User talk:KHM03/Archive 2

This is ARCHIVE 2 for my talk page....

Aug 05 through Sept 05.

Shield of the Trinity

Could you please explain further your reasons for removing the "Christian Theology" category from the "Shield of the Trinity" article? The Shield of the Trinity is not a pure geometric symbol which vaguely lends itself to a variety of interpretations (like the Triquetra, which has been used as a symbol for Paganism, Christianity, Occultism, and Led Zeppelin IV). Rather, it contains a number of specific positive and negative assertions about the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and presents a basic quasi-logical model of the interrelationships within the Trinity (as discussed on the article page). -- AnonMoos 17:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, it's greatly appreciated. Do you know if there's a central listing of Christian-related categories anywhere? I'm having difficulty finding out which categories exist... AnonMoos 23:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Found them at Category:Christianity

No prob

Happy to do it; I warned him that any more vandalism would result in a thourough thrashing, and I intend to enforce it. If you see anything, let me know. -- Essjay · Talk 14:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Satisfaction view

Why do I feel like you create pages with lots of opposition links just to get us Calvinists to do your bidding and fill them in? I'm starting to wonder if you really view us as little piggies with rings in our noses that allow you to tug us this way and that. ;-) --Flex 17:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I apologize, I had no intention of being percieved as committing Vandalism. I simply wanted to note that I liked some of your quotes, but as I had never done so before I did not know the proper forum. --Lucavix 18:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Reformed Fundamentalism

Actually, I am very committed to Reformed theology. I am a member of a congregation of the Presbyerian Church in America. I also love a more liturgical worship which we practice in our congregation. Where I am critical is that I sometimes see this kind of fundamentalism where some question the profession of faith of those that do not hold exactly to EVERY tenant of Reformed theology. There are those we call the "TR's" (for "truly Reformed") who think that if you take an exception to even a non-essential part of the Westminister Confession, one is not "Reformed" and guilty of heresy. As an example, I strongly believe in infant baptism, but would consider a Baptist as my Christian brother. I would allow a person with Baptist convictions to join the church, but would try to work with that person on their understanding of the subject without engaging in super heated arguments. Some of the "TR's" might tell that person they would "fit-in" better at a Baptist church. Do you understand?

I was trying to describe in the article I created some of the phenomenon that I've observed over the years in Reformed churches, which is what I call (and others have called) Reformed Fundamentalism. Then the Reformed "stooge" (as you call him-not very nice) came along and wiped all my descriptions because it evidently offended him. Of course, I expect that from someone in his denomination. I belonged to it for 9 years, and they think they are the best because they are so small, so God MUST be on their side. I am not alone in my observations of this phenemenon. Others have used the term "Reformed fundamentalism" in such ways. The person who wiped my article took it into an entirely different direction. Let's see if he can tolerate what I put out there next.

Award

For patience and grace in dealing with trolls I award you this seal of excellence:

No cheapskate "barnstars," you are hereby awarded this barn!

Vandalism

Keith:

I saw that last night; since I wasn't aware of what relationship you might have with him, I didn't revert it on sight. I'm going to take him at his word (above) and just leave a note to be more careful in the future. You seem to be having a spree of questionable edits to your page; have you been off making enemies while I wasn't looking? ; - ) Anyhow, if you need anything, you know where to find me! -- Essjay · Talk 05:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have your page on my watchlist, so if I see anything, I'll take care of it. If you see anything else, let me know, and I won't be so lenient. -- Essjay · Talk 11:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for you Bernard Ramm comment. while I do not agree with all that Ramm said I did create the category and cite what I agreed with at least.

I also created other new bios as well.

ken 18:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

The Worst Kind of Calvinist

I went to hear Sinclair Ferguson speak at our presbytery meeting last night. He spoke on the controversy caused by the New Perspective on Paul. I took a lot of notes, but something he said was really funny, and this is the quote: "The worst kind of Calvinist is one that was an Arminian yesterday." How that rings so true. Peace to you.Gregory Y 17:43:55, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

Re: Troll

Done and done. I blocked him for 48 hours. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

quick comment

Thank you for your Ramm compliment. I created other Christian scholar bios too.

Thank you for pulling the two sections in the Christianity subject area. I am the one who created the "response to criticisms of Christianity". I realize now that in a consensus environment very assertive responses to harsh criticisms of Christianity will not be tolerated. It does seem to me though that the Christian community was allowing the criticisms to pile up without responding to them and they should not have. Also, it seems like the virtuous acts of Christians were underepresented while the bad acts of Christians flourished in the "Christianity" article.

I have a request. If Freud is used as a critic of Christianity could you please cite this article showing religion is a boon to mental health and not a detriment as Freud alleged. The article is from the Mayo Clinic.

• Study, Review and Editorial Focus on Religion, Spirituality and Medicine

I realize that citations showing mental health problems associated with atheism would probably not go over well. LOL

ken 23:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

from the anonymous writer

I am kdbuffalo. I was getting a little hassled by some Wikipedia members who I wish not to discuss. Nothing major and we are on pretty good terms considering they are atheists and oppose what I compose. I just found I had less problems going anonymous. Please do not mention this to anyone else.

I realize I have been complaining about lack of response to Christian critics. I found however that the liberal christians and skeptics are far more active. For example, there was not a conservative Christianity category until I created it today. I am not "complaining" because I am miffed, angry, etc. I just wanted to rouse the sleeping dragon! LOL I thought the Lord of flies in some ways had busier bees.

By the way, if you want to add to the list of people at conservative Christianity feel free.

More Christian mythology

Your comments on the current discussion in Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises#A_new_suggestion would be much appreciated. Thanks. JHCC (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: The basic (if unofficial) Wesleyan answer to all of this is, "Who cares?" Christians ought to be too busy saving souls to worry too much about this stuff (I got in trouble sometimes for saying that to my Calvinist profs in seminary!)

Hi, I'm just wondering, though it's not relevant to that page, what Wesleyans would mean by this. By what methods do they propose to "save souls"? I don't look to them to save my soul, any more than they should look to me to save theirs. I look to Christ only for this - not to my brothers and sisters in Him...! Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 15:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

(see response at Codex Sinaiticus' talk page)

Thanks

I have to admit that sometimes I get a little disappointed when someone reverts vandalism before me :) The pages are taking forever to load tonight! Kewp 18:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I try to do that when I know something about the subject... sorry if I stepped on your toes! Kewp 19:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Anderson

Hey, I really appreciate the tip. I may have read it a long time ago, but will look for it when I can (I am currently on the road). I remember reading a great "The History of Israel" by someone named Bright, too, I think, maybe you kinow it? SR

UMCOR

Stole your link. That's one relief agency I have no hesitation supporting. (Now if I only had two cents to rub together this month...) Guettarda 19:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity

I notice that you seem to need 4, (four, I stress) responses to the one, singular, criticism of christianity allowed by Bertrand Russell.

So initialy, all the criticism made by various different authors, all of them: Voltaire, Chomsky - renowned international thinkers - are NOT ALLOWED by the christian fundamentalists who seem to govern what goes on on the Christianity wikipedia page. They must be removed. No criticism is allowed to exist.

So a long section, several paragraphs long is completely deleted, and all that is put in its place is ONE link to the Bertrand Russell speech where he explains "Why I am not a christian". (This is hardly a criticism of Christianity is it?)

Anyway, the point I am making is that you seem to want to pretend that no criticism exists, and will only tolerate one link, while adding a whole bunch refuting the one that you allow. It is intellectualy peurile.

Do you understand the Wikipedia NPOV policy? I don't really think you can, KHMO3, after the way you constantly violate it.

You hardly disprove the criticism many people have of Christians that they are intolerant. (posted by anomymous user 202.62.97.1 on 9 September 2005)

What are you talking about? What links did I delete? Are you sure you have the right guy? KHM03 16:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Who are you? Have we run across one another on Wikipedia previously? KHM03 17:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me as some kind of weird joke. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

I'd be perfectly willing to look over that all. But give me some evidence please. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Medicine that is harmful and ineffective

I'm not sure what kind of plans Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs) has. My experience with this user in the past has taught me that his POV may surface only after a little while. I added some balance to the article, anyway. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA...I'll try to be good Lectonar 11:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

to:KMH03

I believe you have 308% good intentions and were looking to make things more fair for the BSF position and give a true picture. I think you inadvertenty made a mistake though. MickWest moved all of the "bad" historical context material and put it in the objections to commnon knowledge. When you restored the old objections to common knowledge you duplicated material so the same sentences are said twice. I know it must have been an accident. Please see the BSF talk page as I believe I make an important remark about this just now. I am going to restore the version I put up so the same sentences are not said twice.

ken 15:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

More Christian mythology

There is a new proposal at Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises#JHCC's_new_proposal. Please read and comment. JHCC (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Android79's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. android79 15:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of Christianity

It's quite a party you have going. I don't suppose that people there would be interested in moving the bulk of the article to Criticisms of sin, or adding a little substance to the weak articles on Hypocrisy and Heresy? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Did I answer their question? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back

It most certainly was; I'm ready to change that "status" indicator for the first time in quite a while. -- Essjay · Talk 18:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

from Pwt898@msn.com

Thanx for the welcome & encouragement! :)

Thanks awfully

Ta for supporting my recent RfA, much appreciated. I'll endeavour to use these new powers wisely....dave souza 12:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA (reply)

Hi, KHM03, thanks for your offer, and I appreciate the confidence in me that it shows. Actually, another user mentioned the possibility several weeks ago of nominating me, and I felt I'd like a bit more experience. I said something about 1,000 edits at the time. I've just reached that, but now I feel I'd like to get up to 1,500. I haven't yet started any articles, though I hope to do so soon – small, non-controversial articles, like Grapefruit seed extract and Conservatory of Music and Drama, Dublin. I have Open University exams in the middle of next month, so wouldn't be in a position to answer any queries or criticism that might appear on an RfA page around that time. Anyway, when I've got up to 1,500, and feel I know a little more about Wikipedia policy, I'll be back to you either to remind you of your offer of nomination, or to ask you to vote. I'm sure it will take me less time to get from 1,000 to 1,500 than it took in getting from 500 to 1,000, as my exams will be over. (And of course I'd expect your vote to reflect what you think at the time of voting, so don't feel bound by any previous offer.) Thanks again! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo please. Dunc|☺ 13:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you should post at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo#Outside_view. If it's not the right place, someone will let you know where you should post. But by all means, post your impression of the situation. Guettarda 23:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight

As a member of WikiProject Comics, I thought you might be interested in the Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight we have set up. Please feel free to vote on the articles listed, although bear in mind that a vote for a particular article means you are pledging to help improve the article. The goal of the collaboration is to improve articles to Featured Article status, as we feel Comics is under-represented in that area. Thanks for your help. Steve block talk 15:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo

to: KMH03

Behind your back and the back of Mark, duncharris and MickWest have been harrassing me. I did give Mark an example. I have shown where duncharris is harrassing others as well. I don't think these atheist bullboys who act one way in front of others and another way towards me should be allowed to do this. You can see by the "fundie" message that duncharris has admitted I have been polite. I have been.

I have not asked MickWest and duncharris to do anything hard. Is it is easy. Stop harrassing me. MickWest is more clever at it than duncharris who leaves tracks. However, I told MickWest to stop messaging me. I told him to do all discourse though talk pages yet the messages designed to irrate me continue to my talkpage. There is no reason for this.

I realize that some Wikipedians might not appreciate my latest satire. However, given MickWest's past generous and inappropriate use of the edit key without using talk pages and given dunc and mickwest's idiotic behavior some satire was certainly called for.

to: KMH03

I revised my last message to you.

128.205.191.87 00:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Wikipedians are likely not going to help and I realize I made some mistakes too

I know Mark, KMH03, and others know the following:

1. I used a very large amount of excellent sources like medical/science journals, medical historians, etc. Even Mark who does not hold my view admitted this matter.

2. I clearly said I was not a Bible literalist.

3. I wanted to live in peace with each position presenting its views. Yet the anti-BSF people would not allow this to occur. The medical/science journal and other sources were constantly eliminated.

Here is the Wikipedia policy though:

"None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." [1]

4. I know they realize that Duncharris is not telling the truth about my sources and he is not telling the truth about me being a Bible literalist yet they remain silent. I don't believe this is right.

Now given the article on Wikipedia creationism do I really believe Wikipedia is committed to their policy on minority view articles and thus my minority view article would be treated fairly? No, I do not. If they were committed to the minority view articles, the management would have done something about the creationism article a long time ago.

Now should I have broken the 3R policy the one time I believe I did this? No. Just because the other side breaks Wikipedia rules does not mean I should. The same goes for the "Admin Duncharris the bullyboy atheist" article in which I describe his harrassing messages to me and his harrassment of others.

Lastly, I do think I spent inordinate time trying to reason with the unreasonable. I think that time would have been better spent going though channels (although I don't think it would have worked) or doing other things.

128.205.191.88 14:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

addendum, I read your message and re: the "pirate" issue

Put yourself in my shoes. Would you want a series of harrassing messages and nobody publically condemning it?

You want me to go non-anonymous so I can be part of the Wikipedian community. Yet has the Wiki community done a lick to say Duncharris is spreading falsehoods about me? No, they have not. I don't think your silence was right especially since even mark said I used a plentitude of excellent sources and I clearly said I was not a Bible literalist. I realize I should have not created the article on Duncharris or done the instance of over 3R though as I admitted.

Second, the whole pirate thing is a misnomer. Wikipedia allows anonymous editing.

128.205.191.88 15:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

cooperation is asked for but is true cooperation asked for?

I don't have any problem with the NPOV rule. I just see censorship over and over. Wikipedia is clear:

"None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." [2]

Now I have wanted to have cooperation and have good faith efforts on both sides. I have listened to the other side and taken feedback. I made some changes although admittedly not a lot.

However, Cooperation may never happen. Why?

Here is why:

1. Does some person keep changing the theological conservative Christianity internal link in the Biblical scientific foreknowledge (BSF) article so it goes to the Christian right (Falwell, etc). Would a person who wants to act in good faith do that?

2. Would people who act in good faith send harrassing messages ("fundie" etc).

I think the people calling for cooperation yet saying absolutely nothing publically about the bad behavior of certain anti-BSF parties are not seeking true cooperation. What they are asking for is the minority view be trampled despite the Wikipedia policy.

ken 15:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

addendum

The Bible says the heart is deceitfully wicked above all things. The above devious tactics are not a great surprise. Now you can pretend that someone is not changing the conservative Christianity link to Christian right. You can pretend MickWest is not harrassing me with messages to my userpage I said I did not want but that doesn't make it so. You can choose not to view duncharris's userpage. That is your choice but don't ask me to endorse it. I am not going to. I am not going to exist in LaLa land and pretend MickWest and Duncharris are reasonable. They have shown they are not and it is likely not going to change. I can adjust to this and recognize this matter. I suggest you do the same.

Now you say BSF is minority. Does the Bible say the universe had a beginning? Do scientist increasinng recognize this matter? Do major medical historians recognize where the Bible was ahead of its time? Yes they do. Now I cannot help people's ignorance regarding these matters but I am not going to let it decide for me my position.

some comments

My view is that Mark and you do not do malicious things to the article. If everyone where like you and mark who disagreed with me there would be no problem here. Any conflict of ideas could be worked out. This has not been the case though. I know this page like it or not has been like a creationism page with harrassment and other unsavory tactics being employed. I would be foolish not to recognize this given what I have experienced.

Now I don't think the anti-BSF people who are not like you and Mark are likely going to change or don't need to change. You may think so. You may think they can be worked with. I think if they could be worked with they would have to be held more accountable for their actions and this is likely not going to happen given the amount of silence that is occuring. The creationism article tells me that Wikipedia is not very interested in protecting minority view articles anyways.

Too late now, my hat is in the ring

I've run with a guess, put on a different "hat", and in doing so I'm putting myself at hazard. If it's viewed cynically, what I'm doing won't be looked on favorably at all. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Your question — I'm just being a lot more aggressive in trying to solve the "problem" than I feel comfortable with. I'm ok. How are you? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)