User talk:Jesus is the Christ

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Abeo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

KHM03 19:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

I must confess to idle curiosity... how could you possible proclaim Jesus as Christ in an NPOV manner? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to answer this on my User Page Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 20:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction on your user page

I read your user page and found a small grammar error, I hope you don't mind me correcting it. (happen --> happens) --metta, The Sunborn 18:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name policy

Naming policy tends to frown on names like yours, which are not NPOV. You should change it. -SV|t 19:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it is unconventional - please see my User page. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 20:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~JC,~~ I appreciate the tenor, responsiveness, clarity, and forthrighness in your statements, but the name does in fact contradict name policy:

Wikipedia recommends that users avoid
  1. names of politicians, military or religious figures or events;
  2. any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or     
endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a
public figure.

This is an additional problem I didn't think of - how others could address this user account - Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ

What will happen is one of three things: 1. You continue edit with this name, and nobody complains. 2. We vote on the appropriateness of your username - the results of which are considered binding by the WP:AC. 3. You choose a new name and redirect/move this username material to the new one. Of course I recommend number 3 - its easier, and you dont have to worry about reattributing too many edits to from the old to the new accounts.

I appreciate the desire to voice your convictions - you dont personally have to change your POV - you simply have to understand that NPOV requires that articles not be dominated by or otherwise endorse any POV. If placed in context, your POV, or the POV which you claim to represent is more than welcome - again, if properly qualified and placed in context. For example "Christians view x as..." etc. Sinreg, SV|t 22:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the editors above. I applaud your disclosure of bias, but I also feel this violates our username policy. I would ask you to please register under a new name; you can redirect this user page to your new one. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about the above - although I read the quoted language above as a recommendation (i.e. not a hard fast rule unless it was deceptive or used for vandalism) as opposed to the list of improper usernames that was lower down on the page. Perhaps the list of improper names categories should be updated. My first thought is to change my signature to make it less "dramatic" which I have done on the Cultural and historical background of Jesus page out of consideration of the users that frequent that page (it being a summary of the Jewish History and culture - and thus would likely be frequented by Jews). However, as I try to think of a new name I can not, so far, think of any that would not also be as problematic as this one. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 13:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Abeo Paliurus. Although I heartily endorse the statement your name makes, I would also point out that your name is more of a sentence than it is a name. (Didn't the greeting sound odd?) <it did so I changed it> Although not stated, it's probably a good idea if names sound like names. Also, your "name" will probably be considered offensive by many Jews and at least a few atheists. Come to think of it, my own name might be considered misleading, since I'm no longer a Methodist. Haven't had any complaints since they set up the separate User: namespace though. ;-) Wesley 16:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have chosen an alias Abeo Paliurus that I will redirect to this User and User talk page. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 21:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The common thing would be to redirect THESE pages to Abe Paliurus, not the other way around. This can be accomplished with a page move so as to preserve edit histories. Would you like me to do so? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I thought about this suggestion overnight but feel that it would be better to do the abnormal thing and point back to the original name. That way I keep the benefits outlined on my userpage for selecting the name originally. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 15:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, fine. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:43, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Quick question...

Is User:Jesus Christ is LORD you? If so, I recommend linking that User page to this one, if not, let me know. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

That is not me - I am not trying to disrupt - however, thanks for bringing this new user to my attention as it (the use by insincere people of similar usernames) is influencing my decision re the rename issue above. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 20:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked for attempting to impersonate you. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:41, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

cultural and historical background

Hi. I want you to know that I appreciate your gesture on the talk page of this article. I do suspect that some people might be offended by your former username. For what it is worth, I was and am not — I do not share your beliefs, but they are your beliefs and you have a right to express them (my only complaint has ever been when people wrote an article as if this belief was a fact shared by everyone and not a point of view shared by many). Anyway, I certainly wan't offended, but thank you for your conciliatory and considerate gesture. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Abeo Paliurus, I have removed your comments regarding Gordon Watt's RfA from the WP:RfA page; this is not the place to post your opinion. I see you've already posted the same thing at the talk page of WP:AN, which is good; those comments should probably go on the talk page. Your comments are more appropriate at the talk page of WP:RfA. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. GordonWatt's closed RfA should not be modified; it has been removed and closed, and thus should not be edited again.

I would have put it directly on WP:AN (not the talk page) there but there is a block on an AOL proxy (64.12.117.7) due to the persistent vandalism of JarlaxleMARMOT and his persistent attacks on Linuxbeak. So rather than wait to make the edit for a couple days I just put it in a couple places. I figured the one on WP:RfA would get deleted soon but hopefully I would be directed to the better place to continue. One of the minor inconviences of using AOL. :) Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 02:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a more detailed reply here: [1]--GordonWatts 00:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look I don't really know what you think will come of continuing the RfA - but from the little I see, you seem to be reasonable, so the "universal" condemnation seemed a little out of place. I do think that whether intentional or not - the closing of the page to edits and ending the RfA without a direct on that page to where the continued debate resides is an attempt to make it difficult to follow the debate. One of the tactics that seems effective in making it difficult for occasional users to follow the debates. Fortunately I realized early on that such debates - like the one about my username are meaningless - the Goal is to write an encyclopedia and a good one and make sure all POVs are represented - that goal I support - and I try to ignore the rest and not get heated when clearly racist comments are directed toward people of faith. Anyway - I digress - good luck on continuing the discussion somewhere and I hope that people can find it - I thought that bringing attention to the, IMHO, clearly antiwiki actions, would bring forward some who were more reasonable but no luck. Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 02:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Look I don't really know what you think will come of continuing the RfA" It may help the next guy get treated according to the policy, instead of "made up rules" --done simply "the way things are done." There is already talk of changing the policy to raise the standards to what people obviously think are "correct," and also talk of changing the "vote is closed" template a little, so some good change is happening. Plus, while I'm possibly too busy to be an Admin, I'm probably qualified, but that is an unpaid job, and no big deal. Editor is quite enough as it is to keep one busy if they want to do good. "I thought that bringing attention to the, IMHO, clearly antiwiki actions, would bring forward some who were more reasonable but no luck." Don't fail to see the positives: You made an impact, a statement, and whatever you sow good -you will also reap good. You know God personally. But that raises another question. If you are a Latter Day Saint, how do you explain Joseph Smith's change of opinion on how many gods there are? In 1844, he said there were many Gods ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370-373), but this is clearly in opposition to many scriptures in the standard Bible, plus the additional scriptures: Alma 11:44; 3 Neph. 11:27; 3 Neph. 28:10; Alma 11:28-29; Morm. 7:7; 2 Neph. 31:21; 1 Neph. 13:41. Could you explain this to me? Thanks! (Take your time if needed.)--GordonWatts 14:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote ...

Please vote on the straw poll at Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One of the main reasons I set up the straw poll is to show that there is a consensus on one of the choices to stop the edit war of a certain user. Sue Anne 03:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of temple garments

{{test3a}} Duke53 | ^Talk 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You calling it vandalism doesn't make it so - and reverting without comment is an editor war Abeo Paliurus 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When removing large chunks of content from an article, it's a good idea to explain why on the talk page. Friday (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{blatantvandal}} Duke53 | ^Talk 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ditto Abeo Paliurus 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{3RR4}} Duke53 | ^Talk 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes to to create a 3RR issue - and you have still not commented on the talk page. Abeo Paliurus 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are your goals compatible with project goals?

You should be aware that this project is about building an encyclopedia, not promoting one particular set of religious beliefs over another. Friday (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I restored this comment after it was apparently accidentally removed) Friday (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to anonymous editing Abeo Paliurus 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]