User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 7

53:

why I didn't vote. I had thought that this would simply be an initial poll and that there would be more votes being taken in the near future once it had entered the 'policy proposal' stage. I'm not exactly clear on how Knowledge operates as far as these technical details are concerned, and I figured that in the meantime I might as well learn how the whole system works so that I would be able to make proper arguments without the risk of being attacked as someone who isn't clear on these things. Perhaps, considering my background and where I'm coming from in all this, I should have simply jumped in. I don't understand why you have been attacked, and why this debate that you have initiated has been attacked, and why they all seem to be so eager to shut it down. I strongly disagree with ending this proposal before it has even begun.

1978:

empirically invalid), you don't have to convince me that judges decisions have great import. The point is that the form of the logic and verbal reasoning used to make decisions about what others are allowed to do or not do is almost identical. In this sense, editors act as authorities, make judgments, and apply rules. As far as I can see, this is done with greater success in the Knowledge than in the courtroom. Despite vandals and kooks and deep conflicts, the Knowledge has produced a remarkable compendium of human knowledge in a the wink of an eye. I have yet to see any such rational productive process in the courtroom. Our system of justice is bizarrely random, so bizarrre that few people can imagine how arbitrary it is.

2016:

I know when I add information I know or believe are accurate, if they are wrong, then fixing them is exactly what should be done. But if they are completely wrong, pausing, thinking "whats trying to be said" and using your own deep knowledge to put an amended version that tries to correct the error or make the same point better, works too. I don't mind reversion here and there, we all add things others will differ on. Wholesale "its not how I see it so wind back to my version" done too often, appears to be something quite different. I'm probabkly not saying this well. So simply, I appreciate much the gentler more thoughtful approach recently, its much enjoyed and it's making working on the article a pleasure.

676:

and revert these changes, regardless of what editors of those articles may think. If most editors do not dispute or oppose the changes, then why should Jguk be allowed to revert every single article like that based upon non-existent policy? You and MPerel have provided, IMHO, more than enough evidence of this, unless we are also required to comment upon each and every instance, and/or provide every instance of reversion as well. The larger issue at hand is whether or not non-Christian articles have the right to adhere to BCE/CE if it is more appropriate and justified. I think all that has been presented, as well as our statements, illustrate all of this as clearly as is humanly possible.

2190:– in my view – confuse this issue with the notion of “racial suprematism”. Racial suprematist positions can use either the theological mode of argument or the naturalist one. They are not dependant on one or other of these views. As for the central claim that theologians have argued that Jesus must have been a physically ideal person, that’s well established. There are a number of descriptions of Jesus from spurious ancient sources that were accepted as legitimate during the middle ages. One 'Publius Lentullus' is supposed to have described him as of “singular beauty, surpassing the children of men". There are several other such idealised descriptions. You can find them on this website 74:

his objections could possibly be. This is why I think it is vital that this issue be taken into the proposal stage eventually, or at the very least it should become Knowledge policy not to impose 'BC/AD' on articles which have literally absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. My apologies for this very long message, but I felt I had to fully explain where I am coming from (though I think you understood this from the very start) and why I did not become involved in the debate, and I truly hope that this issue does not become closed down or shut away in some dark corner to be forgotten, and that your efforts are very much appreciated. Again, thank you.

2012:

your edits, concerning killing in self-defense. But in reverting that I reverted other changes of yours. I am sure that as I continue to work on this article there will be times when I revert or edit other contributions you have or will have ade to the article. But please know that I will be more careful in the future, to make changes more judiciously. I think several of your recent edits have really improved the article, and I want you to know that I acknowledge that."

2032:

sections split or reorganized for ease of reading. Again, if you have questions bring them to the talk page; I'm pretty sure none of the changes have been large enough to count as major editing, its small stuff here and there for flow and focus, and splitting out long paragraphs into better structured slightly smaller ones in a few places. Plus splitting "prophets" in 1st kingdom, into 2 sections, "prophets" and "worship". Comments welcome of course

1245:. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of recieving abuse from me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Wetman, etc. (whom Melissadolbeer claims to be sockpuppets of one-another) are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. Indeed, one of the earlier sockpuppets - 1633:

Ishmael, Isaac ...). I'm thinking that then, perhaps we might show the importance of the idea in general to Jewish self-understanding. Throughout, but the latter especially, is where I would need your help - unless you think that the project is ill-conceived from the outset. Issues touching the documentary hypothesis come in here, too, but perhaps can be redirected to the article on

327:

that relate to you and wikipedia i.e major articles contributions you've made. Also photos are quite good. Then if you want to put interesting bits of information not relating to you, put them underneath, with their own headings. Don't go overboard and make a 300k article which you seem to love doing! That's my advice for now. Making it look pretty comes after fixing the content. --

37:

my changes were reverted by another who opposed this move, stating that this change was unnecessary and would confuse people. I strongly disagree with this user. Should I avoid any attempt at converting existing articles (of the ancient Iranian history variety) due to potential conflict (with users who strongly adhere to BC/AD)? Your input would be much appreciated.

59:

connection to Christianity I find to be very chauvinistic in this day and age. Perhaps 'chauvinistic' is a strong word, but how else can I describe it as? I have absolutely no desire to impose 'BCE/CE' on Christian-related articles or even upon the histories of Christian European civilisations. That is an entirely different issue, and I don't understand why

363:

demean the Bible. I actually look at it as traditional (Nicene) Christianity has viewed Jesus...fully divine yet also fully human. I am comfortable living with paradox, but understand that many are not. I hope that the sometimes unkind words thrown your way don't wound too deeply; they are not representative of Christianity in general or Christians.

1707:

opinion arises out of honesty, faith and a noble commitment to scholarship. He pretends that it's an honest view of Christianity to see it as a scheme concocted for the overthrow of Caesar, and he's called brilliant. He says that the Church cooked up the story of the betrayal of Jesus in a plot to destroy the Jews, and he's called enlightened.

282:. That, obviously, doesn't apply to Encyclopedia pages. People are welcome to add comments to historical pages, of course, but they should not do so under the impression that they are actively being listened to. If people want to revive an old idea, they should realize that they need to do some effort, e.g. putting it up at the village pump. 601:

BC/AD but am not opposed to the other one. I do, however, oppose some of the reasoning behind the changes. SouthernComfort, for example, seems to think that all article should be changed over that relate to topics outside of Christianity and Western Europe – this is obviously too general and will cause problems.

1237:- better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and 2189:

My main intent was to stress that there is a theological tradition concerning Jesus’s appearance that depends on the assumption that his birth was miraculous, and so that normal arguments about what someone from that part of the world would look like do not apply. It was Silence who seemed to wish to

2175:

of argument about Jesus's appearance than the naturalistic one previously discussed in the article. I thought it important to add this fact. I also thought that the last sentence I added was useful as a lead-in to the next section discussing artistic portrayals of Jesus. I still do not understand why

1970:

I visited my user talk page for the first time today and saw your 10/9 note to me. I didn't understand the function of talk pages to communicate back and forth or that user talk pages could even exist if I had not created a user page. Every time I had clicked on my talk page, I found a long list of

1268:

article in order to turn into a valid encyclopedic entry, as opposed to the incoherent sampling of "original research" that it once was. But I'm having no luck dealing with Ultramarine, whose English is too poor and POV too strong to understand that his content belongs in related entries on Communist

675:

I'm not sure we have to go that far in having to provide exhaustive evidence - the case, as it seems to me, is pretty clear cut all around. The issue in question is whether or not it is proper for a user such as Jguk to go around to every single article which is BCE/CE (or has been changed to BCE/CE)

488:

claiming vote of 31/19 was consensus - I thought we had reached a less satisfying for all but more broadly supported consensus of using both BC/BCE and avoiding AD 2005 CE except if the context does not clearly indicate before or after. Could you help out over there if you agree this is the consensus

326:

Ok, the 1st thing you need to do is get rid of anything from the page that is conversations with others that should have been on the talk page. Just make another archive of them or something. At the top of the page should be an introduction, saying who you are etc. Maybe just below that put things

2015:

I appreciate that. What's always irked has been the sense of editing "if its not 100% then overrule and wind back, and 100% is based upon how I think it should be". If thats no longer how its working, I value that, and value the working together to jointly draw into articles the best we can all add.

1710:

I understand why Paul is perceived as hateful toward the Jews - but he was no flatterer when he professed to love his kindred, and set himself openly against them. If you don't see why Crossan is seen as hateful by Christians, that's a blind spot. The greatest acts of hatred are accompanied with a

1706:

I assure you, you have not offended me. Crossan, Spong and people like them who use their apostasy like a credential, are more obviously motivated by malice than you seem to recognize, however. He speculates that the body of Jesus was eaten by wild dogs, and the world pretends to believe that this

657:

I fully support the idea of contributors to the article having a weighting to their argument, but also maintain that the edit war should not be continuing while the topic is in discussion on the talk page. Both parties were at fault for that. My opinion (and the reason for my involvement) was that

187:

I very much appreciate the advice, and Sunray has been very helpful in this area. Though it seems the current proposal has 'failed,' so to speak, this shouldn't be the end of it, and I certainly hope you continue in your efforts despite whatever you have had to go through with your opponents. I hope

73:

Honestly, I would like to go ahead and revert Jguk's revert, but if he is strongly behind his POV (and it seems to me that he is), it will get nowhere very fast. And if not him, there might be someone else. I was taken aback somewhat when he reverted in the first place as I could not understand what

52:

read through the debate, nor was I completely aware that the Manual of Style was absolutely inclusive of both terminologies. My general idea of the debate was that it was centred around the issue of POV/NPOV and I wasn't sure what my thoughts on that were at the time votes were being taken, which is

36:

last night. I feel that I am justified in doing this since BCE/CE is standard in academia and there is no strong connection between Christianity (I am strongly opposed to BC/AD due to the Christian connotations) and Iranian history, and more and more articles have begun to adhere to BCE/CE. However,

1645:

to help me with in the past, but he doesn't seem to be around right now. It's not that you're second-class, mind you, but rather, RK always was so willing to set me straight about things Jewish, which I appreciated. If I was concerned that I might unintentionally offend, I would go to him first as

770:

BC/AD edits Jguk/Jongarrettuk has made since October)! I have to say I am quite shocked at the extent of his anti-BCE/CE campaign. The list is currently in html format however, so I will need to convert it to a wikipedia-friendly format. The only problem is that I will be offline for the rest of

600:

be made unless discussed on the relevant talk page (or possibly a relevant and related WikiProject talk page). BCE and CE, to me, have their problems (as highlighted in the proposal discussion) and by changing to them it is bound to cause problems, just as spelling changes do. Personally I prefer

128:

I just want to add that I am currently engaged in several disputes with Southern Comfort, and that I am subject to the same sort of aggressive reverting, refusal to compromise, and insulting remarks about which SC complains when such tactics are directed at him by others. I wish that SC would treat

91:

and the history. You know, it's one thing for them to do that if it were a Christian chronology, but this is too much. I won't be backing down on this one. I've also added my comments in support of the continued discussion to the BCE/CE debate ('Move to close' section). Hopefully this will all lead

2134:

I notice that you have just added a passage to the discussion about Jesus and race in which you refer to "Paul's invocation of the ideal race". I wish to make it clear that the "invocation" of an ideal race – or rather the use of the term – is entirely Silence's. I know it is hard to keep track of

2197:

by F.W. Farrar, dated 1901 which contains the same information. There was a theological debate about whether Jesus would have looked ordinary or ideal. St Jerome and St Augustine both argued that he would have been ideally beautiful, As Augustine said, he was "beautiful as an infant, beautiful on

2011:

You wrote: "Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I value many of the changes you have recently made to this article. And I want to apologize for having been overzealous in reverting some of your earlier changes. I know that in one case you were — as far as my research shows — wrong about one of

1977:

I never challenged the notion that judges' decisions are often more important than editors. They (judges) terrify me. As an expert witness in civil commitment hearings in which I witness the indefinite incarceration of people (often for decades!) because of judges' beliefs (that are known to be

1045:

I noticed you faded out of sight, and I was wondering if it was related to the BCE matter. So far the new "eras" proposal seems to have died down again. Good to hear that you are being productive - with the amount of effort you have put into Knowledge over the course of several years, it really

643:

clearly shows a debate in which SouthernComfort tries to justify his change but two others (not including Jguk) said that it shouldn't be changed. Both Jguk and Codex Sinaiticus reverted the change but SouthernComfort insisted on his version. That, to me, shows an unwillingness to step back and

431:

Slrubenstein, I apologize in advance for not involving myself in the case; however, I feel that the case rests on a trivial issue and should be thrown out. In addition, I don't want to waste my efforts on what appears to be a hopeless venture for both parties. For the record, I don't support edit

362:

Hi...I appreciate your comments on your user page about the Bible. I am a Christian (ordained clergy, in fact) who believes quite firmly in Scriptural truth and authority and inspiration, but I also maintain that it has a powerful culturally-influenced human element, and this does not in any way

1637:

I don't have much of a taste for the integrity of those theorists, or for their speculative and arbitrary meta-textual interpretations, although the most respected modern scholars invariably pay homage to them - but that's also why I've come to you, because I have perceived you feel friendlier

2031:

I have done some work on "historical and cultural context", Although it looks quite big in red, in fact there are not many changes, I have tried to respect your current work on it. Most of it is flow and removal of word complications suited to a book rather than an encyclopedia, and a couple of

1632:

refrain to explain the literary structure of the books of Moses, and especially of Genesis. I want to draw special attention to Abraham as the principal figure of Genesis, and in light of that centrality the curious omission of his name from the head of any of the toledoth refrains (... Terah,

1358:

I have just read some of the items on your page regarding myself and they are totally untrue. Not only do I not have anything against you, but as a new user could probably use some help -- thanks for your advice. As you can see, I am in over my head and seem to have become the object of Ril's

926:

You wrote: "I also take issue with the comment on monotheism. It is likely that at an early stage of their history, Jews were henotheistic, and elements of those traditions are included in the Torah. However, this does not mean that the Jews who wrote or edited the Torah were not monotheists."

867:

According to Peter Daniels (a Cornell and Chicago trained linguist), "'C.E.' and 'B.C.E.' came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern studies, where (a) there are many Jewish scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a

727:

Hi Steve, I'm having a discussion with this VfD. The issues are IMHO being missed by most of the voters. I don't know who the reflective historians are around here - who know the difference between literary and historical criticism - but I think some new voices are needed. You seem to have some

577:

I really can't say I like the tone you took on my talk page. It seems to me that you are annoyed that your proposal has flopped and won't see anyone trying to help if it goes against your preferences. Re-read what I have said above and you might realise that I've tried to diffuse the issue by

67:

has also articulated, 'BCE/CE' is well accepted in academia (I have no idea whether this is true in the U.K., but I know that here in the States as well as Canada it is) and 'BC/AD' just looks archaic (aside from all the other POV problems). So, in addition to the other reasons I have listed, I

58:

At any rate, none of the ancient Elamite kings and Iranian Shah's were Christian, and Iranian history (which includes Elamite history), as with Jewish, Indian, and Chinese history, long predates Christianity. To impose the 'BC/AD' terminology on the history of these civilisations which have no

829:

Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the

209:

Not at all, your advice is perfectly 100% valid and appreciated (I just wish things could be so readily resolved through communication.) I don't want to get you inadvertently involved in this situation (what can I say, she left the comments ;) so I will not say anything further about that. I

1988:

So regarding the content of our differences, while I can imagine that if we talked this out at length I would come to understand that you were saying something completely different from what I thought you meant, I still don't see any clear contradiction between the words you used and my

1249:, even seems to have had a problem with you yourself. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Knowledge, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. 619:

Most revert wars could be avoided if the person that did the original change stops and thinks "why was I just reverted?" and talks to the reverter on the article talk page. When it was clear that there were objections SouthernComfort should've just gone to the talk page to discuss this

1989:

interpretation. That is, while I take your word for it and accept the fact that I misunderstood you, I don't understand why you thought it was an obvious, to the point of intentional, misunderstanding---even before I repeated the interpretation (not knowing of your note to me).

944:"Quoting of rules, guidelines etc is not done by objective Pan-Dimensional Beings. It is done by people with POVs, because they feel strongly about particular positions. The demand for NPOV is often in practice motived by resistance to one POV or the desire to promote another one. 1813:

article. It's turned into a slow-moving edit war, but the most frustrating thing is that the anonymous editor(s) refuse to discuss anything on the Talk page, and keep editing using different ip addresses. Do you have any suggestions for working towards a resolution in this case?

451:

you are merely showing your POV about the subject. The original style (BC/AD) should be maintained and your reverts to the contrary are against current policy. I understand your annoyance about the situation and would support BCE/CE if that was what the article started with.

2142:

the phrases about an "ideal race" and "racial suprematism" were added by Silence in this specific unexplained edit. And yet, bizarrely, his recent comments on the Talk page imply that these statements are mine, not his, since he devotes some effort to arguing against them!

158:(as well as article histories for evidence of the POV revisionism and denial of factual history, in addition to blatant vandalism, that she has insisted on imposing upon these articles) for the frustratingly gory details. She is currently the only one disputing 644:

look at discussions. By changing to BCE/CE he has shown a POV; one that wasn't accepted by two separate authors and he should therefore take it to the talk page. Sunray, in this case, didn't help by coming along and reverting rather than talking about it.

188:

you don't give up on this as I think your involvement is warranted considering your initial proposal has had results in proving that current policy is flawed. At any rate, I hope all of this will lead somewhere, whether a compromise or policy solution.

2164:

Of course, according to orthodox Christian theology his birth was wholly miraculous, bypassing conventional genetic laws of inheritence, so ordinary arguments about race have no relevance to anyone who accepts the doctrine that Jesus was literally the

210:

understand and respect your position, which seems to be the most logical route to take. I will definitely take a look at the Bible article and discussion, as I would seem to require a great deal of catching up to do on all of this, as usual.

578:

talking about it and returning it to it's pre-war state. I was not justifying either argument, just showing you that changing from one to the other is controversial and that the policy needs to be reworded to account for such procedures.

465:

I'm sorry but your argument is not correct. For dates and spellings we stick to what the original author used. You are arguing about the content not expanding when it's simply these stylings of the article that should remain constant.

591:

I apologise for the proposal-bashing above - I was just replying to your message too hastily having been annoyed by the way it sounded. My point has always been that such changes should not be taken lightly. As I have just written at

1992:

No need to explain. I just wanted you to know I did not mean to insult you, and did not know about your note to me, and that I still have a hard time understanding why my misunderstanding seemed so eggregious, even the first time.

1906:

If you have the time, do you think you could review some of the discussion there and, if you deem it appropo, see what you can do about Ken's tone and approach to editing? Mark and I aren't sure there's much more we could do.

1435:

On or about May 2, I opened up Authentic Matthew and found it was gone. Being a new user, I did not know what had happened. I eventually learned that it had been wrongfully redirected by *User:81.156.177.21|81.156.177.21]]

341:

thanks for your comments. i was persuaded by those on my talk page to make the change to avoid offense, and also make it easier to communicate with me. but i did keep the user/talk pages so that my pov is clearly outlined.

791:

SR, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, as I've been away on vacation for the holiday. I don't think I'm going to have the time to spend listing all the evidence though, but I'll try to make the effort if possible.

708:. Please read through potential changes to the Manual of Style and vote on your preferred version. Your input is greatly appreciated, and I hope you can help work towards some kind of workable solution with this. 551:

You seem to be misrepresenting and misinterpreting my view of this situation. I am trying to resolve the issue and stop people from forcing their POV – I have been reverting to that chosen by the original author

1574:

I caught a few spare moments to put a sentence or two on Marx talk. Not that it's of any MEGA(hehh..)importance, but, anyway..Also, since I think it's pertinent to the issue discussed, I didn't put it here. Best

31:

Hi, I have a question for you and your thoughts on this would be appreciated. I had recently planned on slowly going about converting the primary articles concerning Iranian history to BCE/CE, starting with the

68:

figured that by keeping a distance and concentrating only on Iranian history related articles, no one could accuse me of trying to do anything 'POV.' And yet despite keeping this distance, I have been accused.

2171:." Note that there are no comments about "racial suprematism" or references to specific races. The main purpose was to add the important point that orthodox Christian theology has produced a wholly different 1832:

to be a very well written history, albeit from the perspective of a Christian scholar (probably not much in it that's distinctly Christian). Are you familiar with it? At any rate, I commend it to you.

1665:

Thanks for your thoughts. They are helpful. I have some resources to gather, myself. If by then one of the folks you mentioned hasn't started (an|the) article, I'll stop by and ask you to look at it. —

47:

Thank you very much for your messages. I greatly appreciate your comments, as well as Sunray's. You have both been very helpful in clearing some things up for me. At the time I made the changes I had not

1996:

BTW, is there some way of having an automatic email sent when someone edits your user talk page? Damn. The solution is so obvious I realized it before I saved this: Just put my page on my watchlist.

728:

interests in these matters - and perhaps some knowledge of whom else might be called on. Perhaps you'd take a look (and please don't be too distracted by the BC labelling here - that's another issue). --

270:. There should be a clear distinction between which proposals are currently under discussion, and which aren't - because it influences the way people work on the wiki. That's also why we have pages like 377:

I would obviously like to get involved, but I'm not exactly clear on how this works, i.e. where do I add my statement and is there anything in particular I need to know before I add my edits? Thanks.

971:, who is trying to insert some sort of connection between the Puritans, Judaizers, the Rothschilds, and various other events, into a number of articles. Would you be willing to look at the issue at 1793: 1334:. You are a principle feature of that spam (it consists of the IP address's edit history as a copy+paste, together with what looks like a request for arbitration against you) - e.g. a sample - 627:

Nobody owns an article, correct, and people should defer to the people that contribute the most to the article. Controversial changes where the policy is not clear should be discussed first.

150:

The situation is not just between myself and Zora (other users are involved and compromises have been reached which she refuses to recognize) and anyone who is so inclined may take a look at

1610:

I think you should stop arguing with him, as it is clear that, whether he is expressing his true views or just trolling, the conversation is going nowhere, and it is just getting nastier. --

1685: 296: 267: 1889: 720: 606:

I don't like revert wars at all especially about such a petty thing, but it seems like some editors are pushing their POV without giving thought to the opposers of their preference.

529:

Sorry it took so long to post something - I wanted to do some research on the usage in accepted textbooks/reference material, but just haven't been able to get to the library.

2073:

Question: are ArbCom rulings considered decisions concerning specific disputes between specific partices, or more general findings concerning policy that apply to all editors?

1686: 411:

Slrubenstein, I've added myself to the RFAR as an involved party; after delving into Jguk's contributions, I discovered he's been on this POV crusade for quite some time. --

735: 433: 1696: 1564:

Hi; I've seen you responded (Marx talk page), but, unfortunately- my wiki time has (due to several unexpected circumstances) become pretty limited. So, maybe later...Best

1278:

I understand being over-committed. I am as well, but not as much as I was about a month ago. I'll try to see if anyone else is able to take a look. Thanks for the reply.

1746: 87:

Well, I went ahead with the revert (twice), and sure enough it was reverted (twice), by not only Jguk, but another U.K./Australian user. Check out the absurdity over at

1327:(who added the original merge tag) are my sockpuppets. Similar accustions have been made by her/him against pretty much everyone who voted delete at the articles VFD. 1152: 721: 2169:. This belief was generally taken as given by the most artists who portrayed him, and whose portrayal reflected the views at the time about the ideal male physiognomy 2146:

Here is my original edit that led to the dispute. The first part is the previous version. My additions are in italics: "Jesus was most likely a bronze-skinned man of

1971:

Knowledge guides. So, I assumed that that was all that was there unless I created my user page. On a whim, today I scrolled down to the bottom and found your note.

624:. Yes, I know that's easier said then done, but since it's just off the back of your proposal (which stirred up a lot of interest) it was probably just bad timing. 41: 63:

is unable to see this. That's another reason I didn't directly get involved with the debate. I had been planning on making these changes for quite awhile, since as

26: 1199: 997: 985: 968: 2135:

convoluted edit histories and debates, so I am trying to make this clear to all participants. You can see what I wrote in contrast to what Silence wrote here

214: 192: 115: 96: 78: 1359:

wrath. I have never used a sock-puppet. Thanks for contacting me directly, as it appears that Ril is trying to cause problems for me with other users.

402:) - there are a lot of changes (from original BCE/CE to BC/AD as opposed to my changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE) as evidenced through his user contributions. 1384: 948:

This is surely the very problem of systemic bias. People with strong religious opinions tend to be very committed to promoting or defending those views."

1402:

I could not find how you got named! I tried to clean things up but may have made them worse. I do believe the Vfd was unfair but can any thing be done?

796: 2118: 715: 705: 593: 231:

Okay, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your BC/BCE proposal, I thought it was for a hard-and-fast policy and that it was getting a bit out of hand. Yours,

1140:" of "free speech" a try, but I think that now that I am an admin I shall block every other user and convert every article in Knowledge to MyPOV. ;) 511:- even I am not that my-POV-centric. I need to write a well thought out response and have a couple work related deadlines so it will be later today. 1579: 651: 613: 473: 757: 750: 170: 133: 2180: 1144: 1127: 1050: 946:

It is hardly a coincidence that you, Guy Montag and "Ta bu shi da yu" have been challenging particular passages and insisting on references is it?

771:

this week for my job and to attend a funeral several thousand miles away. But please make sure the arbcom knows more evidence is forthcoming. --

432:

wars; therefore, I don't support RickK, violetriga, you, or anyone else in their consistent reverting of articles for usage of any dating system.

2081:

Findings of fact usually do not, although there are exceptions (esp. when the findings of fact pertain to policy and/or the application thereof)

1017: 2193:. The website itself is a bit idiosyncratic, but the summary of theological positions is confirmed by other sources. I have an old book called 1903:

It seems to me that Ken's tone has grown increasingly unfriendly toward Mick and, at times, Mark. Both Mark and I have warned him about this.

1646:

the most likely person to jump on me if I did offend! Perhaps telling you this will remove some of the sting of being thought of second :-) —

1331: 1320: 1246: 1196: 786: 699: 2048: 111:(please see his talk page and his responses on mine) is something else. What course of action do you recommend now that he is threatening me? 1210: 1084: 1253: 665: 634: 585: 563: 523: 129:

me with the same consideration he demands for himself. That said, I'm writing all my articles with BCE/CE, as being the scholarly standard.

1851: 1526: 1371: 459: 2088: 2061: 874:

I searched through the history and found that you had added the quote on May 14. So I was hoping that you could provide the citation.

740: 680: 2124: 1330:

Someone (an IP address) tried to merge it previously, resulting in similar spam across talk pages. At that time it was the sockpuppet

914:(1978) has a discussion on the origins of BCE/CE, but I have been unable to locate a copy. Perhaps somebody can check it out. Thanks. 352: 2114: 1818: 1102: 1087:. This may be of interest to you as one of the alleged sockpuppets pasted a large quantity of text from somewhere the concerned you. 1366: 541: 501: 295:

What do you mean by 'none of them are dated'? All of them have dates on them, of course. And those that are no longer active are in

2129: 1960: 1753: 1453:

was again wrongfully redirected by Ril, and there appears to have been another "edit war", which was brought to an end by Mel Etis.

1113: 1013: 746: 331: 2154:. However there is scarce information from the time on what Jesus' racial background was, and many choose to envisage Jesus as 247:"There are policy proposals at Category:Wikipedia_policy_thinktank (of which this is a part) that have been around since 2003." 1799: 1921: 1411: 1874: 1614: 690:

Thanks for your reply to my email. I will have (at best) limited internet access for the rest of the week. All the best.

1949:. This is just a reference to it so you wouldn't overlook it. Please let me know if you could do this for me. Thanks. 1729: 406: 381: 1782: 1499: 1441: 546: 1600: 2100: 1892:. Aside from the fact that the two of us have ZERO interest in the subject, an edit war has been taking place between 1680: 1660: 1544: 1341: 1307: 2001: 694: 2176:

Silence declared this addition to be "POV". It could certainly do with some copy-editing, but that's another matter.

2066: 2036: 1935: 1568: 1073: 1039: 1804: 1774: 1286: 1273: 930:

I could not agree more fully with you. In fact, my reading of the OT indicates to me that this was what happened.

92:

somewhere positive eventually, as the implications resulting from continued imposition of BC/AD are far too great.

996:

Knowing that we have disagreed somewhat on the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE matter in the past, I would value your input on a

1837: 1091: 838:

POV writing, but standard scholarly opinion. Your contribution to this conversation would be most appreciated. -

479: 442: 426: 367: 1974:

Now I understand why you seemed so upset with my repeated interpretation of your statements. Double apologies.

1189:

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

1726: 1677: 1657: 1430:

sources, earlier this year. It was edited and revised and generally improved by such persons as Firestar, etc.

507:

Thanks - no problem re the request - I had a good chuckle that people were trying to enforce AD/BC only at the

809:

Sorry! But I really do think Knowledge has a problem with them! (81.156.177.21 Cheese Deams, Fish Supper etc)

2020: 300: 1007: 2109: 640: 399: 88: 1269:

regimes and their development strategies, not in the communism article. Help will be greatly appreciated.

1193:

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves.

249:. Which ones would those be? I believe this cat should only hold current proposals (and it's currently on 2042: 1940: 1511: 1486: 1466: 1096: 2198:

earth, beautiful in heaven" (Christ in Art, p. 73). Such arguments were familiar to Renaissance artists.

1046:

looks like the kind of thing that could hurt productivity...speaking from experience :) All the best.

336: 1879: 1392: 1335: 1066: 670: 2136: 1380:

that was so badly researched! Finally, she has proved herself to be the nincompoop she really is. -

275: 1213:

for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by

2058: 1787: 1495: 1437: 1353: 1226: 1218: 952:

I'm stepping away from this article while people believe that I am acting in bad faith. Sorry. -

762:

Slr, can I contribute evidence in this case now, or is the roster of evidence givers now closed.

448: 348: 33: 1634: 321: 17: 1624:

Greetings. Would you be interested in helping to prepare the groundwork for an article called

1758: 1734: 1611: 1550: 1477:

He has also spread much disinformation about me, my husband, Poorman, Mel Etis, etc., etc. *

1222: 732: 2191: 1871: 1750: 1585: 1381: 953: 934: 839: 793: 712: 677: 662: 648: 631: 610: 582: 560: 470: 456: 403: 378: 211: 189: 167: 112: 93: 75: 38: 1828:

I've read several of the books listed on your userpage...I also found Bernhard Anderson's

8: 2025: 1955: 1946: 1701: 1531: 1523: 1363: 1296: 1291: 1206: 769:

Slrubenstein, I'm in the process of gathering evidence (a staggering 3,000 BCE/CE--: -->

535: 517: 495: 2055: 2052: 1739:

This is up for deletion. I would like to have it kept as he is a significant critic of

1721: 1672: 1652: 889: 343: 307: 286: 257: 235: 1926: 1591: 1515: 1470: 1450: 1423: 1393: 1316: 1259: 1238: 1217:

which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (

1161: 1056: 1035:

Notice you had dropped out of sight - good to see you back (assuming that you are).

897:

Thanks for responding so quickly. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.

2177: 2121: 2084:

In every instance I can remember, remedies explicitely specify whom they apply to.

1931:

Just a bit curious, why aren't you signing your entries with four tildes any more?

1741: 1692:

Perhaps it will interest you, as you editied the relevant article some time ago. --

1619: 1537: 1347: 1137: 1024: 729: 328: 1205:

Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator -

845: 1965: 1780: 1598: 1576: 1565: 1507: 1482: 1462: 979: 754: 709: 659: 645: 628: 607: 579: 557: 467: 453: 64: 1346:

When and if something comes up which actually relates to you I will notify you.

1016:. All involved users are warned strongly to abide by our policies. Please see 1950: 1897: 1857: 1300: 1234: 1141: 1124: 1110: 1047: 1036: 819: 691: 685: 151: 1910:

Be prepared...the content of the article is, in my view, pretty silly (and in

531: 513: 491: 2185:

My reply to the request for references appeared on the talk page as follows:

2151: 1998: 1893: 1885: 1867: 1823: 1796: 1770: 1766: 1759: 1716: 1667: 1647: 1605: 1283: 1078: 1030: 1000:

I have written to resolve (hopefully) the era naming style problem. Thanks!

903: 881: 357: 304: 283: 254: 250: 232: 959: 933:

As for you expressing outrage - don't stress. Apparently I did that also. -

2159: 2155: 2085: 1693: 1559: 1106: 1001: 570: 436: 395: 372: 310: 289: 260: 238: 991: 2147: 2006: 1815: 1553: 1324: 1242: 1062: 1021: 915: 858: 772: 763: 412: 271: 2166: 1932: 1918: 1848: 1834: 1777: 1713:

A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin.

1595: 1541: 1503: 1478: 1458: 1338: 1304: 1250: 1088: 1070: 976: 854: 364: 155: 1773:

article. He seems to be very focussed on me, as his comments indicate

1494:

Due to the wrongful behaviour of *User:81.156.177.21|81.156.177.21]] (

818: 1265: 972: 960: 391: 163: 130: 108: 60: 2078:

Principles in arbcom decisions always apply to everyone on Knowledge

1985:

of the typical editor's decision with the typical judge's decision.

556:. Please understand that before talking further about my actions. 2033: 2017: 1625: 1444:). An "edit war" took place, but the article was finally restored. 1279: 1270: 1230: 569:

You are perpetuating the cycle by joining such existing edit wars.

1173:

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

1642: 387: 253:

for renaming as such) so I'd like to archive out some old ones.

1888:(Mark) and I have been observing some ongoing edit concerns at 1489:) has also deleted my vote (?) and my response on the Vfd page. 1214: 1862:

Hey, maybe you can check the actions of anon 4.240.150.203 on

921: 658:

it should be at the original version during such discussions.

1687:

Knowledge:Featured_article_candidates/Sociocultural_evolution

485: 159: 1319:, has been spamming user's talk pages (under the sockpuppet 1312:

You have stated that you do not know why you are involved.

484:

Over the weekend someon replaced all the BC/BCE with BCE on

1810: 390:(originally BCE/CE to begin with - Jguk changed to BC/AD), 1981:

But I thought I made it clear that I was not equating the

1590:

You might be interested in the current debate going on at

722:

Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Mythical Chronology of Greece

2049:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation

1863: 1536:

Someone has suggested adding some info from Crossan into

830:

Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC.

1540:. I believe you have some familiarity with this writer? 1514:), I request that the Vfd be fully investigated and that 1136:

On your talk page I assume it's 5765. I've given that "

804: 834:

I have a user on the talk page telling me that this is

1900:(also known as Ken). The page was protected briefly. 1422:

I am the true Melissa Dolbeer who wrote an article on

1176:

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

1105:. I see it as an attempt to formalise a violation of 1018:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Final decision

1299:

has opened a request for arbitration against you (at

1012:

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case:

1628:? My initial plan is to quote scholars who use the 226: 1473:and accused me of wrongfully using "sock-puppets". 1119:What? I invite you to a vote and you don't support 2162:, and dozens of other, less common possibilities. 2150:descent, based on the area in which he lived; see 1518:not be deleted until any wrongdoing is sorted out. 706:Knowledge:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras 594:Knowledge talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate 751:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Evidence 1641:It's the sort of thing that I would have asked 1020:for further details and the full decision. -- 27:BCE/CE vs BC/AD as regards to existing articles 1914:representative of evangelical Christianity!). 1809:Hi, I wonder if you could take a look at the 1211:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer 1085:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer 910:To the best of my recollection Chaim Potek's 2117:has been accepted. Please place evidence at 1945:I've left a request for a favor from you at 1408:P.S. This is the truth as I understand it. 825:You're going to love this one, Sl. It says: 1549:Please send me a message via my wiki e-mail 1552:, so I have a way to send you an e-mail -- 1323:) claiming that various people, including 1315:Melissadolbeer, as a result of my merging 1061:You might like to watch over the edits of 2115:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 1186:4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone 1183:SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone 1103:Knowledge:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting 489:- as I don't want to stir up that again. 1417:Please limit your statement to 500 words 1229:). It also contains material presenting 704:A possible compromise vote has begun at 1014:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Jguk 162:. This is not unlike my situation with 14: 700:Manual of Style policy change proposal 1794:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/jguk 1694:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1264:I am in the process of rewriting the 749:has opened. Please place evidence at 2093: 2099:A section of this archive has been 1372:Jesus and romantic relationships... 1209:- see the user's edit history, and 398:agrees with BCE/CE as evidenced on 297:Category:Knowledge historical pages 268:Category:Knowledge historical pages 23: 1866:.... I think I'm about to violate 1847:know Bright's work...good stuff! 1156:Ril, (81.156.177.21), Fish Supper. 984:where's with pitchforks already? 967:Steve, I'm having a conflict with 877:Thanks for any help you can give, 861:wanted a citation for this quote: 747:Arbitration matter concerning Jguk 741:Arbitration matter concerning Jguk 245:In unrelated point, you said that 24: 2208: 1890:Biblical scientific foreknowledge 1776:. Would you mind taking a look? 1160:Ril has been causing problems at 1101:You might want to have a look at 1008:Arbitration case - final decision 1917:Thanks for your consideration... 1745:. Would you care to vote on the 1475:I have never used a sock-puppet. 554:and don't care which form it was 2047:Hi, you might be interested in 1830:Understanding the Old Testament 1792:You may be interested in this: 1376:... put in by CheeseDreams. No 912:Wanderings, History of the Jews 622:without continuing the edit war 1936:05:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC) 1922:23:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC) 13: 1: 1875:23:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC) 1852:19:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC) 1838:17:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC) 1819:16:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC) 1164:. Please help us to resolve. 434:See my comment to RickK here. 301:Category:Knowledge guidelines 2181:17:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC) 2125:13:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 2089:18:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2062:00:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2037:11:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 2021:13:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 2002:01:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 1961:22:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC) 940:Paul B wrote the following: 641:Talk:List of kings of Persia 596:I think that changes should 400:Talk:List of kings of Persia 89:Talk:List of kings of Persia 7: 1800:20:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC) 1783:19:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC) 1754:04:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC) 1350:21:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC) 1123:!! How shockingly rude :) 547:My view of BC/AD and BCE/CE 10: 2213: 1765:I'm having a dispute with 1730:15:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 1697:11:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC) 1556:23:00, 2005 July 20 (UTC) 1083:An RFC has been opened at 439:01:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC) 292:14:59, May 20, 2005 (UTC) 280:what is presently going on 263:12:37, May 20, 2005 (UTC) 241:07:37, May 20, 2005 (UTC) 2067:Scope of arbcom decisions 1681:17:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 1661:03:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 1615:23:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 1601:18:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 1580:11:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 1569:15:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 1545:17:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 1527:09:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 1385:06:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 1367:03:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 1342:22:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 1308:09:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 1287:09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 1274:05:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 1254:19:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 1200:05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 1145:01:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 1128:01:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 1114:02:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 1092:21:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 1074:16:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 1051:00:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 1040:00:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 1027:30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC) 1004:22:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) 988:17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) 981:14:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) 956:23:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) 937:03:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) 918:16:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) 884:23:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) 868:question of sensitivity." 842:03:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) 766:19:13, 2005 May 27 (UTC) 573:17:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC) 313:15:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC) 1805:Dispute resolution tips? 906:12:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) 797:14:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC) 787:05:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC) 758:01:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC) 736:09:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC) 716:21:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 695:20:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 681:16:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 666:20:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 652:19:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 635:19:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 614:18:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 586:18:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 564:15:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 542:03:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC) 524:15:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 502:13:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 474:15:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC) 460:15:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC) 427:21:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC) 407:15:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC) 382:15:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC) 368:18:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC) 353:16:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC) 332:15:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC) 276:Knowledge:Recent changes 215:22:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 193:22:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 171:22:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 134:21:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 116:14:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 97:11:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 79:01:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 42:03:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC) 1241:, at the suggestion of 1227:Gospel of the Ebionites 1219:Gospel of the Nazarenes 480:BC/BCE debate revisited 449:List of kings of Persia 447:Sorry but by reverting 443:List of kings of Persia 34:List of kings of Persia 2130:Jesus and "ideal race" 1635:Genesis (Hebrew Bible) 1426:, based on many, many 975:and comment? Thanks. 18:User talk:Slrubenstein 2101:blanked as a courtesy 1233:'s views of what was 1223:Gospel of the Hebrews 888:(responding to reply 278:, to alert people on 2110:Arbitration accepted 1449:On or about July 13 1412:Statement by party 3 969:User:ScapegoatVandal 846:Common Era quotation 2043:ArbReq against Jguk 1947:Talk:Yom Kippur War 1941:Request for a favor 1207:User:Melissadolbeer 1097:NPOV - BCE/CE/BC/AD 349:Jesus is the Christ 1469:) put up a VFD on 337:Change of Username 2107: 2106: 1880:personal attacks? 1725: 1676: 1656: 1592:Talk:Noahide Laws 1516:Authentic Matthew 1471:Authentic Matthew 1451:Authentic Matthew 1424:Authentic Matthew 1394:Authentic Matthew 1317:Authentic Matthew 1239:Gospel of Matthew 1162:Authentic Matthew 671:re: the complaint 540: 522: 500: 394:(original author 351: 2204: 2094: 1958: 1953: 1872:Sebastian Kessel 1742:The Two Babylons 1719: 1670: 1650: 1612:Goodoldpolonius2 1538:Historical Jesus 998:counter-proposal 992:Era names, again 784: 781: 778: 775: 538: 530: 520: 512: 498: 490: 424: 421: 418: 415: 346: 2212: 2211: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2132: 2112: 2069: 2045: 2028: 2009: 1968: 1956: 1951: 1943: 1929: 1882: 1860: 1826: 1807: 1790: 1788:Jguk for admin? 1763: 1751:Ta bu shi da yu 1737: 1704: 1690: 1622: 1608: 1588: 1562: 1534: 1414: 1397: 1382:Ta bu shi da yu 1374: 1356: 1354:Melissa Dolbeer 1294: 1262: 1158: 1154:WIKIPEDIA ABUSE 1099: 1081: 1059: 1033: 1010: 994: 986:ScapegoatVandal 965: 954:Ta bu shi da yu 935:Ta bu shi da yu 924: 890:on my talk page 848: 840:Ta bu shi da yu 823: 807: 794:SouthernComfort 782: 779: 776: 773: 743: 725: 702: 688: 678:SouthernComfort 673: 549: 536: 518: 509:Kings of Persia 496: 482: 445: 422: 419: 416: 413: 404:SouthernComfort 379:SouthernComfort 375: 360: 339: 324: 229: 212:SouthernComfort 190:SouthernComfort 168:SouthernComfort 113:SouthernComfort 94:SouthernComfort 76:SouthernComfort 65:User:Mel Etitis 39:SouthernComfort 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2210: 2200: 2199: 2148:Middle Eastern 2131: 2128: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2104: 2097: 2092: 2091: 2082: 2079: 2068: 2065: 2044: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2027: 2024: 2008: 2005: 1967: 1964: 1942: 1939: 1928: 1925: 1881: 1878: 1859: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1825: 1822: 1806: 1803: 1789: 1786: 1762: 1757: 1736: 1733: 1703: 1700: 1689: 1684: 1621: 1618: 1607: 1604: 1587: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1561: 1558: 1533: 1530: 1524:Melissadolbeer 1520: 1519: 1491: 1490: 1455: 1454: 1446: 1445: 1432: 1431: 1413: 1410: 1396: 1391: 1389: 1373: 1370: 1364:Melissadolbeer 1362:-- Melissa -- 1355: 1352: 1297:Melissadolbeer 1293: 1290: 1261: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1235:Biblical Canon 1167: 1157: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1131: 1130: 1098: 1095: 1080: 1077: 1058: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1032: 1029: 1009: 1006: 993: 990: 964: 958: 950: 949: 923: 920: 908: 907: 899: 898: 894: 893: 872: 871: 870: 869: 847: 844: 832: 831: 822: 820:Zoroastrianism 817: 806: 803: 801: 742: 739: 724: 719: 701: 698: 687: 684: 672: 669: 655: 654: 617: 616: 603: 602: 575: 574: 548: 545: 527: 526: 481: 478: 477: 476: 444: 441: 374: 371: 359: 356: 338: 335: 323: 322:Your user page 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 228: 225: 224: 223: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 195: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 152:Talk:Khuzestan 141: 140: 139: 138: 137: 136: 121: 120: 119: 118: 102: 101: 100: 99: 82: 81: 70: 69: 55: 54: 28: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2209: 2196: 2195:Christ in Art 2192: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2183: 2182: 2179: 2174: 2170: 2168: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2152:Race of Jesus 2149: 2144: 2141: 2137: 2127: 2126: 2123: 2120: 2116: 2102: 2098: 2096: 2095: 2090: 2087: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2064: 2063: 2060: 2057: 2056:Humus sapiens 2053: 2050: 2038: 2035: 2030: 2029: 2023: 2022: 2019: 2013: 2004: 2003: 2000: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1984: 1979: 1975: 1972: 1963: 1962: 1959: 1954: 1948: 1938: 1937: 1934: 1924: 1923: 1920: 1915: 1913: 1908: 1904: 1901: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1877: 1876: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1831: 1821: 1820: 1817: 1812: 1802: 1801: 1798: 1795: 1785: 1784: 1781: 1779: 1775: 1772: 1771:The Holocaust 1768: 1767:User:Vizcarra 1761: 1760:The Holocaust 1756: 1755: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1743: 1735:Ralph Woodrow 1732: 1731: 1728: 1723: 1718: 1714: 1708: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1688: 1683: 1682: 1679: 1674: 1669: 1663: 1662: 1659: 1654: 1649: 1644: 1639: 1638:toward them. 1636: 1631: 1627: 1617: 1616: 1613: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1597: 1593: 1581: 1578: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1567: 1557: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1409: 1406: 1403: 1400: 1395: 1390: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1379: 1369: 1368: 1365: 1360: 1351: 1349: 1344: 1343: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1328: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1313: 1310: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1289: 1288: 1285: 1281: 1276: 1275: 1272: 1267: 1255: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1187: 1184: 1182: 1177: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1165: 1163: 1155: 1146: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1086: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1064: 1052: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1038: 1028: 1026: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1005: 1003: 999: 989: 987: 982: 980: 978: 974: 970: 962: 957: 955: 947: 943: 942: 941: 938: 936: 931: 928: 919: 917: 913: 905: 901: 900: 896: 895: 891: 887: 886: 885: 883: 878: 875: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 860: 856: 851: 843: 841: 837: 828: 827: 826: 821: 816: 813: 812:Bye forever, 810: 802: 799: 798: 795: 789: 788: 785: 767: 765: 760: 759: 756: 752: 748: 738: 737: 734: 731: 723: 718: 717: 714: 711: 707: 697: 696: 693: 683: 682: 679: 668: 667: 664: 661: 653: 650: 647: 642: 639: 638: 637: 636: 633: 630: 625: 623: 615: 612: 609: 605: 604: 599: 595: 590: 589: 588: 587: 584: 581: 572: 568: 567: 566: 565: 562: 559: 555: 544: 543: 539: 533: 525: 521: 515: 510: 506: 505: 504: 503: 499: 493: 487: 475: 472: 469: 464: 463: 462: 461: 458: 455: 450: 440: 438: 435: 429: 428: 425: 409: 408: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 384: 383: 380: 370: 369: 366: 355: 354: 350: 345: 334: 333: 330: 312: 309: 306: 303:if accepted. 302: 298: 294: 293: 291: 288: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 264: 262: 259: 256: 252: 248: 244: 243: 242: 240: 237: 234: 216: 213: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 194: 191: 186: 185: 184: 183: 182: 181: 172: 169: 165: 161: 157: 153: 149: 148: 147: 146: 145: 144: 143: 142: 135: 132: 127: 126: 125: 124: 123: 122: 117: 114: 110: 106: 105: 104: 103: 98: 95: 90: 86: 85: 84: 83: 80: 77: 72: 71: 66: 62: 57: 56: 51: 46: 45: 44: 43: 40: 35: 19: 2194: 2184: 2172: 2163: 2145: 2139: 2138:. Note that 2133: 2113: 2072: 2070: 2046: 2014: 2010: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1982: 1980: 1976: 1973: 1969: 1944: 1930: 1916: 1911: 1909: 1905: 1902: 1883: 1861: 1844: 1829: 1827: 1808: 1791: 1764: 1740: 1738: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1691: 1664: 1640: 1629: 1623: 1609: 1589: 1586:Noahide Laws 1563: 1548: 1535: 1521: 1474: 1427: 1416: 1415: 1407: 1404: 1401: 1398: 1388: 1377: 1375: 1361: 1357: 1345: 1332:User:Angel77 1329: 1321:User:Mikefar 1314: 1311: 1295: 1277: 1263: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1185: 1180: 1178: 1175: 1172: 1170:RIL - M.O. 1169: 1166: 1159: 1153: 1120: 1100: 1082: 1069: 1060: 1034: 1011: 995: 983: 966: 951: 945: 939: 932: 929: 925: 911: 909: 879: 876: 873: 852: 849: 835: 833: 824: 814: 811: 808: 800: 790: 768: 761: 744: 726: 703: 689: 674: 656: 626: 621: 618: 597: 576: 553: 550: 528: 508: 483: 446: 430: 410: 396:User:Zereshk 385: 376: 361: 340: 325: 279: 246: 230: 49: 30: 2122:Fred Bauder 2026:FT2 (again) 1702:reassurance 1532:Jesus again 1348:Fred Bauder 1292:Arbitration 1243:User:Wetman 1138:quaint idea 859:User:Sunray 710:violet/riga 660:violet/riga 646:violet/riga 629:violet/riga 608:violet/riga 580:violet/riga 558:violet/riga 468:violet/riga 454:violet/riga 329:Silversmith 299:, or maybe 2167:Son of God 1577:Mir Harven 1566:Mir Harven 1071:User:-Ril- 922:Hear hear! 855:Common Era 850:Hi there: 156:Talk:Ahvaz 2119:/Evidence 1927:Signature 1898:Kdbuffalo 1428:published 1266:communism 1260:Communism 1179:3) Later 1142:Guettarda 1125:Guettarda 1111:Guettarda 1057:Behaviour 1048:Guettarda 1037:Guettarda 973:Judaizers 961:Judaizers 692:Guettarda 392:Hormozgan 386:BTW, see 164:User:Jguk 109:User:Jguk 61:User:Jguk 2086:→Raul654 1999:Kriegman 1894:MickWest 1886:Mkmcconn 1884:Hello... 1797:CDThieme 1722:Mkmcconn 1673:Mkmcconn 1653:Mkmcconn 1630:toledoth 1626:Toledoth 1620:toledoth 1512:contribs 1500:contribs 1487:contribs 1467:contribs 1442:contribs 1405:Melissa 1231:Eusebius 904:DLJessup 882:DLJessup 853:Over on 815:Angel77 266:We have 1966:Whoops! 1957:focused 1711:kiss. 1502:) and * 1301:WP:RFAR 1247:Angel77 1197:Mikefar 1002:Alanyst 963:article 805:Angel77 571:Adraeus 437:Adraeus 388:Parthia 2178:Paul B 1983:impact 1933:Jayjg 1912:no way 1868:WP:3RR 1858:Vandal 1845:indeed 1816:Wesley 1778:Jayjg 1596:Jayjg 1554:JimWae 1378:wonder 1325:Wetman 1225:, and 1215:Jerome 1063:SimonP 1025:(talk) 1022:sannse 977:Jayjg 916:Nobs01 764:Sunray 686:Thanks 532:Trödel 514:Trödel 492:Trödel 308:adiant 287:adiant 258:adiant 251:WP:CFD 236:adiant 2160:black 2156:white 1919:KHM03 1849:KHM03 1843:I do 1835:KHM03 1824:book? 1606:Titus 1504:-Ril- 1479:-Ril- 1459:-Ril- 1121:MyPOV 1107:WP:5P 1079:Socks 1031:Back? 486:Jesus 365:KHM03 358:Bible 347:POV: 272:Watch 227:Okay, 160:Ahvaz 107:This 50:fully 16:< 2173:type 2071:Re: 2059:←ну? 1896:and 1870:. -- 1811:Icon 1749:? - 1717:Mark 1668:Mark 1648:Mark 1560:Marx 1542:~~~~ 1508:talk 1496:talk 1483:talk 1463:talk 1438:talk 1399:Hi. 1339:~~~~ 1305:~~~~ 1284:Talk 1251:~~~~ 1089:~~~~ 753:. -- 745:The 537:talk 519:talk 497:talk 373:Jguk 344:Abeo 274:and 154:and 131:Zora 2140:all 2034:FT2 2018:FT2 2007:FT2 1864:Jew 1769:at 1747:VfD 1303:). 1280:172 1271:172 1181:new 1109:. 836:not 783:el 755:mav 733:(t) 730:Doc 713:(t) 663:(t) 649:(t) 632:(t) 611:(t) 598:not 583:(t) 561:(t) 471:(t) 457:(t) 423:el 2158:, 2051:. 1952:Un 1727:** 1715:— 1678:** 1658:** 1643:RK 1594:. 1522:-- 1510:• 1498:• 1485:• 1465:• 1440:• 1337:. 1282:| 1221:, 1195:-- 1065:- 902:— 892:): 880:— 857:, 780:er 420:er 311:_* 290:_* 261:_* 239:_* 166:. 2103:. 2054:← 1724:) 1720:( 1675:) 1671:( 1655:) 1651:( 1506:( 1481:( 1461:( 1436:( 777:P 774:M 534:| 516:| 494:| 417:P 414:M 305:R 284:R 255:R 233:R

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index