jones 20:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Homophobic sockpuppets[edit]

You've certainly attracted an unsavoury following. It looks like Rienzo promised not to be abusive when he faced that RfC. He seems to have broken it! Dr Zen 01:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully, you'll be able to stop the abuse. "Lady Tara"'s comments don't reflect well on Wikipedia (or on the human race, for that matter). Mpolo 08:10, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Reverts on Cultural and historical background of Jesus[edit]

I notice you reverted on 07:31, 24 Nov 2004 [4], losing several edits by John Kenney. Why? Care to explain your actions? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, the whole edit war of that page is discussed at length in archives 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 of the talk page of the article in question, if you want an answer, I suggest you read them. CheeseDreams 13:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Historicity_of_Jesus[edit]

I've unprotected and reverted, mainly due to the fact that having two articles in one has caused some serious damage to the page. If you want to readd material, I suggest you reincorporate it into the main article. I've just noticed you have a page that you want to use, you might want to add this one now. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's high time you stopped causing problems.[edit]

Firstly, you'd better find me the policy I've violated. That page had been protected long enough. And I am allowed to edit straight away, there is no ruling against it. So you'd better watch what you say, I count your message as a threat, and they aren't allowed here.

Secondly, you're making massive structural and content changes to that page. You must bring those to the talk page. You have not so far. Therefore, I'm reverting you. Also, don't add blank sections and expect them to stay on the page!. Do not add material in such a way that the article becomes structurally incomplete for long periods of time.

Thirdly, that's a very controversial page you are editing. I'd advise you to watch your edits because you aren't editting for consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's high time some people grew up[edit]

It is fundamentally against the principles of wiki to delete contributions out of hand just because "oh you haven't discussed it".

If you don't like an edit, and think its controversial, then edit it. That's what wiki is about. IT IS NOT ABOUT DELETING THINGS.

Wiki allows editors to do what they like. That is the point. Don't try to dictate what they can and can not do.

P.s. it has actually been discussed.

P.p.s. the changes to the page are not massive, check the edit history, the changes are gradual, its just they are intermittently interrupted by a revert campaing, which continuously reverts to 1 version of the article, so the difference gets ever greater. CheeseDreams 14:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where has it been discussed? Why were there blank sections in the article? Why are there sections that don't even related to the article in there?! Oh, incidently, it's always been the wiki way to ask contributors who want major structural and content changes to talk about them first on the talk pages. At least, as long as I've been around. So don't tell me that. Also, stop telling me to "grow up". That's a personal attack, and I'm liable to add it to your arbcom case.
Incidently, the Wiki can be about deleting things. If the material isn't on the topic, then we can remove it. Another thing is that if you keep getting reverted by different people, it may be that your edits need to change. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, P.S. You said I've violated admin priviledges. I expect you to point out the policy I've violated, or take back what you have to say, because I'm not impressed by people who say these things without being able to backup their statements. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on an article. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Viriditas | Talk 14:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Due warning[edit]

You revert on that article once more, you get blocked for violating the 3RR. Seriously. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Darling, is that a threat?

Please bear in mind that it is considered a serious abuse of adminship to block someone you are having an edit war with.

It is also a serious violation of the blocking policy.

CheeseDreams 15:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In accordance with the three revert rule, I blocked you from editing for 24 hours. Diffs: [5], [6], [7], [8] (current version). Rhobite 15:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Oh look the cabal[edit]

P.s. so when does this block start then? CheeseDreams 16:48 14 December 2004

CheeseDreams, what is your objective? If you wish to attract attention and cause trouble, your tactics are extremely effective. If you wish to improve the articles (as you define improvement), your tactics are extremely ineffective. I have often seen User:Ed Poor pointed out as an example of effective tactics for changing articles more to his personal taste. Your wikiquette has been quite poor, and that puts off those who are otherwise inclined to sympathize with your position (such as me). I understand that the behavior of some on the other side has not been above reproach either. However, in my estimation, your current approach to disputes is only going to succeed in getting you blocked. Wolfman 18:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My objective is truth.
For too long has the cabal controlled articles and suppressed opinions (even if those of the majority of scholars) from appearing.
Calm editing will not work with these. Ask FT2, and Amgine, for example.
Look at my conduct fully, and look at theirs, and then judge.
They taint themselves by their conduct in disputing mine. CheeseDreams 01:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you are inclined to sympathise, then do something about it. Not for my sake, but for that of Wikipedia's. Take them on. Evil is what happens when good men stand by. CheeseDreams 01:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Look, it's just an encylopedia article. No one is going to die if it is not perfected this week or this month. Why not suggest small revisions one at a time in Talk? It is very easy to sweepingly dismiss a massive edit. It is much more difficult to dismiss a small and well-reasoned change. Cumulatively, these small changes will produce an article that everyone agrees is better. As to doing something about it, I and probably many others will be monitoring those articles closely. I will support well-reasoned, documented, and NPOV edits which are submitted to discussion in Talk. Wolfman 02:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Now how pointless is "lets do this slowly by stealth to end up in exactly the same state as not doing it that way" ? CheeseDreams 02:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
CheeseDreams brings up a good point. Shouldn't the sockpuppets User:Cheese Dreams, User:Cheesedreams and the IP addresses User:81.156.93.151 and User:81.156.181.122, all of which were linked to User:CheeseDreams be blocked too? They were listed as part of the proposed decision, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision#Other accounts of CheeseDreams. I have to say that I haven't been involved much with this whole comment/dispute situation, but it seems like common sense to block acknowledged sockpuppets of blocked accounts. However, if this is too much work, don't bother. Cheers, DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:39, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
You ought to add User:Cheese dreams to that list
I was thinking of having one in russian as well, but couldn't remember the translation for cheese
I'm not sure why the IP addresses should have appeared, they are probably due to some wierdness thing I was having a few hours ago with my PC where it kept logging me out whilst I was editing. Is there any way the IP addresses can be attributed? They should both be connected to User:Cheesedreams I think. CheeseDreams 01:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I blocked one of CheeseDreams' IP addresses, and if I see more during this 24 hour period, I will block them as well. They're just BT dialups however, so blocking the whole range is not an option, and blocking past IPs won't do any good. Rhobite 19:06, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Remember, I could quite easily not declare them and call myself SomethingEntirelyDifferent instead. Aren't BT great? Remember, Rhobite, if I make myself obvious enough for you to spot, that means I have already decided to change my IP and username (possibly because I have decided to go out shopping/ have dinner/ etc.). AND that I have decided to let you know I'm still editing. I could quite easily not do either. CheeseDreams 01:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.s. Of course, I could just be someone pretending to be CheeseDreams couldn't I?
Maybe I should pretend to be Rhobite to demonstrate how this is possible?
But I don't think I can stoop that low.
I don't think you can actually impersonate Rhobite without hacking his account. And if we need to we can get a developer to verify your IP addresses and match them to your account. You should be warned: everytime we detect you trying to evade a block, we restart the block from that time you tried the evasion. You could be blocked for quite a while if you follow through your proposals... - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My IP address changes every time I log on, as Rhobite notes above, so an attempt to match my IP to me would be fruitless, I am afraid, sorry about that. CheeseDreams 02:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
THANK YOU, Rhobite! At last...justice! BTW, one may wonder how many multiple personalities this CheeseDreams-character has... :-D Check out CD's comment on my talkpage: "So whose sock puppet are you nasse/piglet?" The person who epitomizes "sock puppetry" asks me this. That is truly amusing, ain't it, folks? Lady Tara 23:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Darling, I don't use my blatantly obvious identities to commit homophobic hate speech, or cheat at votes or certification.
You, Rienzo, on the other hand, do. CheeseDreams 01:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.s. we worked out that you are Rienzo last night. See the RfC against you (that is, in the guise of Rienzo).
Why do you need to have "blatantly obvious identities"? To spread lies, to commit blasphemy, to break every imaginable rule on Wikipedia? BTW, you say you "have a bath every day". I can imagine why... *LOL* Lady Tara 03:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rienzo, please see the RfAr against you. CheeseDreams 02:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Tag-team" reverts[edit]

I read your request on netoholic's talk page. The so-called "tag-team" reverts are legal if carried out by genuinely different people (not sock puppet accounts or non-logged-in edits by the same person) and the policy makes it plain that this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The policy even recommends contacting a friend to see if he will agree to do a third revert. It is especially important to know and comply with policy now that the three revert rule can be enforced by any administrator by blocking the triple-reverter for up to 24 hours. The only exceptions are for self-reverts (make a brainfart, revert it) and simple, obvious vandalism (ie, not disputed edits where you suspect, but cannot prove, bad faith). --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is a tag-team fair play? That just seems as if the person who knows the most wikipedia editors wins, which does not seem just. CheeseDreams 19:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't claim that it's fair, I'm just giving you a reference to show that it's policy and not just some arbitrary bit of post-hoc nonsense somebody dreamed up. While I don't have particularly strong views on this, I think a reasonable case could be made for outlawing the more obvious cases of tag-teaming. For instance if suddenly a series of reverts is carried out by person or persons who hasn't normally edited that page in the past, this could be frowned upon and dealt with by similar penalties. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But that is exactly what happened here. Viriditas has had no history whatever with respect to this article. CheeseDreams 01:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You replaced the article wholesale, with a duplicate piece from another article. Additionally, the consensus on the talk page was that you were not allowing other editors to offer their views and that you had "hijacked" the page with irrelevant content devoted to syncretism not historicity. Obviously, there is some overlap between the two, but the active editors on the page still feel that you are disregarding NPOV and inserting your own original research, as well as POV into the current article. I don't need a history of editing the article to carry out the consensus of editors on the page, which was to revert your wholesale replacement of the article. Finally, I have repeatedly commented that I agree with the content of your edits, although we cannot let personal biases influence the outcome of encylopedic articles. The fact that I agree wtih you and have reverted your edits should tell you something about your editing behavior on Wikipedia. This website is not a soapbox for your POV. --Viriditas | Talk 06:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's no way it will be "frowned upon". It's one of the main tactics used by some people here to get their own way in articles and avoid having to build a consensus! Dr Zen 02:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration procedures[edit]

A case is accepted once four arbitrators vote in favor, but voting on the case itself once accepted is not restricted to those four. The only arbitrators who cannot vote on a case are those who recuse themselves. --Delirium 19:19, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

So how exactly do you decide whether a vote has reached a majority?
It seems demonstrably unfair if the arbitrators who signed up to the case are not the people who decide the outcome.
It strikes me that the arbitrators who have ulterior motives are trying to twist this arbitration. CheeseDreams 19:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
CheeseDreams, you keep attacking the process. You assert that the 3 revert rule is unfair. You assert that some members of arbcom are biased. Well, that might be true and it might not. But complaining about it is not going to help your case. How do you plan to achieve your objectives within the existing and generally accepted policies?
You are clearly an able debater. But you make it easy for others to disregard your arguments because they can point to your poor behavior. You have clearly put an enormous amount of effort into Wikipedia, with thousands of edits per month. It would be a shame to see all that energy go to waste by being banned. Consider taking a week or two off to get some perspective, then come back and persuade people of the merits of your desired changes. Wolfman 20:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
CD, to reiterate Delirium's point, all arbitrators hear a case save those who recuse themselves. A majority is calculated based on the number of active arbitrators minus the number of recusals. Arbitrators should not have any ulterior motives in this case -- while they may be familiar with many of the editors involved, I can truthfully say that I don't think any of the active arbitrators are close friends of mine on this site, and I am sure they disagree with me about many matters here (including, without a doubt, my opinions about the Jesus articles). If you feel they are truly biased and refusing to recuse themselves, your only recourse is to contact Jimmy Wales -- his contact info, if you do not already have it, is at User:Jimbo Wales. Jwrosenzweig 02:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Naughty[edit]

You are a naughty person. Evading blocks will only get you banned. --Viriditas | Talk 22:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • 21:59, 14 Dec 2004 Rhobite blocked Cheese Dreams (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 24 hours (CheeseDreams uses alternate spellings to evade blocks)
  • 17:00, 14 Dec 2004 Rhobite blocked 81.156.181.122 (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 24 hours (CheeseDreams evading three revert block)
  • 15:27, 14 Dec 2004 Rhobite blocked CheeseDreams (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three revert rule violation on Historicity of Jesus)
See oh look the cabal above. CheeseDreams 01:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current surveys[edit]

I rolled back your addition of two polls, but didn't touch the polls themselves. I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove, but there's a standard principle here of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.-gadfium (talk) 03:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

People, I implore you! Do NOT feed this troll anymore! Lady Tara 04:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus (disambiguation)[edit]

Firstly, I would like to state that initially I had no idea on anything on this topic. Therefore, I am honestly stating my facts and resources from what I can find that Jesus ben Nun does not mean Joshua ben Nun.

Okay, my first look was on a Google:Joshua ben Nun Google Search on "Joshua ben Nun". The first hit was not very useful. However the fourth one was. Joshua

Quote from the above page: Interestingly, Christianity has attributed to Joshua a role that Judaism has not. The similarity of the name Yehoshua (the Hebrew version of Joshua) to Yeshua (Jesus's Hebrew name) led Christian theologists to view Joshua as a precursor of Jesus. Thus, Joshua's crossing of the Jordan is mirrored by Jesus' baptism in it; Joshua's military campaigns foreshadow Jesus's battles with Satan; and Joshua's succession of Moses symbolizes the end put to Mosaic law by Jesus.

I am more let to believe that Yehoshua means "Joshua" and "Yeshua" means Jesus.

Even on the Wikipedia, Yeshu is debated to say that it means Jesus.

Google:Jesus ben Nun Google Search on "Jesus ben Nun" supports your fact that Jesus ben Nun means Joshua ben Nun, at least by the first result query. See: A Surfeit of Jesuses! But No "Jesus of Nazareth"

To quote: The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua ben Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Ioshu in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.

However, I make a point to point out that this page is obviously in error. I thought Joshua was to be translated as Yehoshua not Yeshua.

From this page: [9] <img SRC="../Images/sealsj.gif" NOSAVE height=132 width=132 align=RIGHT alt="IHS = first 3 letters in Greek spelling of "Jesus"">In ancient Israel, most people only had one name (what we think of as a "first name" or "given name"), but they did not have a "last name" (or "family name" or "surname").  Thus, the name of the man born about 2000 years ago was simply "Jesus".  Actually, in Hebrew his name was probably "Yeshua" (equivalent to "Joshua"), which in the NT is translated by the Greek "IhsouV" or "Iesous" (from which we get Latin "Iesus" and English "Jesus").  Moreover, just as most biblical names have specific meanings, so "Joshua/Jesus" simply mean "God saves" (cf. Matt 1:21).

This seems weird. I think there is a mistranslation or a misunderstanding. It is also quite possible that the their is an assumption being made that Joshua = Jesus. Be as that may, from what I can find out, if there was a "Jesus ben Nun" it would be spelled as "Yeshua ben Nun" in Hebrew. I find more sites that establish "Yehoshua ben Nun" as "Joshua ben Nun". This suggests that "Joshua ben Nun" is not the same as "Yehoshua ben Nun." It could be quite possible that "Yeshua" and "Yehoshua" translate to the English name "Joshua" but I suspect it's a translation error or assumption. Kind of like how "Sean" and "Shawn" can be pronouned differently or the same.

I think that adding that to the disambiguation page misleads people in thinking that Joshua and Jesus are the same person, but the evidence supporting this fact seems to me to be disputed. I rather have it clear that people understand what is going on, rather than mislead. The fact that I claim not to be an expert in this topic does not supercede your right to claim your expertise over mine. I am merely stating the facts in which I found and making my conjectures on it. If you feel that my conjectures are incorrect, I invite you to put your comments on my talk page and cite your sources of research to back up your claims with facts.

As Sherlock Holmes once stated, It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.

I invite you to show me the evidence, as I still do not have a clear picture.

-- AllyUnion (talk) 16:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re your note[edit]

I've been reading the page you mentioned on my talk page, but I'm not sure that it's relevant for me to comment there. I'm still thinking about it, but I'm not sure that the user is seriously breaking the rules based on the evidence on the page. Have you seen this page, it's useful?: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Topical_index

Topical index] also: Committee of Wikipedians

And the admins have a noticeboard: Administrators' noticeboard


Other pages that might be useful: List of admins Administrator abuse misuses of sysop rights -WikiUser 20:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who is Kaise Soze?[edit]

Ok, I apologize. I just had a look at the history of your User page and it appears to be a strange coincidence that your User page mentions Kevin Spacey. On December 13, a user by the name of Wjw edited your user page and added the entry, Anti-Kevin Spacey Editors in the Public Service Announcement section. Are you aware of the content on your User page? In the movie, The Usual Suspects, "Kaise Soze" is revealed to be the character as played by Kevin Spacey. --Viriditas | Talk 03:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am aware of the content. I left it because I thought its juxtaposition amusing. CheeseDreams 19:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus[edit]

You've just reverted again, and in fact included many things not directly related to Jesus.

Whether Paul was a gnostic is DIRECTLY related to Jesus. If Paul was a gnostic, then not only does it remove any use of his evidence as supporting Jesus' historicity, but also shows that the earliest recorded christians (i.e. Paul) did not believe Jesus was historical. CheeseDreams 19:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Were you planning on including this information? Or were you just going to let the revert wars continue? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We have been discussing changes on the talk page, we we'll be adding our material over your own because you haven't felt the urge to use the talk page to cooperate with us. You need to start doing consensus based edit, not unilateral ones, or you'll never get anywhere on this website.

Now, as to your assertion that the beginning of the article was just the same as the syncretism article — so what? The current state is not just talking about syncretism now, is it? It's about the historicity of Jesus. As for bad-faith edits, your latest revert is just that. Bad faith because you haven't bothered to use the edit page. Once we've sorted out our revision on the talk page we'll incorporate it. I encourage you to help us with this. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for bad faith edits. Things work both ways, TBSDY. I was reverting Slrubenstein's bad faith reversion earlier in the day. CheeseDreams 19:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Interesting" ?[edit]

You totally lost me. Please see my response in my user talk page. El_C

Sledgehammer[edit]

I notice you wrote the following on Jwrosenzweig's talk page.

Sometimes a sledgehammer is necessary. CheeseDreams 01:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was written directly after a comment about the Historicity of Jesus article. I thought I'd give you a chance to explain what you meant lest I start thinking that you were POV-pushing. That would be in bad faith. So what did you mean by that comment? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was written directly after a comment involving sledgehammers. CheeseDreams 00:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(The below refers to a comment that has been removed, the link is provided)

Madam, that statement is totally out of line (!). I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to retract and refrain from such future comments. El_C

Lady Tara is merely continuing to add to the evidence against him for the arbitration against Rienzo and his sockpuppets. CheeseDreams 00:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration matters[edit]

CheeseDreams, I recused myself because I am currently a party to your arbitration, and I thought you would feel more at ease if I was not involved as an arbitrator in any case you brought. I personally feel confident that I could judge Slr fairly. The reasoning behind combination of cases is that otherwise arbitration is far too slow -- much of the evidence in both cases would be duplicated, since you might defend yourself in arbitration by pointing to what you see as the unfair behavior of others (Slr included) and Slr might do the same concernign your charges against him. You've given the definite impression before of being familiar with the legal system -- think of it as a counterclaim. Both claims are being made over essentially one prolonged incident between two individuals. It is best for the system and most expedient to handle them together. If you are worried that handling them together means either one or the other of you is reprimanded, know that arbitration often results in consequences for all involved parties (or at least for users on both sides of the dispute). Jwrosenzweig 15:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way Fred Bauder and James F are behaving, it appears that they have absolutely no interest in considering, or even trying to find out the accuracy of, anything for the defence. Thus, if I put the anti-Slrubenstein RfAr there it will be ignored.
This is a seperate issue.
It isn't a counter claim. I don't do ad hominem attacks.
It is an entirely seperate matter, that happens also to involve me and Slrubenstein.
Having it only with respect to me denigrates the case. In that situation it would be easy for Slrubenstein to claim that it was only in response to me, and start up Ad hominems.
IF you read the RfAr, you will note that I explicitely AVOID making it me vs. Slrubenstein. I explicitely point out that he is abusive toward Amgine and FT2 merely because they oppose him. And explicitely do not mention interactions with me, bar the little note about his accusation of racism.

According to the arbitration policy, I have every right to present the case seperately and independantly. And Fred and Co. have absolutely no right to demand that I attach it to mine. Their grounds for refusal are "it should be part of the other case", not "it is not sufficient abuse for arbitration", which is an invalid ground for refusal according to the arbitration policy.

To go "im going to dismiss it irrelevant to whether it warrents arbitrable abuse, or whether earlier dispute resolution failed" is an abuse of the position of arbitrator.CheeseDreams

Fair play[edit]

According to the RfAr against me, these are the arbitrators

so why is James F voting on the proposed decision? CheeseDreams 19:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A certain number of arbitrators is required to accept a case, but this does not mean that these are the only arbitrators who will vote on the case. My personal recommendation to you is: change your behavior to be less combative, and you'll be more successful in the long run. --Jimbo Wales 07:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"My personal recommendation to you is: change your behavior to be less combative, and you'll be more successful in the long run" You should take your own advice then jimmy and stop using The Wikipedia Foundation's mailing list to abuse users who have taken trouble to help sort out your site. WikiUser 21:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From FT2[edit]

I am the sort of person who says when things are well done, or poorly done. You were asked to summarise the issues on the "historical and cultural" article by some users. I feel its a good clear summary. Thanks. FT2 13:06, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Detail list of editors[edit]

Could I have a copy? Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. CheeseDreams 22:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why not?
I find your mind closed. CheeseDreams 00:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Funny, I see the same in you. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't aware you could see me. CheeseDreams 02:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh. Clever. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Wish I could say the same. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How do I know whether you are making a personal attack against me or not? I've added your userpage as evidence of your personal attacks.
Most amusing. The people mentioned filled their entries on it themselves (as you will see in the edit history). CheeseDreams 00:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Uh, want to read your own user page? You have written "I have a more detailed list if you would like it." - Ta bu shi da yu 00:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but I have the list, its not on the user page. CheeseDreams 02:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why do you have a list? Is it on Wikipedia? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Because I have a memory. Don't you? CheeseDreams 02:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry? You have a list because you have a memory? That's actually meant to make sense? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It does, if you have intellect. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Seriously, when Jimbo Wales tells you that you're being too combatitive, then you know you must be doing something wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Or simply that the right wing cabal dominating wikipedia is afraid of me. CheeseDreams 00:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure they're quaking in their booties. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, if they wear drag when they play role-playing games thats up to them. CheeseDreams 02:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So you've been playing Quake with drag-queens? Wow. Well, whatever does it for you. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I haven't been playing anything with the right wing cabal. Have you? CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and it might possibly be something to do with me asking him the above mentioned question on his talk page, and him simply replying. CheeseDreams 00:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not only is that not a fun answer (cf. conspiracy theory), it doesn't even point out that Jimbo probably wouldn't have called you "combatitive" unless he was in need of a new dictionary. :) jguk 00:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Or he could have just been angry, which is when people make typos of the repetition form. It should either be combative or combatitative. The concatination/repetition is a sociolingustic indicator of anger. CheeseDreams 02:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You must be a very angry person then. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Because Jimbo made a typo? Yes, of course, I must be that sort of really prissy person who is obsessed by spelling things perfectly and gets really angry when people make typos like 'combatitive'. CheeseDreams 02:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Uh, read your own comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Read yours - I reproduce it here. (This is the first mention of 'combatitive' on this page)
Seriously, when Jimbo Wales tells you that you're being too combatitive, then you know you must be doing something wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Authorship of the Johannine works[edit]

Funny you should mention this in the Authorship of the Pauline epistles article. You really should have a look at that article for a good style, NPOV writing. You'll notice a lack of weasel words. You'll also notice that there is no NPOV or totallydisputed tag. Funny that. Seriously, start improving your writing by including information that you might not agree with. That's the way we do NPOV around here, if you don't like it find another forum for your POV pushing. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you notice that article's edit history. You will see that I worked on it as well. The state of the article involves my contributions darling. So don't leap out with your personal attacks. CheeseDreams 00:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Don't call me "darling". There's no love between the two of us. I don't like POV warriors. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Darling, isn't a reference to love between us. Perhaps you are not familiar with UK usage of the term? CheeseDreams 02:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nope. I'm an Aussie. Care to define what you mean? You aren't clear. Something I expect from you. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you won't define what is "crappy" then I don't see why I should define an idiom explained in a UK english dictionary. CheeseDreams 02:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a UK English dictionary. I live in Australia. Duh. But you did ask for it.

Doesn't prevent you from having a dictionary of UK english. I have a dictionary of Russian, but that doesn't mean I live there. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Uh, CheeseDreams? I'm not going to buy or waste my time buying a UK version of a dictionary just to argue stupid and pointless things with you. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Then you shouldn't make accusations about the meaning of UK idioms. CheeseDreams 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that this would be better merged with Pauline Epistles. Firstly, this is a general article that has to do with authorship, however this should be covered in the main article! It should be merged. As it is, this piece is a gigantic POV piece by one author.

Biblical criticism IS a gigantic field of study. This is indeed to do with authorship. The article Pauline Epistles is not. This is more mergeable with Textual criticism for example. It is a seperate subject in the same way that Markan priority is a seperate subject to Gospel of Mark.CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The central thesis of the piece is that the epistles weren't written by Paul and that most if not all scholars agree with this. No attempt at giving an opposing POV has been written although there is plenty of it around, especially amongst Christian scholars.

Most scholars DO agree with it. Its just like evolution. The conclusion is only disputed by religious fundamentalists. And it does contain the opposing POV - for example, it mentions the explanation of "human variability" (even though the variability is in some cases so extreme that if it was written by one person it would be evidence of Schizophrenia). CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Be careful what you say about Schizophrenia. I find that very uncaring. My ex-gf had that condition and she was a very bright girl.
So? Just because Paul could have been Schizophrenic doesn't mean they (note the plural) were stupid. But it does point out the extreme lengths of twisting that literalists have to do to retain the view that Paul wrote all of them. And then you get the question, which personality of Paul was it that had the divine revelation, and which one was forging it? So really, it still leaves just the same problem for literalists, just with an interesting "paul was schizophrenic" aside. CheeseDreams 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My point here is that you must be careful with sweeping statements. Now, I'm not going to bother responding on your talk page. I did a direct copy and paste from the talk page of Authorship of the Pauline epistles. Discussing this on your talk page is not appropriate. My advise is to respond on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't see why it is inappropriate to respond on my talk page. You are the one who saw fit to put the comments here in the first place. If you wanted to comment here, it seems a bit hypocritical to reply over there instead. CheeseDreams 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cheesedreams uses phrases such as the following: "For this reason, authorship of many of the epistles traditionally attributed to Paul have been in doubt for many centuries by critical scholars. By the end of the 20th century, the majority of scholars had rejected all but 7 as genuinely by Paul (consequently these 7 are known as the undisputed epistles)." and also "The pastorals were subjected to the level of computer analysis used in criminal trials for similarity of authorship, and failed that analysis." I have removed these comments as they are unsubstantiated and POV.

They are not POV. They are the majority opinion. I will add them back. "Undisputed" should be in italics though, as it is a name. And they have been put into computer trials (of the criminal-trials-was-it-really-the-villain-that-wrote-this-note kind) (p.s. that's a standard practice of textual criticism for comparing authorship these days).

More POV words are "weaker" and "stronger" arguments. We should not be calling them this, as we don't make value judgements! This is a basic tenant of Wikipedia, and CheeseDreams would do well to read about NPOV. Regrettably, no attempt at reading of this policy has obviously been made, and she's been busy stinking up many articles to do with Christianity. As it says on her user page "I edit controversial articles. They are usually more controversial after I start editing them." [10]

Of course they are going to be. If a cabal has maintained a "there are hardly any questions, and the arguments against ara hardly worth mentioning" POV on an article, and someone comes up and points out that actually most scholars do question them and come up with pretty good arguments, then of course the cabal are going to be quite annoyed. CheeseDreams 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 2/3rd argument has been removed also. There is no source for this, and it seems dubious at best.

I will restore it. There are many sources for this. Just because it isn't your POV doesn't mean that you can assert it isn't the majority opinion. It quite simply is. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have changed it to "Other arguments rely on the polemical content of the letter, certain concepts, and false-teacher arguments, not expressed by other Christian writers until the end of the first century, making an appearance in Colossians." You'll notice I've removed "However, such before their time issues can be explained by Paul being the source of these concepts, rather that merely a redistributer of them (although this can also be used to argue that Paul made them up himself, rather than reflecting the faith)." because this appears to be original research.

Exactly how does that appear to be original research? CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've also marked this section as dubious as it now employs weasel words (I was forced to because of the dubiousness of CheeseDreams claims).

Check any textbook for the statistics (not all have them, particularly those opposed to the majority opinion). CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've also removed any reference to "disputed" and "undisputed" epistles as this seems to be the POV of CheeseDreams.

No, they are official terms, it is used to segregate those which are disputed by the majority of scholars from those which are not (and in fact are hardly disputed at all). Please note the italics, distinguishing the state from being undisputed to being called undisputed. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If an epistle is disputed, we should mention it in the section that talks about the epistle, we shouldn't be confirming or denying the status of the epistle as this statement in itself is disputed by many Christians.

All epistles are disputed, but there is a set of them regarded as genuine by the majority of scholars. The name given to this set is the undisputed epistles. It is an unfortunate name really since a small few do dispute them, but it is nethertheless the only name given to this set, despite the set being considered a distinct entity. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I notice quite a few claims have not been substantiated. For instance: "Those who contest Paul's authorship state that such parallels are merely due to a careful forger, deliberately introducing unnecessary additional greetings for the purpose of making the text appear more genuine." Who contested Paul's authorship?

Most scholars. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the "(possibly forged)" because this is not substantiated and appears to be the view of the author. Again this is a POV statement.

No, its an NPOV statement. "(forged)" would be POV, as would "(genuine)". CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, now the paragraph reads: "The extensiveness of the development of the theology in the epistle compared to that of other epistles has led many scholars to the opinion that if it is genuine, then it must be very late. However, due to the apparant consideration of the letter as genuine by the author of the Ephesians, then most scholars think that if Colossians is forged, it is very early."

Again, no scholars are quoted and it is made out like this is an accepted fact, which it is not, especially amongst Christians.

It is an accepted fact amongst most scholars. Obviously Christians dispute it. But that doesn't make them the majority. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now we get to Ephesians. It says that "Ephesians bears a strong similarity to Colossians, to the extent that over 40 areas of the text can be identified in Colossians which Ephesians reproduces, expands upon them and adding." No attempt at telling us any of the 40 areas of text are identified! So marking this as dubious.

See Ephesians, where some of the 40 are listed. Honestly, to treat every part of the article as guilty till proven innocent is extremely bad faith. Especially when not doing even the minimum of checking before accusing, as in this case. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Tough. It's not as bad as adding POV material. If you add material on a potentially controversial article, expect to have answers and be able to fix objections. Sorry if you find my questioning offensive, but if dance in the fire, expect to get hot. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, the rest of the paragraph reads: "It is for this reason that almost all scholars think that Ephesians is an edited reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is due to Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or whether it is down to a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of more dispute, about 2/3 of scholars choosing the latter." almost all scholars think that? great, what a POV sweeping statement.

No, only about 2/3. How is that POV? Most scholars do. Are you going to claim that the statement "most scholars think that evolution is correct compared to creationism" is POV as well? Remember, just because most scholars think something does not make it right, but it is important to be aware that most scholars think it. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So I've also rephrased this to "many scholars", however this now means I've had to add a weasel word. I also dispute the "about 2/3 of scholars choosing the latter." bit, so I've removed it. So now it reads: "It is for this reason that many scholars think that Ephesians is an edited and reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is due to Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or whether it is down to a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of more dispute."

Yet this is still not very good, because a) no scholars are mentioned (you expect me to take this on faith?!)

No, because your faith demands you assume Paul wrote all the epistles. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

b)no sources are given

See the references section. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

c) I have no way of verifying this information and how to rebutt it

Provide a counter-argument. That's not difficult. As to whether its any good is a different matter. Learn about textual criticism, there must be someone defending Paul's authorship. Remember it's only 2/3 (though quite a lot more in the case of the pastoral epistles) who think Paul didn't write these, there are 1/3 ish who don't. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

or provide an alternative POV. So this is totally POV still. So again, I've marked is as dubious.

Dubious is not the same as POV. Dubious is about factual accuracy. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Many terms found in parts of the new testament which are considered to have been written after Paul's death are found within Ephesians, though not in other epistles, and for terms that are, the author makes a different choice of usage, for example linking pistis with kurios rather than just christos."

Now you are complaining that there is an example, and before you were complaining that there was not. What is it with you? CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start with this paragraph. Firstly, you'll notice that I've removed the "disputed" bit. Its almost impossible for me to understand what is being said in this sentence because it's so convuluted! I've attempted a copyedit, but I don't know how well I've suceeded. Hint for CheeseDreams: Greek has a capital letter. So does New Testament. Part of my copy edit to the paragraph was to change it to "Such variations occur to the extent that many scholars think that, though Paul's authorship is not impossible, if Paul did write such a letter, someone else rewrote it." Funny however that no scholars are given and we're just expected to accept what is writtezn here.

See for example this article on religion - Sutekh. No scholars are given. It should be totally disputed, every paragraph. But it isn't. Why not? Because it would be unreadable. This is not a dissertation with citations everywhere, its an encyclopedia article. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"One of the more noticable differences between Ephesians and other epistles is the distinct lack of any reference to an impending occurrance of the day of Christ. Also, the image of marriage as an heavenly union between the church and Christ contrasts noticably with 1 Corinthians' suggestion that marriage is to be avoided if possible." No source. Original research.

Sources are listed in references. To slap the label "original research" on everything is really quite petty and pathetic. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"The general nature of the epistle itself, unlike those of the undisputed, is more a general homily, than anything directed at a particular community (such as the Ephesians themselves). To textual critics, such as Richard Heard, such variations are suspicious, in particular phrases such as holy apostles seeming completely out of place, except to a writer from a more developed church (such as that of the second century)."

What about this?CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And now we get to the absolutely beautiful bit. This bit kills me.

"2 Thessalonians is considered by scholars, such as Udo Schnelle <!-- do we really have to put in "supported by X" it just looks sloppy and unreadable, it's in the bibliography -->, to be significantly different in style to the undisputed epistles, being whole and narrow rather than a lively and abrupt discussion on a range of issues. Neither does 2 Thessalonians have significant open or deep questions unlike much of the remainder of Paul's writing, and, according to scholars, such as Alfred Loisy, seems to reflect knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Further reason for scepticism, such as that of Bart Ehrman{{nowiki></nowiki>, derives from the insistence of genuineness within it, and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start (a ploy commonly used in forged documents)."

We have two comments in the text (I notice not on talk!) "do we really have to put in "supported by X" it just looks sloppy and unreadable, it's in the bibliography" and "again, I object to "according to X" on grounds of poor style". Allow me to be the first to point out to you that all statements on Wikipedia must be qualified.

In which case you had better go around all the articles on greek, celtic, norse, and roman mythology adding thousands of dispute tags, and removing most of the articles because the body of the text does not have any qualification. Or are you an hypocrit? You have a choice. Either you carry out such a task, or I restore the authorship-of-the-pauline-epistles article to before the state at which you removed those parts. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Allow me to be the first to point out to you that we loathe weasel terms. So, yes! you need to include these in the text! And please don't discuss "style". So far I've noticed the poor style that this article has been written in.

Textual criticism is a particularly dry subject. You can't expect it to be elegant when its about "this vocabulary has 489 words not used amongst this one's 687" etc. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No wonder this article is so disputed! Sheesh.

It's disputed because you put the dispute tags in.CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, does Bart Ehrman argue that it is (a ploy commonly used in forged documents)? This isn't clear. Want to substantiate this further? Sounds dodgy, but if he says this then we should make it clear.

I don't think anyone would argue "it is (x)." as it is ungrammatical. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Another issue often raised is that of context, for example, in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God (the Father) as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus (as Christians nearer the end of the first century started to), which to scholars, such as Norman Perrin, <!-- this according to X thing just really looks ridiculous--> suggests that 2 Thessalonians stating may the Lord direct your hearts to ... the steadfastness of Christ unlike 1 Thessalonians' may establish your hearts unblamable ... before God and Father, implies it having been written during times after Paul's death."

No, CheeseDreams, it doesn't look ridiculous. It's part of NPOV and a part of removing weasel words. It stops disputes.

See Thoth, for example of the lack of this. Or Provincial Secretary which is also totally uncited. Absolutely totally weasel if you ask me, no mentions of according to X at all. You had better go there and rectify it. As well as about 400,000 other articles on Wikipedia. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, this is one of the worst written articles I've read on Wikipedia, and I've read a few. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You will also see, that as mentioned elsewhere, Mpolo worked on it to balance the information I provided. As I have stated was always the intent on the Paul works (which is also the case with, for example, Jesus and syncretism- check Mpolo's talk page, if you don't believe that the balancing is a result of me) CheeseDreams 00:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So why is the article still so crappy? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In what way is it "crappy"? CheeseDreams 02:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Read my comments on the talk page. You can read, right? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, can't read at all, sorry. I have no idea what you have just written, I'm just guessing that this might be a reply to something. The indenting is guesswork too. Im' quite good at it don't you think? CheeseDreams 02:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And yet, no comment on the talk page. And no attempt to work on the issues I raised. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On the syncretism? I replied inline to every issue you raised. CheeseDreams 21:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, on Authorship of the Pauline epistles. And you replied to this after any comment was made. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, its not really possible to reply to comments before they are made. CheeseDreams 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:RfD requests[edit]

So, there's something about your two RfD requests I don't get - perhaps you could enlighten me? (I expect they will likely be deleted - nobody has voiced any opposition to doing so; I certainly don't care one way or the other whether they stay or go.) You described them as "abusive redirects", but I'm rather befuddled as to what about them is abusive. I mean, there's certainly nothing in the edit histories, either content or comments. WP:RFAR is certainly a well-known Wikipedia abbreviation, so I just don't see where WP:RFAR/CD is that much different. What about these redirects is objectionable? Noel (talk) 04:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I find it objectionable, because IMO it's targetting CheeseDreams. I've deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
??? Surely it's the RfA etc that targets them? The redirect is just a completely straightforward shortcut to the relevant page. Noel (talk) 11:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I can understand how she wouldn't like it. It may not be a biggy to her, but let's not inflame matters. It's just a pity that she feels that she now has permission to personally attack me. See my user page for the history. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted your comment[edit]

I removed your comment from my comment section on your Request for Arbitration... it was not factual. If you insist on rebutting my comments, please use facts instead of obviously untrue statements. You did not merely add a link, you substantially rewrote the article. Pedant 20:24, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

If you check the edit history, you will infact note that I did just add a link. CheeseDreams 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your edit to my user page is vandalism[edit]

I have listed you on vandalism in progress. Please don't do it again. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why did you do that, CheeseDreams? That was a really spiteful thing to do, easily the equal of anything that has been done to you. I find it really disappointing that you'll stoop to doing the really stupid stuff. Dr Zen 22:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it wasn't spiteful. It was carrying out TBSDY's request to ensure that all pages are verifiable, as he/she did to Authorship of the Pauline epistles. I thought that since there are 400,000 articles which are not in such a state, the best place to start would be at the beginning, i.e. our talk pages. I'm not sure that there is an unverifiable statement on mine, thus leaving TBSDY's page. Only 399,998 or so pages left now. CheeseDreams 00:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me CheeseDreams. User pages are not in the main article namespace. You do not edit them in such a way. In fact, you rarely if ever should edit them at all! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, thank you so much for all the kind things people have said to me during my time of trouble! I really appreciated it. < ! -- you could be lying, total lack of NPOV, no evidence that you did -- >

Unacceptable and mean-spirited (!). El_C

No, she/he could be lying, what evidence is there? He/she could just be making it up to suit a POV assertion. How can we know that he/she did appreciate it? Where are the citations? Or the references? See Wikipedia:Verifiability. CheeseDreams 00:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All,

Due to some personal problems I may not be around for an extended period. I might still do some editing and/or admin work (though probably not much of that).

I can still be contacted on my talk page. Please don't expect a prompt reply. The stuff I'm going through at the moment is pretty bad. Please note that it hasn't been caused by Wikipedia. It's been caused by Real Life.

Ta bu shi da yu 13:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

S/he was/is thanking jguk, Dieter Simon, →Raul654, Slim, Viriditas, MPerel, Jayjg, Cool Hand Luke, Zora, SWAdair, Neutrality, silsor, and Slrubenstein for their subsequent words of support for (seemingly) a personal tragedy to which s/he owes you no varification whatsoever. That you were out of order is obvious, whether you realize that you were being cruel, as well, is yet to be determined. I hope to learn that you simply did not read closely enough, the lesser of two evils. El_C

As a side note...[edit]

Once, when I was 11 or so I was riding my bike before I had to get on the bus to go to school. This was a typical morning and as such I took to precautions and decided to not wear a helmet that day. For whatever reason my bike tipped forward and I proceeded to scrape my teeth along the asphalt before finally coming to a stop. The bus then proceeded to pull up and I had to rush to put my bike up. The damage to myself included losing the enamel on the bottom portion of my two front teeth (its quite visible) and I had scraped both my knees to the point that bandages were required. It was the worst day ever. Wjw 05:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can't you get plastic teeth? I used to share a house with someone who had a similar accident but smashed there whole front teeth in, and had plastic replacements - you really can't tell, and they are lovely and white, and they said they were really easy to clean. CheeseDreams 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I probably could, but I would have to have my teeth removed in order to do it and that, in my oh-so humble opinion, is definitely not something I want to do. Wjw 06:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For a good time...[edit]

... read this and how it led to this. The talk page on the second link is also loads of fun. :) P.S. Could you clue me in on the pronoun that you'd prefer I use in reference to you? I've seen many refer to you as "she" but I'm not seeing where you actually state your gender. It's not that I care one way or another what gender you are, it's just that I'd rather not call you the "wrong" gender. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:23, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

You miss the point[edit]

I asked how I'm meant to know that you haven't given us original research, because you didn't say where or who states your information in the article. If you would be able to state it in the article then I wouldn't have a chance to say this now, would I? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, incidently. idiotei means unschooled and illiterate. It does not mean idiot in the modern sense, if that's what you are implying. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)