User talk:Dr Zen/past3

Calling all cars

This really says it all. -> User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#GNAA

(unsigned comment from RadMan)

Deletion

Okay, though I'm not so malicious to want to "rid Wikipedia of articles I don't think it should have". One should look at my edit history to see what articles I have handled with a VfD consensus to keep, to see that I am not blind to VFD consensus. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 02:18, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Schools

Concerning multiple school articles I've seen up for deletion, who are these people who decide what is "notable" and "encyclopedic" around here? Did someone appoint or vote for them? Do they understand what an enclopedia actually is? --Centauri 05:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Pompous" is certainly one word I'd use. "Hubris" is another, and "bombastic intellectual fascism" is yet another option :-) --Centauri 05:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Critical Help

Please help me against User:Gtabary. I have been repeatedly hounded by him. Please help me in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Medical Specialist Centre

Thanks

Thanks, Zen. However, I just can't understand why he want to press charges aganst me---Unless he removes his, I can't remove mine. I did not plainly insult him---but he was hostile to me in the first place. The page have to be there for sometime---I cannot keep all his bad deeds upon me to let me suffer in silence.

I hope you help.

Thanks, Chan Han Xiang 10:59 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retaining school information

For schools that come up for VfD where their existence can be verified and consesnsus leans toward deletion, I'm thinking of adding a ==Schools== section under that municipality's article and inserting a bullet item for that school, with as much information as can be verified.

This will make for haphazard additions, but I suspect that if such sections start appearing in municipality articles, local residents will feel compelled to fill in the missing schools.

Seprate articles can then branch out naturally if a school carries with enough interesting history or contributions to need the space.

Does this seem like a reasonable way to work around the school notability controversy? iMeowbot~Mw 03:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bah. If it's notable that 6.95% of my town is covered in water (not a very useful statistic in isolation), then there is no harm in a simple list of its schools and libraries. I can understand the resistance against having a separate article for each and every kindergarten in the world, but it's certainly valuable to illustrate where education sits in a community's priorities (particularly if student and teacher numbers, or perhaps expenditures, can be captured). iMeowbot~Mw 03:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• For the record, I approve of this way to keep the information without an article on the schools. --Improv 07:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ken Bigley

I too was thinking of posting a non-clickable link with lots'o warnings to the video there. May I do it? WhisperToMe 18:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your comments on CheeseDreams arbitration

Thanks for commenting - outside feedback on these things can be pretty helpful sometimes. I'll go revisit the evidence, and consider if any changes are warranted. FYI, there's also an open arbitration case concerning Rienzo and related accounts, but no one has added any evidence as of yet. Ambi 12:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comma query

Dr. Zen, as you're an editor, I have a query about the placement of a comma. Do you happen to know which is correct in the following phrase (when used as a phrase e.g. the title of an article): "September 11, 2001, attacks" or "September 11, 2001 attacks"? Slim 21:46, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. You may be interested in taking a look at the nomination of September 11, 2001 attacks as a featured article. See here. Maurreen has objected to the nomination on the grounds that it needs a second comma i.e. she says it should be "September 11, 2001, attacks," which I think is wrong, but I wasn't sure of myself, because I can't find a source one way or the other. I'm about to put a comment up myself. Slim 23:03, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dr Zen, I didn't remove any comment of yours, not have I even seen one. If you're talking about September 11, 2001 attacks, we may have had an edit conflict. I went there to leave a comment, but Wikipedia is being incredibly slow for me today, and my browser hung, saying "loading; completed 19 out of 20 items"; then it just stuck like that, so I gave up. But when I returned later to try again, I saw that, in fact, my comment had been added, so maybe you were trying to add something at the same time and mine cancelled yours out. I'll go back and take a look, but may not be able to access the page for some time, as it's taken me 10-15 minutes to get into your user page to write this — and I've yet to save it. I could be here all night . . . Slim 01:24, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I just managed to get back into the page, and I've re-added your comment. That was a strange editing glitch. If you look at this diff [1], your comment is there, but if you look at the next one, [2] it has disappeared. I don't mean deleted — just disappeared. Anyway, it's back now. It has taken me half an hour to do that, so I very much hope to receive some good-faith brownie points. Slim 01:56, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

"For some reason the machine interpreted you as first commenting and then removing my comment!" Perhaps Wikipedia is so used to that happening when it sees our names, that the computers have been programmed to do it as the default, LOL. Slim 02:13, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Zen. Slim 09:03, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kuro5hin

Glad you liked my responses :-) I think Larry makes some good points, but at the end of the day it doesn't require a major structural change to the way we create featured articles. One thing that I'm noticing more and more is unattributed material appearing in text. If we could enforce the citing of sources then I think this would go a long way to resolving disputes. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CD

I see that you've stumbled across the RfA for CD. I was wondering if you'd also noticed that the newly elected arbitrators are voting on this pre-existing case. Any chance you'd be interested in joining me in a little campaign to clarify the appropriateness of this? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:34, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've been hunting around and I can't seem to find any hard and fast guidelines on whether it's considered appropriate. The RfA talk page has one section that seems to indicate that the new arbitrators are EXPECTED to recuse themselves from prior cases, but they're allowed to un-recuse themselves. First step would be, of course, to document if there was any discussion/polling to see what the proper course of action would be for these new arbitrators. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:33, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sept. 11

Possibly part of our conversation at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks was based on a communication gap. In other words, this is an olive branch. Maurreen 04:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind and thoughtful response. I'm very glad we've put ourselves on a better footing. And you've also given me new faith in Wikipedia. Maurreen 05:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey doc,

A tiny bit of advice... I noticed when you moved South Bank to a better place, you added a little comment (is this a caption?) below the bit of text which may or may not be a caption for the photo. I agree, that piece of text is a pretty terrible caption if that's what it's supposed to be :-) But, it's pretty silly to put a comment like that in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. The talk page would be better; but I find that it's pretty much always best to simply change something you think is wrong, without questioning it first. If other people think it was better the first way, they'll just change it back :-)

- Rpm 11:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

I understand your concerns, and I'll think about it. The thing is, its not just personal hurt, its that the articles were made to be misleading (even though she doesn't think so, obviously). I have to say, that in all my time editing on Wikipedia, CheeseDreams has been the worst editor I've ever come across. I've dealt with HistoryBuffEr, Alberuni and Pename who have definitely been pushing a POV. I've never seen an editor totally rip out the carefully formed structure of an article and cause it degrade so fast in my time here, and I'm not surprised people like Wesley and Slrubenstein are upset with the changes.

Slrubenstein is upset because he is an extreme POV pusher who runs roughshod over consensus and the concept thereof. See Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus where he (I am going to assume that Steven is a man's name) and I first met (and its numerous vast archives) for this. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wesley is upset because I have included material counter to the tenets of Christianity which actually stands up to scrutiny, and therefore actually poses some threat to his religious beliefs, thus upsetting him. It tends to happen quite a lot, I was once able to cause a fundamentalist to break down into tears merely by asserting without explanation of why that that scholars actually doubt the authenticity of some parts of the bible. The fundamentalist in question is now a high church Anglo Catholic as a direct result. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The changes that CheeseDreams has so far made introduced weasel words and all her edits to Christian articles have been made with the POV that Christianity is wrong, misleading and that Christian doctrine cannot be trusted.

{{totallydisputed}}. Since when did I assert that Christianity is wrong? I have made numerous assertions on the issue of the historicity of Jesus, but to many (non-fundamentalist) Christians that whole question is irrelevant.

Doctrine is just that - doctrine. Statements of belief, not statements of fact. Please do not confuse the two. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a great disservice to scholarly opinion and to believers alike. I see no evidence of her being willing to modify the way she edits. If you can point out to me where she is willing to make reforms to her editing technique, or if you can get her to see and acknowledge where she needs to change then I am more than willing to strike that comment.

You tell me where there is evidence of people such as John Kenney, Slrubenstein, IZAK, and others, being willing to modify the way they edit? It takes two to tango. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you ought to know: she effectively stopped me editing those articles. Why should I (an author who has always tried to write from a neutral point of view) have to stop editing articles when another POV pusher takes over an article? Exactly how is that fair to me? I have plenty of information I can add to the article but I don't dare do it or else I will be called a POV pusher. See my problem? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, let me say that I'm happy that CD has an advocate :-) And one who's willing to see if she can change the way she edits.

Here's the thing: that bit about her writing from a POV is wrong. She makes many value-based assertions in her text that judges fact about Christianity. That's POV, pure and simple. She needs to stop doing that: the facts should speak for itself. Also, you'll notice that I've not asking her to take off all her material: what I would like to see is relevant material. For instance, in an article about the Historicity of Jesus, why did we include material about a 3rd century individual?

Constantine is fundamental to which bits of Christianity survived, and thus which bits of evidence, and which bits of beliefs and practices, and also why they did. This is fundamental to the issue of Historicity - the whole early christianity period is only able to be viewed via the constantine period, and as such the bias and changes (and destructions of evidence and competition) due to constantine and associates are important to note. It is impossible to view the early period fairly and truthfully without noting the bias of the thing we are viewing it through, and where it comes from.

The point of Mithras is that Mithras was widespread, Constantine II banning non-Christianity created modern christianity by changing all the Mithras worshippers into Christians overnight. Aspects of Christianity ((thought to be genuine historical aspects of Jesus by Christians)) are thought to be aspects of Mithras (who is basically a form of Osiris-Dionysus) that got transferred overnight by telling Mithras worshippers that they actually worship Jesus ((according to many of those who doubt Jesus' historicity)).

When you look through a dark twisted mirror, you need to know that it isnt as clear as a frost ridden night. And you need to know just how dark and twisted it is, and how to rid it of these things. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How does anything written by them after Jesus life & death effect the historicity of Jesus?

Because there is nothing written during Jesus' life & death. Remember, the New Testament was not written during Jesus' life & death either. Absolutely totally 100% of anything even remotely claiming to be evidence for Jesus' historicity was written AFTER Jesus' alleged life & death.

Please don't try to create false dichotomies, they just make you look foolish and clutching at straws. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my view she added this to prove a point, which is unacceptable. But I want to point out something and make it clear: I don't mind having opposing points of view in the article! However, CheeseDreams has made her revisions make out that the things like the Pauline Epistles are not accepted by "2/3s of all historians" (which she later said she got from a source, but never bothered to say where from!)

No, don't misrepresent me. I wrote that SOME Pauline Epistles are not accepted by "2/3s of all historians". These are the Pastorals, Colossians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and 2 Thessalonians. This is genuinely the case. Look it up. Before I started reading about it I thought it was only the Pastorals and Hebrews which they doubted, but it turns out its actually rather more.

These also happen by co-incidence to be the only ones which support apparantly conclusively a historical (rather than a docetic or gnostic) Jesus (although the gnostics managed to interpret Colossians and Ephesians as supporting them as well, though it is very complicated to explain how).

Most historians, comparatively, do accept 7 epistles (collectively known as the undisputed epistles - Philemon, Phillippians, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and 1 (but not 2) Thessalonians). After all, at least one of them has to be genuinely written by a person claiming to have written an epistle. Of course the truth could equally be that the 7 undisputed epistles are the fakes, although the others do not even agree with each other, and the alternative would only be that one set of them was genuine, e.g. the Pastorals. Though what this means for literalist Christianity would be even more damaging. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now what about doing total restructures of an article completely against consensus? Check out this diff: [3] Can you see how much material I had to readd back into the article?! What about the edits she made that left the article in a totally unusable state? See [4]. What about the section she added called the "Pauline Epistles"? That had nothing to do with the Historicity of Jesus, as Paul came after Jesus! His writings do not impinge on the fact that Jesus was a real historical figure. Next, look at the sources. on that previous revision. What about the host of material that says that Jesus was a historical figure? I don't see any of it in there. CheeseDreams should also be writing about that as she should be writing from a neutral point of view.

Paul is important because although Paul came after Jesus. The Epistles of Paul, and his comments about who Jesus was in them, came before (chronologically) absolutely everything else in the bible about Jesus, and everything regarded as accurate by christians.

The church followed Paul. It was Paul, allegedly, who won the converts. It was Paul who, allegedly, created the non-Jewish (and bigger) part of the church. Paul is fundamentally important to where ideas of Jesus come from. CheeseDreams 01:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• there are many questions surrounding this mystery; it is...wait for it...an apostle epistle puzzle passel...if'n I ever saw one. Blair P. Houghton 04:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Historicity:" Historical authenticity; fact. [5] and also the Macquarie Dictionary. Now, does this mean that what Paul writes proves or disproves the historical authencity of Jesus? No. It does not. While I believe the letters and things that Paul wrote, that's not what I'm talking about. You edited an article called the "Historicity of Jesus", that has the scope of talking about the historical authenticity of a man named Jesus. Then you introduced later works. While Paul is fundamentally important to where ideas of Jesus come from, this is well outside the scope of that article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now I have to ask you a question (and I'm not meaning to attack you). At one point you told me that I was too close to the article and I should stop editing it. So I did. I don't see you told CheeseDreams the same advise. She continued editing the article, causing all sorts of issues I couldn't respond to. She continued writing from a non-neutral POV.

I don't have a strong religious POV threatened by the content of the article or the content of one or other POV. Your edits to the article do not have any influence or disturbance over my religious POV, wheras mine clearly cause you great problems. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What about how she tries to get around consensus by recreating articles under different names? She created Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be as a direct copy and paste of another article, and when people objected and made it a redirect she kept reverting them back. When an admin finally locked it from editing, she put an RFC on him! What about that? I count that as disruption of Wikipedia.

It was a direct copy and past of Slrubenstein's article. Which, though the locked version, was the wholesale change Slrubenstein had made to the article, and not actually the one worked on by everyone else (which was FT2s). Slrubenstein was seeking an article about historical (secular) reconstruction of Jesus. Others thought that the article should be about background not reconstruction of Jesus. A compromise was suggested in the talk page which was to create 2 articles. I saw the point in this, and created the 2nd article, which Slrubenstein's text provided a mildly appropriate starting point, so I pasted it in. FT2s much more appropriate to background article would then have been free to exist in its proper place.

Slrubenstein and John Kenney (his cohort) vehemently object to the idea of FT2s article actually being about background rather than reconstructing Jesus, and so converted the 2nd article into a redirect. I restored it. Slrubenstein and John Kenney then both engaged in a revert war over this 2nd article. The admins who locked it were Slrubenstein and John Kenney. This is a clear abuse of adminship - you are not meant to lock an article you are in an edit war over, especially without putting the protection notice on it. So I put an RfC on them. Clearly I was justified.

The only reason it failed is because I was the only one defending the existance of the article against the 2 of them. Thus by requiring 2 complainants it was impossible to win, even though they were as guilty as sin of the charges. No-one attempted even remotely to address the accusations, and instead chose to use the RfCs to attack me. CheeseDreams 01:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you were not. You forked the article quite deliberately.

Yes, it was clearly a result of Slrubenstein's suggestion to do so at Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus at the time. Look it up. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While that article should have gone on VfD (and in fact I did this), they were more than justified in doing what they did because we frown upon article forking like that.

They were NOT independant unbiased admins. They were the 2 very people who were having a massive POV war with me about the very article and its parent - Cultural and historical background of Jesus.

You might be a newbie, but when you are reverting between two experienced users you should start thinking more clearly what you are doing.

The 2 users involved were the 2 involved in Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus. They were not, and never had been, impartial outside admins. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The RFC failed because noone agreed with you.

The RFC failed because no-one could agree with me. There were only 3 people involved, 2 of them were Slrubenstein and John Kenney. As such it is simple fact that it is impossible for 2 people to certify it. There could never be a 2nd person, because there hadn't been one involved (as required by the certification rules).

Again, I think that should be a clue that your behaviour was out of line. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for her being provoked: when I was a newbie I was provoked all the time and I didn't run around going against consensus. So why should I accept this?

Consensus and accuracy, balance, and truth are not the same thing. The Nazi's had consensus in their time. As did Stalin within Russia for the idea that he was a jolly nice man who was kind to people. CheeseDreams 01:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Consensus does not involve rewriting entire highly controversial stories and leaving them in an unusable state for long periods of time.

I discussed making the changes before hand, no one objected, and MPolo said it would be acceptable. Actually. Please check your facts first. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy means citing your sources,

No, accuracy means being as true as possible. Look it up in a dictionary. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

which you haven't done.

Have you actually read the edits I made to the references section? What do you think I bothered doing that for? CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Balance involves stating the opposing viewpoint, which again you have never done.

Because I couldn't find one. The only opposing points were ridiculous religious arguments like "Jesus is great, so he can't have been a myth" which is entirely scientific and balanced, obviously. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for truth, well, I guess you believe what you write to be "truth" but there are many who dispute what you have to say. Including many very smart and informed Bible historians. They aren't hard to find.

I haven't found even 1. The closest someone suggested was Lane C-something. His arguments were either in the "Jesus is great, so he cant be a myth" mould, or ridiculous like "The myths in question are based on astronomy" - as if that would mean that they couldn't be the basis for Jesus (totally non-sequitur), or totally missing the point like "The eyewitnesses prevented any false information" - totally missing the issue that if Jesus wasnt real then there would be no eye witnesses to protect the information in the first place, and that if Jesus existed but was gnostic, then the eye witnesses would have been complicit in the deliberate and entirely open fabrication of parts of the story (because this is precisely how gnosticism works - it isn't about factual history, it is about wisdom teachings and enlightenment, quite "eastern" really).CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I've had to say this. Do you think I like having to have dealt with this user? I hate seeing this sort of thing happen, but in such a clear case of POV pushing as this I cannot in good conscience remove my remarks. I hope you respect my decision. It's now up to the arbcom to determine a fair and reasonable decision on how to deal with CheeseDreams. I can only let my comments an opinions be known. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair and reasonable requires that they actually address points raised by the defence. They addressed absolutely none whatsoever. CheeseDreams 01:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have raised quite a few objections. Even before the temp injunction was placed on you. You never attempted to fix any of them. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you think that then you clearly never read my responses to them. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You know, can you see where the communication problem comes from now? CheeseDreams responds on your talk page. She has never responded on my talk page! I refuse to discuss these issues over a 3rd-parties talk page. Does this sound fair, Zen? CD obviously knows how to leave messages on talk pages. I will respond on your talk page and ask her to redirect any correspondence on my own talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I respond to comments where they are, not on toilet walls. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

QuakeAID and related shell companies

Baou, Inc., the owners of QuakeAID and the newswire organization Official Wire have published an article about me today. http://www.baou.com/newswire/main.php?action=recent&msg_recent=&rid=1979

They weave quite an intricate web of deception, but at the end of the day it is important to know that their entire presence in the United States, or more specifically, New York City, is managed by an offshore management company called OFFSHORESIMPLE.COM. [6]

The article has changed so drastically since I originally nominated it that at this point I'm reconsidering my nomination and vote. In any case I value your insight and any contributions you can make towards this article. I always prefer to keep, after all.  ;-) —RaD Man (talk) 05:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All right, Zen, it ain't lookin' too good for me. Tell you what: if you'll vote keep, I'll agree to quit editing that particular subarticle after Jan. 15, provided you have it on your watchlist and keep an eye on the talk, implementing any updates I tell you about. Because I don't really think anybody would update the information if I wasn't editing it. Everyking 09:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've proposed that idea to people, particularly Ambi, a few times before, but you're the first one who's ever been responsive. Thanks. If this subarticle gets kept and you're reasonable about upholding your end of the bargain, we can extend it to other related articles, if it's necessary. Everyking 00:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd certainly hope the ArbCom wouldn't ban me just for engaging in a content dispute over one article (or a group of them if you want to stretch it). It doesn't help to have you talking about it, either. I don't want to back out of the article just yet, Zen. There needs to be somebody who knows the subject involved in it. But I'm always open to compromise. Everyking 12:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. How have I "stepped outside the bounds"? I've been a little uncivil at a few especially heated points in the past (although I'm pretty sure I never got to the point of profanity, so I was really pretty mild), but I've apologized for that. The only thing I've done is have an opinion about an article that some people disagree with. That's called a content dispute. Enough people have weighed in on the matter now that I agree there is more or less consensus to reduce the article to a stub, and you don't see me reverting today, do you? But nothing lasts forever; some people will withdraw from the dispute, some people will change their minds or moderate their stances; other people will get involved with new perspectives, and so with time I expect the situation will change. Today and tomorrow are not that big of a deal; maybe nobody besides us will even read the article and so nobody will be disappointed by its stubbishness. Anyway, Wikipedia's still young, and it takes time for bad ideas to get collectively discarded. Everyking 23:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RfC against Everyking

I have filed an RfC against Everyking. Those concerned who have participated in this debate can certify it, while those who agree with my summary of the dispute may endorse it. If you've been involved in similar disputes (i.e. Autobiography promotion and publicity, La La (song)), feel free to add your own summary in the outside views section. You can endorse more than one summary, and still can certify the dispute. Johnleemk | Talk 19:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, verification, and my sources

Dr. Zen, I really do not understand where you are coming from, or what is behind your interventions on this page [7].

The concepts of fairness and balance. I'm not responsible for what you do or don't understand.

You suggest that I am "obstructing" CheeseDreams by asking her to verify her claims.

To a standard not required of others.

My request is not obstruction -- it is a reasonable request based on one of wikipedia's fundamental principles. If CheeseDreams is making claims based on researchm, she should have no problem whatsoever responding to my request.

I believe you have at times complained about the quality of her sources.

If she cannot respond to my request, it is not I that am obstructing her -- it is her own ignorance. You seem to think that my calling attention to her ignorance is uncivil.

It's more how you do it.

I, however, think that it is merely stating a fact. I honestly do not know why you support her.

I don't support her. I don't take sides.

Don't you believe articles should be based on information rather than ignorance?

I don't believe articles should be biased. I believe in the question of Christianity, it's easy to say we should print the majority view, but of course the majority of Christians take the existence of Jesus as unquestionable.

But the problem, Dr. Zen, is that even here you are stating things without foundation.

Am I? I'm calling it as I see it. I look at it without a preexisting bias. Perhaps that's why our opinions differ?

(1) You seem to agree with CheeseDreams that Crossan is "fringe."

Why don't you try reading what I actually did say?

On what basis do you make this claim?

Why don't you try reading what I actually did say? I said that if CD were right, which in this instance she was not, it would be correct that in this respect Crossan was fringe. You labour under the misconception -- encouraged no doubt by Jimbo's rather confused discussions of the credibility of authorities -- that if someone can be established as an "authority" then their views are "authoritative" in every part of their area of study. This is not true in general -- of course -- and even less so in an area such as this, where the area of study is so largely speculative.

Have you done any research?

Yes, and as a consequence I suggested that CheeseDreams was wrong. Did you actually read what I said? I told CD that she was very wrong about Crossan. His views are almost opposite to what she suggests! He has been described as an "atheist" by some Christians!

I should point out here that most Christian-Non-Realists are described as atheist by some Christians. Some have been described as being posessed by the devil. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Crossan is Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at DePaul University in Chicago. He is a former co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, and a former chair of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, an international scholarly association for biblical study based in the United States. He has published over 18 books and articles in scholarly journals. This is not "fringe."

Were his views as CD suggested, they would be "fringe". Because I assume good faith, I assume CD made an honest mistake. Because I assume good faith, I assume you didn't read all that I wrote and are also making one.

(2) You characterize my resistance to some of CheeseDreams claims with this comment: "They asked for sources for suggesting a resemblance to koans. You've provided several. One seems to be from a source even SLR thinks is reliable."

She provided one from Crossan! Or at least found a blurb that suggested he had said so. I urged her to provide an actual quote from Crossan, did I not?

But you are wrong. CheeseDreams has not provided several, she has provided one -- a book by Edumnd Cohen.

There are several others (among them Meier, a professor of NT studies, and Mabry). It's a minority view, I agree, but after all, we're only suggesting they are reminiscent of koans.

You say that this source is one that I think is reliable. Why do you say this?

You have said Crossan is reliable.

I have never, ever, said anything about the reliability of Edmund Cohen.

I have never said you have.

Are you just making things up?

No, but you seem to be.

It is true that I have refered to Shaye Cohen as a reliable source, but surely even you can tell the difference between the names "Shaye" and "Edmund." It is very clear which Cohen I am referring to. If you look at my version of the article -- I assume you did, since you presume to comment here -- you will see I provided a list of sources at the bottom. This list includes two books by Shaye Cohen, and NO books by Edmund Cohen. So why do you think a source I claim is reliable supports the proposition that Jesus used koans?

Because CD corrected herself to say no, she meant Crossan and had made a mistake.

Perhaps you believed this because CheeseDreams wrote: "Since Slrubenstein originally claimed that Jesus did not use koans, and that I had made the idea up, but simultaneously claimed Cohen as a source, how reliable can Slrubenstein's reporting be?"

No, she meant that since you claimed she made it up, although she did give sources -- and there are many hits for the idea on google so it's not actually hard to find them -- and you claimed they were all unreliable -- but simultaneously claimed Crossan was a reliable source, you're a hypocrite.

inplying that the source I claim is reliable is the same source that says Jesus used koans. Dr. Zen, this is evidence that CheeseDreams is being deliberately deceptive.

Nope. She said she made a mistake.

She has manipulated you into believing I claim Edmund Cohen is reliable, when I did no such thing. I claimed Shaye Cohen is reliable; she distorts this by using "Cohen" without the first name, and then bringing in another Cohen -- and just blatantly lies that these are the same. In fact, I do not accept the reliability or authority of Edmund Cohen. He is a psychologist who has no training in history or critical Bible studies. He does not teach in a University history, religion, or Biblical studies program. He does not publish in peer-reviewed journals. I believe his book on Jesus and koans to be the speculative work of a dilettante. Yet you conclude by writing "If she is using the same sources that he does, then that is a valid point."

If she is using Crossan, who you use.

Look, Dr. Zen, at this point I have a choice. I see two different ways to interpret your comments. On the one hand I think you are deliberatly misrepresenting me and being obstructionist. You must know from what I wrote and from the works cited in the article, that I was referring to Shaye Cohen which is not the same as Edmund Cohen. SO if you now claim that CheeseDreams is using the same sources as I, you are deliberately lying in order to derail any useful discussion. On the other hand, maybe you have good intentions and are not intentionally misrepresenting me -- you have been duped by CheeseDreams, who misrepresented me. If this is the case, then you now know the answer to your own question, "You've got to ask at this point what on earth is motivating further resistance to mention of the idea." What motivates my resistance to CheeseDreams is that she consistently misrepresents me and others; she disparages the sources I rely on -- sources written by people with academic training in critical Bible studies, or history, and whose works are cited in peer-reviewed academic journals and are assigned in university classes; she instead relies on sources written by people who have no training in critical Bible studies or history. Slrubenstein 18:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think I've learned something about you, Steven (it is Steven, isn't it? Or do you prefer Rubenstein?). You simply don't bother reading what others write. Maybe you use speed reading. If you had read what I wrote, and what I was responding to, you would not have wasted your time and mine with this overlong diatribe.

I did read what you wrote, and what she wrote. I read that you asked for a citation, and I appreciated that. But I think you are missing my main point: she refered to a book by Edmund Cohen and claimed that I had refered to the same book, which was not the case. I grant that it isn't clear what she is saying, but I do think that my claim that she is being deliberately deceptive holds. Her mistake was she thought it was the Cohen book, not the Crossan book, that refered to koans. Okay, I accept that she made a mistake. It's an honest mistake and I don't hold it against her. But when she believed the Cohen book had a reference to koans, she was still misrepresenting which Cohen I cited. There are two different problems here: one is that she cites someone as talking about koans, and she is wrong. But the other one is, she says Cohen was one of my sources, and that is deliberately deceptive. Do you see the difference? As for her refering to Crossan -- she clearly hasn't read the book; the reference to koans is indeed from a blurb on the back cover but the fact remains Crossan hasn't said this. Even if she is saying that I am a hypocrite for citing Crossan while dismissing the koan analogy, she is misleading you -- because Crossan doesn't make the koan analogy himself. Slrubenstein 23:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) (steve, steven, SL, SR, I don't mind how you address me)

By the way, I do not understand your comment about bias, above. The sources for the background article are scholarly works, and not based on what a majority of Christians think. You say "it is easy to say take the majority view" but I don't think I have ever said that -- what are you referring to? Slrubenstein 23:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't understand what you meant by "in this respect" regarding CheeseDreams' representation of Crossan. Now I do. Sorry for the mistake. Slrubenstein 23:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Steve, you've seen for yourself that you can make honest mistakes but you do not allow that CD can. That's all I ask. I will join you in taking her to task for mistakes if you will assume good faith. I think you have not and do not during this process, and I think that has somewhat contributed to the problem. I think CD is sincere and she represents a current of thought that is out there (even my limited knowledge of the sphere and cursory researches show that it's there).

To your "by the way": The "scholarly works" don't tend to be by doubters, Steve. Who takes up biblical study as a field of study? What is their motivation?

For some reason I can't get a message on to your talk page. I apologise for responding here and not there.Dr Zen 23:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what is wrong with my page, but don't worry about it. Dr. Zen, I really used to give CheeseDreams the benefit of the doubt for quite some time. But I will take your advice seriously. As to your question -- what do you mean by "doubters?" The few Biblical scholars I know personally are motivated by an interest in distant cultures and history. I can't say why they are interested particularly in the ancient Near East or late Antiquity. I guess they think learning Akkadian or studying Sumerian myths is cool. I know when I took Bible classes and learned that the Bible was written by different people at different times; Learned that the five books of moses were actually written by many people over a long time; learned about the way the various authors of the different strands of the five books of Moses drew on and reinterpreted different SUmerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian myths, it really blew me away. It taught me a whole new way to read literary texts, and a whole new way to think about history. I just found it cool; I can't explain my motivation any better. I hope this helps answer your question. If not, please do let me know, Slrubenstein 21:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, looks like someone has completely missed the point of that which I wrote, AGAIN. My point wasn't that Crossan was fringe, but that he viewed Jesus as Zen, which Slrubenstein completely failed to notice - as evidenced by his comments about the koans issue on Jesus (thus casting doubt on Slrubentsteins competance at reporting Crossan accurately). My point was more subtle (obviously beyond those who view things shallowly), and I suppose more damning, Crossan being fringe is as likely as the content of the information I have included being so (e.g. Jesus using things reminiscent of koans). CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, p.s. I do know that Crossan chaired the Jesus seminar, I just chose not to mention it. That was one of the first things I ever read about on the issue of historicity. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cheers

Keep up the good work. Humour is at a premium around here lately, it seems, so it is quite refreshing where I see it. →Reene^✎ 06:56, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Creation vs evolution debate (Eisnel)

Thanks for the nice note you left me regarding "Creation vs evolution debate", you can see my reply on my talk page at User_talk:Eisnel#Creation_vs_evolution_debate. Toodles. - Eisnel 09:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are the problems on that article still going on? I had thought Ungtss and his opponent had managed to produce a compromise ages ago. I ought to take a look again, Ive been neglecting it. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

exactly

Maybe my comment was too harsh, no offense intended. I agree that this is no foundation for a dispute. We agree on the problems with the 3RR, it's just that I refuse to get legalistic on editors showing good faith. dab (ᛏ) 10:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hey, that sounds very reasonable. It this is your opinion, I of course agree with you, and apologize for accusing you of 'legalism'. dab (ᛏ) 11:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on Dbachmann's talk page

I am not a "POV pusher" and I find this epithet insulting as well as disingenuous. I made the comments so that other users (and obviously admins) could get involved and monitor the situation, which is exactly the purpose of the noticeboard. FYI, I have never communicated with Humus sapiens outside of the talk page (I believe he may have left one comment on my talk page a month ago), so I find your conspiracy theory lacking substance. The reason I feel that enforcement of the 3RR is no big deal in this instance is because (as I stated on the admin page) I am willing to give OneGuy the benefit of the doubt. Also, I am more concerned with OneGuy's inability to comprehend the definition of a revert and the policy in particular, much in the same way I have been concerned in the past with your penchant for personal attacks against users on the Yasser Arafat talk page and your difficuty in adhering to that policy. --Viriditas | Talk 12:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hello, I am Salazar in fact. That is my name. Anyone so betting wins. Thank you for welcoming me. What did the other person mean by 'monologue' ? Didn't make sense... Salazar 12:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't follow you around. I went to Salazar's talk page from WP:FAC. I revise my original impression, and make no allegations. Is this good enough? I'm not looking for a dispute with you. In fact, I think WP does need an advocatus diaboli, and you're doing quite a good job. dab (ᛏ) 12:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed notice

I've put a totally disputed notice on the page Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared. I did this because Ungtss has started reformatting the page to be in the form fact, viewpoint, viewpoint. This will result in POV. Here is why:

Facts should the main point of an argument. We can divide the facts on this page into several categories. Facts about viewpoints, facts about natural phenonomen, facts about deductions from theories, facts about mathematical principles. By introducing the style given above Ungtss is letting only facts about natural phenonomen and facts about viewpoints into the article. If theory A predicts X but theory B does not the article could say that:

• Theory A predicts X. Adherents of theory B say it predicts X but many disagree.

Wereas in the new format this could only be written:

• Adherents of theory A believe it predicts X. Adherents of theory B believe it predicts X.

I would ask that you help remedy this problem with the article. I shall not have the time I'm afraid (See my User page). Barnaby dawson 14:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clitoris pic

Knock it off or be blocked for knowing vandalism. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - David Gerard 05:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It may be lost on some that the argument around the clitoris pic is a POV dispute and has nothing to do with vandalism. Consensus has proved not to be possible either relating to whether a pic should be included at all or whether the current pic is suitable. - Robert the Bruce 06:30, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Consensus works both ways. If the picture can't be made stable in a consent-based forum, then it's clearly not suitable. When there's a picture that satisfies both the "there must be a picture" and the "the picture must illustrate the topic propery" factions, we will be that much closer to consensus. Then only the "there must not be a picture of any kind" faction will remain unsatisfied. And they're anti-information anyway, so screw them. Blair P. Houghton 06:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you're about a month too late, Blair. Those of us in the majority have suffered rebuffs and the most extreme personal attacks in our attempt to bend over backwards for a consensus. Since there is an overwhelming majority in favor of keeping the current picture, I for one see no reason to continue discussion until those holding the minority position show signs of being serious about convincing those in the majority that there is anything to be expected except more personal attacks upon those attempting to negotiate with them. As it is, the current picture is far more stable than anything else available, and in all practical terms completely stable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Bullshit, of course. Tony has not "bent over backwards" for a consensus. He has pushed the majority line, suggested that people who are offended by pictures of sexual areas should not use the Internet, let alone Wikipedia, and now is claiming the page is "stable" in his attempt to stifle debate and impose the majority's will. Basically, those who want an inclusive solution are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If the page is reverted, we're "vandals" trying to prevent Wikipedia from enlightening "puritans" and "prudes" (IOW, the many millions, possibly billions of people on this planet who are offended by pictures of sexual organs); if it is not, the page is "stable" and we are part of Tony's "consensus".Dr Zen 22:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Bullshit yourself. You're not going to garner much support for your position by badmouthing and misconstruing the comments of perhaps the most openminded and logical person in the clitoris debate. By "pushed the majority line," you mean "not endorsed your exact position." Your revert efforts are exactly that: yours. Your sole actions don't make clitoris much less stable, IMO, seeing as there are a great many people who watch and contribute to the article (in useful ways). That this is a wiki means anyone can edit it, of course, but it also means that not everyone can get his/her way. Timbo ( t a l k ) 02:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • No, that's true, Timbo. They tend to get their own way if their bias matches that of the majority. I don't celebrate that though.Dr Zen 02:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest has anyone tried converting the image to a grainy b+w (but dyed sepia) version, as that may take the edge off it. CheeseDreams 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• What would be the point? The pic does not depict the clitoris anyway. - Robert the Bruce 05:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zen, if anyone blocks you for one of the bullet points of what vandalism is not, I'll unblock you as soon as I become aware of it. Cool Hand Luke 11:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The cabal often tries to pretend that it is "bending-over backwards"; they also like to pretend that they are in the majority, which isn't too hard when they drive the so-called "minority" away. 65.103.53.243

Explosive Boy and the sock puppet allegation

I thought i would share this with you. As you are aware Explosive Boy is doing his damnedest to neutralise me, first by starting a RfC and then by trying to get the AC to act against me. Lets leave the merits of that for a moment. Recently he alleged that I had created "yet another" sock puppet and was challenged by me to "put up or shut up". I haven't so as you can imagine he has been desperate to get himself off the hook and sadly you are the one who he has chosen to be my "latest" sock puppet. This he sees getting him off the hook because if you push the point he will say a simple "sorry, Dr Zen" and so that answering my issue as well. Sadly evidence of another sysop out of control. - Robert the Bruce 06:30, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking arbitration

I've filed an arbitration request against Everyking. Please comment; brickbats for my foolhardiness are more than welcome. I know you don't want arbitration; neither do I; but Everyking has not stopped his activities of reverting others on articles where Ashlee Simpson is concerned. Johnleemk | Talk 07:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removal of edit

The edit was reverted as an edit by banned user Lir from his IP (go to IP's contributions page, hit all rollback links). Banned means banned. You are, of course, free to restore it yourself, as you have - David Gerard 18:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see you haven't edited in a few days, Zen. Well, somebody needs to update Autobiography promotion and publicity to change the tour start date to 2/16 instead of 2/18. If you don't do it in a day or so, I think I'll be justified in adding it myself. Obviously our deal can't apply if you aren't regularly editing. Everyking 10:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We have to stand up to the admins

Some admins are off the deep end (unsigned)

Some trolls don't come up to the average editor's instep. Blair P. Houghton 21:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bye, bye

See you when you, and I, are someone else. CheeseDreams 19:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will you wear a carnation so that I know who you are? -- Zen

Maybe. CheeseDreams 21:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not. CheeseDreams 21:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)