User talk:Aiden/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• User talk:Aiden: March 2006 — June 2006

Contents 1 Jesus article, paragraph 3 1.1 Does acceptance provide salvation? 2 Virgin birth, salvation, and John 3:16 3 Christian views are based on…= 4 User:Archola/Wikiproject:Jesus 5 Voting 6 Palestine and History of Palestine 7 Err 8 Hello 9 Jesus article 10 Muhammad article 11 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy map 12 Why cap shari'a? 13 Jesus and Gospel Jesus 14 Jesus#Ministry 15 Hamas article 16 Bug on talk edit 17 Just another RFA thank you note 18 My RfA 19 Jesus and Matthew 5 20 The new look 21 Temple Mount 22 Move 23 Smiley Template 24 militant 25 tlkn user box 26 Christianity 27 Abrahamic religion phrase 28 Christianity 29 you could be the deciding vote 30 6 day war 31 Baruch Goldstein 32 Discussion on monotheism 33 My Lai Massacre 34 Haditha incident 35 just wanted to say 36 Featured Picture

[edit] Jesus article, paragraph 3

Aiden, as a point of fact, the paragraph has been revised several times since our compromise. My proposed revision is meant to clarify the paragraph while still imparting the same information. It still mentions the Nicene Creed, John 3:16 and Bible prophecy. Beyond that, JimWae raised (several times) the question of whether the paragraph accuractely represents Catholic Doctrine. Arch O. La 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does acceptance provide salvation?

Not to those who affirm the various types of religious predestination—and that's not just Calvinists! To many, the statement is backward: God chooses who to save; humans do not choose to be saved. God provides salvation, salvation provides acceptance. Check CTSWYneken's page for our discussion of this from a Lutheran point of view. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

True, if one is predestined to receive salvation, one is also predestined to accept salvation. The point is that acceptance comes after salvation, not before. For some who hold to predestination, salvation comes before birth! The different kinds of Augustinian predestination get kind of complicated between different brands of Protestants, and from what I've heard Catholics invented limbo and purgatory to cover the spread. The Eastern (Orthodox) church has a separate doctrine of predestination, but I'm not familiar with the details. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You said, "No, predestination comes before acceptance. Acceptance comes before salvation." Yes, predestination comes first; but no, Lutherans and many other Protestants would argue that salvation comes before acceptance. We are only able to accept after God has granted salvation. It's a gift. ;0) How do you accept a gift before it is given? It just doesn't make sense. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin birth, salvation, and John 3:16

1. While I personally believe that most Christians accept the Virgin Birth, JimWae contests this. If we're going to have this in the intro, we need some documentation beyond personal beliefs and church doctrine. CTSWyneken has said that he has some sources that may help.
2. I like your Alternative Salvation Sentences except for one thing: it's redundant to use both "Savior" and "salvation." A savior is by definition one who provides salvation.
3. We can document salvation on John 3:16, but it's an incomplete citation. We need more verses/passages. Again, I prefer John 3:1-21 to verse 16 alone. There are plenty of other verses in the gospels and epistles that help to define the Christian concept of salvation.

Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1) "Because Jim contests something doesn't make it not a majority view." Yup, but if we are to counter-contest we need to show that it's a significant majority. Again it goes back to sources. CTSWyneken mentioned survey data that show that belief in the Virgin Birth is a significant majority of Christians. Now, we just need to find that survey data. 2) Glad you agree. 3) Hey, I'm lay and I still find relying on one verse to be incomplete! Just mentioning salvation is itself easy-to-understand information. Readers who want to know more details or appropriate Bible verses can simply click on the link. Please don't bring up the argument that not everyone clicks on links. If we go into Biblical support for doctrines of salvation, then we're talking about Christianity rather than the life of Christ, as KMH03 and others have already pointed out. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

On John 3:16: There is some debate as to whether this is a quote by Jesus or commentary by John. What complicates things is that the original Greek does not have quotation marks, so translators have to decide for themselves whether it is quote or commentary. That said, I don't object to mentioning the verse per se, I'm just not sure that the intro is the appropriate place to mention the verse. There are other verses, and there are always footnotes.... Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the verse being objected to? For some of us, it is because it is only one verse. I care not to speculate on what reasons other people may have ;) Homestarmy and I have another solution: to quote him,

If John 3:16 seems so limited to people, what about linking to the subheading under Salvation instead about the Christian view...

I'll also quote Storm Rider:

My contention all along has been that deleting John 3:16 as a reference in the intro paragraphs does not lessen the impact of statments and its inclusion creates problems for many groups. It is a wonderful verse, but it is an incomplete summary for many Christians.

Forgive me if you've seen these, but sometimes comments get lost in a noisy room ;) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian views are based on…=

For the introduction, I feel it's enough to say that Christian views are based on the New Testament, and interpretations of the NT such as the Nicene Creed. We can get into particular Bible verses (such as John 3:16, such also as the verses you were throwing at Storm Rider two months ago ;) in the body of the article. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nontrinitarian? I think JimWae has identified himself as a nonchristian. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts the correctness of John 3:16. There are those who doubt whether the introduction is the appropriate place to bring it up, and there are others who prefer a whole-Bible approach to any one particular verse (including John 3:16). Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it later. Right now I think the contention is between you and JimWae. Most of the rest of us could live with either version.

JimWae's comments about the Trinty remind me of his earlier question as to whether God has a face and two hands. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Archola/Wikiproject:Jesus

Oh yes, I could definitely use some help. I started the outline a month ago and SOPHIA was going to help, but all of a sudden she was chased away by sockpuppet allegations. Since she's been back, she's been working on other points; last I heard, she and Jim62sch were working on cleaning up the Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus articles, based in part on Jim's translation of the German featured article.

I posted this as a subpage to Jesus two weeks or so ago, but it's just now being noticed. I'm also not sure if it's complete. I just recently found and added Jehovah's Witness's views to the list. They believe Jesus is Michael?

BTW, whatever happened to the original Wikipedia:WikiProject Jesus? I haven't seen any of the signers of that page around since before I became involved. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool! AFAIK the wikiproject hasn't done much more than create the {{Jesus}} template. My outline started with that template and the structure of the Jesus article, and I built it up from there.

I don't remember Michael being mentioned in my conversations with Jehovah's witnesses, but that was a long time ago and only two brief conversations.

I couldn't find an article about what some call the skeptical view of Jesus, and what I call the philosophical view: that Jesus, while merely a man, was an ethicist ahead of his time. This view goes back several decades; as I understand it, C. S. Lewis's trilemma was meant to be an objection against this view. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: The view that Jesus was the archangel Michael is mentioned in the main Jehovah's Witnesses article. The source given is "The Watchtower, June 15, 1998, p. 22." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

In general, I think that you really wanted to do an instant runoff (not that that's traditional for Wikipedia, but it would have certainly been closest to what I think you were trying to achieve). Beyond that, Wikipedia has generally done things by having a "by default do nothing" system. That is, you set up a single vote and if no majority is established, nothing is changed. This, for example, is the way AFD works.

I should really just give up and write a voting module for MediaWiki. It would be so easy to provide a selection of types of votes and a simple tool for injecting votes with something like <poll title="Main page format" style="IRV" anon="true" start="2006-03-15" period="1 week"> <poll_option> [[Main_Page|current format]] </poll_option> <poll_option> [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page|new format]]</poll_option> </poll>

Just a thought... -Harmil 20:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, you are seeing the Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy rename vote as a vote between changing the page name and "either not changing it or changing it a little". Through that lens, you're not seeing the plethora of outcomes of the vote (for example, in a traditional runoff, some people may have opted to switch to the simpler change when their choice of larger change was removed). You are also ignoring the fact that people will tend to stick with the option that they choose, even when that means abandoning their original choice. Your assertion that voting in a runoff between B and C doesn't mean that I won't go back to A in a final runoff is not supported by any psycological model of voting that I'm aware of. Overall, you did rush the construction of the voting, and I think you made some mis-steps. I was trying to suggest that we all take a month or two off and come back in order to let you start over and have no question as to the consensus when you're done. I really think it's in your best interest, and the page name isn't going to kill anyone in the meanwhile. On the other hand, it does give all of us the chance to start contributing to the PAGE rather than the TITLE for a while, and that can only be good for Wikipedia! -Harmil 13:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestine and History of Palestine

I definitely see your resoning for why the history section is important, the name of Palestine is perhaps only really understood through history and especially the Roman period. However, do you not think any of the sections are somwhat superfluous considering the history of Palestine article. I can't really see why we should include the mamluk and crusader periods at all, would you be opposed to perhaps removing some of this information?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Err

Do you know what huddud is? Do you realise that every Muslim lives by the shariat, as much as is possible. It is the shariat that says you should not lie, steal, kill, hurt, etc. Imagine telling Christians that if they chose to live by their Morals they'd be chucked out. he could have said, if you want the Hudud, or some other clarification, but he didn't.. he attacked the "moral code" of all Muslims. It's either hate or ignorance. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand that ALL believing Muslims adhere to the Shariat? --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but now your talking ignorant gibberish! "60% of British Muslims wishing to replace the current British government" with Shariat? - Source that, because I do not believe that. Perhaps you are referring to an ICM poll of 500 Muslims which stated that 40% of those surveyed supported the introduction of Sharia in areas "which are pre-dominantly Muslim"?[1] --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how does applying Sharia "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law" equate with the ignorant statement you posted, that is, "60% of Muslim residents convey that they would like to see the current UK government replaced" - Also, explain why the UK Commissioner waited over one year to comment on this Survey, and, apparently, ignored the one that was published on the very day of his comments? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You brought up the poll, not me, but you are right, its content is not relevent. A man in his position should not tell Muslims who want to live within their religious boundries to leave their homeland. it was am intolerant disgrace. Also, you should not invent scaremongoring false statements. Also, hatred is a cycle, a vicious one, Hate leads to hate. when the hatred that manifested itself in the form of those Cartoons was returned by most Muslims, it came in the form of peaceful prtest, or no action at all. The embassies were attacked by a minority, but yes, all the hate is wrong. --Irishpunktom\^talk 00:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Good morning. I saw yor comments on the page of User talk:Irishpunktom, and just came to say a nice hello to you. --Bhadani 16:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus article

To be honest, I've been busy at a more Christian place. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to be fair to everybody. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Your last response on my Jesus talk subpage: Indeed, people should be fair to us Christians as well! I don't want to be lion kibble, but neither do I want to be an Inquisitor.

Anyhoo, I just archived a large chunk of Talk:Jesus and added a few comments that I hope will lead to a self-assessment of the article by all editors involved. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad article

I agree, Aiden, Red Crescent's edits are vandalism.

Timothy Usher 06:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy map

Hello, I just wanted to say I found your color coordinated map of reactions to the cartoon controvery very interesting and informative. I think things like this that present data in means "outside of the box" are specially appealing. Good job. —Aiden 02:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I've gotten quite a few positive comments regarding the map. joturner 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why cap shari'a?

You changed shari'a in the Aisha article to Shari'a. Why? It's not as if shari'a were one monolithic thing. It's Islamic law; law isn't always capped; shari'a shouldn't be capped. I don't think it is in scholarly works. Zora 22:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus and Gospel Jesus

I left a long response on Talk:Jesus, but my main point is that Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels is now longer than New Testament view on Jesus' life, which was created because the section in the Jesus article was getting too long. Something is a little off when a summary is longer than the article it is meant to summarize. I just think that we should expand New Testament view on Jesus' life before we even think of expanding Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels. That article needs more work than the section in the Jesus article.

Also, I think the Gospel summary should be about a third of the Jesus article (which it currently is). Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 06:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus#Ministry

64.12.117.6 (talk • contribs) is at it again. This AOL IP just reverted your edits to the Ministry section: [2]. That's five times by my count. I don't know about you, but as I said earlier I'm getting tired of this circular editing war. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree--cherry picking is bad. I didn't make any edits to the section this weekend because I wanted to see if the anons came back. They did. They are also not coming to the talk page. What do you suggest we do next? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I considered semi-protection, but after the battles this weekend I agreed to request full protection instead. I've decided to step away from the article for a while. Have fun sorting things out ;) Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas article

I don't know if your comment "Militant is in no way a weasel word. It is used by all major media to describe the group" was directed at me or not, but if it was, the word 'militant' isn't what I was reffering to as a weasel word. It has since been reverted, but someone added to the first paragraph a part saying something like "some belive hamas to be a murdurous terrorist group, and some heroic freedom fighters". Thats what my "weasel word" comments were directed at. s»abhorreo»i 23:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bug on talk edit

Thanks! I know they watch my talk page...

There was a strange bug which made the section go blank when I tried to edit, so it was either say thanks or preserve text - I chose the former; feel free to revert.

And feel free to stop by anytime.Timothy Usher 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Aiden, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

[edit] Jesus and Matthew 5

Please see Talk:Jesus#Edit war over Matthew 5. (It's an AOL IP again). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The new look

Are you a universalist now? :) —Aiden 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There was never a point where I was not a universalist; I just didn't express that as clearly as my Muslimness before. Similarly, I know the Interstate Highway System (essentially) by heart, but I choose not to depict that on my user page. joturner 04:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. :) I find it pretty interesting. I have many Muslim friends but none that are universalist. If you don't mind me asking, wow do you reconcile your beliefs with say, the image of a cross, when you do not believe Jesus died on a cross? —Aiden 05:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We must be thinking of separate definitions of universalism. From the universalism article...

In comparative religion, universalism is the belief that true and valuable insights are available in many of the religious traditions which have grown up in various human cultures. It posits that a spiritually aware person will respect religious traditions other than his own and will be open to learning from them. It does not deny that immersion in one tradition is a useful anchor for an individual's spiritual development. While it celebrates the richness and value to be found among humankind's religious traditions, it does not necessarily deny that some things done in the name of religion, and some religious practices, are not constructive. But it distinguishes itself from the view that there is only one true faith, one uniquely chosen people, or one final prophet superseding all others.

I would have to have to distance myself from that last statement, of course. I do believe that there was a final prophet superseding all others. As for the one true faith and one uniquely chosen people, I will withhold my opinions on that. I'll just say that I believe there are many paths to peace in this world and the Hereafter. I don't exactly subscribe to the belief that all non-Muslims will go to Hell.

The universalism article as another definition states...

Universalism can also mean the wish for a closer union between all people of the world (the emergence of world citizens) and/or the aim of creating common global institutions (democratic globalization)

In these two manners, I believe I am a universalist. I don't believe that I have to believe that Jesus died on the cross to be a universalist. Unfortunately, I have encountered a closed-minded approach to other religions and beliefs among many Muslims. It bothers me greatly when religious people don't take of advantage of independent thought. joturner 05:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temple Mount

Do you have any knowledge about this topic? Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 16:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Can't do it while I'm still involved too. Isa is clearly the best name. However, the article really should be moved to Isa again because I can not find any agreement on it having been moved. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You can move it back, but someone not involved probably will have to do locking. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not how this is supposed to work. Locking isn't supposed to be an endorsement of a version, such that we arrange for something in particular to happen, then to have it locked into the "right version". Although we have noticed a certain pattern in this regard...Timothy Usher 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was not meant to be an endorsement of a version. It was meant to return the page to its pre-controversy state and allow those that wish to have it moved to file a RFM. —Aiden 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smiley Template

Copy/Pasting Mystic's message:

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

• {{smiley|1}} will produce

(Friendly smile)

• {{smiley|2}} will produce

(Confident)

• {{smiley|3}} will produce

(Mocking)

• {{smiley|4}} will produce

(Hysterical)

• {{smiley|5}} will produce

(Hurt)

• {{smiley|6}} will produce

(Very Sorry)

• {{smiley|7}} will produce

(Sleepy)

• {{smiley|8}} will produce

(You are Nive)

• {{smiley|9}} will produce

(I am not happy)

• {{smiley|0}} will produce

(No Comments)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--Aminz 04:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] militant

I suggest to drop it. Zeq 06:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zeq here Aiden. I see it as a pretty small issue that is not worth pursuing to the degree that you have. I will say that I agree with you but nevertheless I would rather follow the consensus in this case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tlkn user box

Hello, just wondering if I am seing the same thing as you: to me it is not much better, but your comment on the new version says "made readable". Can you really read the tolkien user box? With my browser it shows Tlkn in black and then white text over a white background: Totally not good to me.

[edit] Christianity

Aiden, would you be willing to keep an eye on "Christianity"? Several editors are trying to make the intro hedge on whether or not it's monotheism.Timothy Usher 22:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aiden. Kudos on the intro fix. Just to avoid confusion, my edit summary was referring to discussion of Islam. I agree 100% that "monotheistic" should appear w/out hedging in the intro. Slac speak up! 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abrahamic religion phrase

As we seem to be the ones ones who care about this phrase, and as it covers several pages, I post here:

v1) Like Y and Z, X is an Abrahamic religion. v2) X is considered an Abrahamic religion, along with Y and Z.

I prefer v1 because it's plainer language. X is an Abrahamic religion not just along with, as it happens, Y and Z, but for the same reason it is like them, historical descent. It avoids the ubiquitous "is considered", which isn't really necessary here, because the term "Abrahamic religion" is more or less defined by these three members. Whether the genetic descent from Abraham is real (as it isn't with most Christians) or whether Abraham would have preferred one to another isn't known and shouldn't matter.

What do you think?Timothy Usher 01:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

I'll drop by. But I do not know how much help I can be with the war on at Luther recently. --CTSWyneken 10:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is monotheism, of course, but I don't know if I want to jump into another firestorm, especially since that article is the center of the "cabal" allegations. I think what is happening is that people are confusing angels and demons with gods—but that is a very, very old problem. Don't even get me started with the veneration of saints: that's one of the areas in which Protestants diverge from the Catholic and Orthodoc views.

I have been watching the page, though.

BTW, whatever happened to your quiz farm scores? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 00:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have either. It was a reminder. Jkelly 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, Aiden, not to be rude, but I don't think that last revert was for vandalism.... Homestarmy 01:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to edit summary. Oh! I thought it was someone casting doubt on the phrase. --CTSWyneken 12:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ironic that someone who digs up personal information about editors is himself stalked and forced to shut his site down (as he made several editors leave Wikipedia.)"

Who left Wikipedia besides KHM03? Besides that, as I check now, the site is still up. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you could be the deciding vote

Please reconsider your neutral vote to either yes or no. Zeq 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6 day war

just saw some of your comments on the talk page. thanks for taking the effort to contest POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.116.131.107 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Baruch Goldstein

Saying that I censor talk pages is a very unpleasant accusation that does not improve the pleasure of contributing to this community project. I did explain in the edit summary why I removed the text. Also, you referred to Wikipedia policies, can you show me just one policy that states that anything that is dumped by anons at talk pages, even if unrelated to the edit proces, should remain there? gidonb 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aiden: Thank you for your comments regarding Gidonb totally removing my contribution to the talkpage on Baruch Goldstein. I really appreciate your comments. Here is the message I just sent to Gidonb:

Dear Gidonb: I was rather dismayed to read your "reasons" for deleting my contribution to the talkpage on Baruch Goldstein. These you stated to be that they were my "personal opinion" and that they were irrelevant to the article on Baruch Goldstein.

However reading through one of your contributions to this very same talkpage you wrote "Goldstein was a terrorist". Since no Court of Law has found him guilty of being a terrorist, this is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION! In addition, if it is RELEVANT for you to make such a comment on the talkpage, it is NO LESS relevant for me to bring the counter view.

You also mention "Wikipedia policies". If you would study the "Key Policies of Wikipedia" you would see that one of them is "Respect other Contributors". However despite this you totally removed my contribution and when "Aiden" accused you of "censoring talk pages" you classed this as an "unpleasant accusation".

I consider my contribution to this talkpage no less relevant than your contributions and I am therefore restoring it. Simonschaim 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Simonschaim 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My belief is that Talk pages exist so user's can offer their views on a subject. Talk pages are not subject to WP:NPOV or other article policies and there is no reason to remove another user's comments, save for vandalisim. —Aiden 14:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on monotheism

I just stumbled across and read the latest tome of this debate, and I want to thank you for your intelligent and level-headed comments. Kudos to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lcee (talk • contribs).

[edit] My Lai Massacre

Regarding the tags you added to this article. There is a very long list of references at the bottom of the page. In-line citations are not required on Wikipedia, though they can certainly be helpful. Speaking of helpful, you might like to consider making a request for in-line citations on the article's talk page rather than tagging a subject that is so well-known as this, and for which the principle controversies concern the intentions of the parties involved and the apportioning of blame, not so much the incident itself. I suggest this because I can imagine these tags provoking an edit war - and that would be very unfortunate and counterproductive. I think it's better (particularly with subjects of a politically divisive nature) to discuss first, raise problems and try to resolve them, and if that fails, to tag and take it to the next step. Pinkville 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Of the references listed in the References section, only three are actually cited in the article. The intro includes no citations, nor does the entire Background section. The Massacre section, comprising nine paragraphs, has only two references cited. Of the Cover-up section's five paragraphs, only one sentence, a quote, is cited. The remaining two sections, Courts martial and Aftermath have no citations. Throughout the article, there are many things claimed as fact, such as the "body count" mission evaluations, with absolutely no references to back up these claims. This systematic bias, unsourced as well, is flagrant in this article. In-line citations would be required at the end of nearly every sentence in the article. For these and other reasons I have disputed the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article, as well as cited lack of sources for the individual sections. Please see the Talk page of the article for further discussion. —Aiden 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Systematic bias, indeed. Thank you for being there to try to keep it straight. --Beth C. 09:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haditha incident

217.235.215.177 whom you've been reverting has petitioned the admins' noticeboard, saying you're reverting him without discussion. It would be helpful if you did reply to his post on Talk:Haditha incident about the 'speculative' thing. If you have a good reason for not having replied yet, like because you've gone to bed (as I should have done at least an hour ago), I apologise :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Since its the last topic I will just add here. I think your work on Haditha Incident has been very good, you keep the article NPOV and prevent it from placing guilt before any is found. Just a heads up to let you know someone appreciates your work. --zero faults talk 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I second zero faults' commendation. Thanks, Aiden. --Beth C. 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Another remark about Haditha: Your reverts on the Killings/Massacre/Whatever are useful, but please take care not to revert too much. The remark about the journalists is clearly POV. --217.235.254.124

[edit] just wanted to say

I loved the quotes on your user page :) --Cyprus2k1 16:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself."

[edit] Featured Picture

An image you uploaded, Image:Us declaration independence.jpg, has just become a Featured Picture. Congratulations, and thanks for uploading it. Raven4x4x 06:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)