User talk:Drboisclair/Archive04/

May 2006 messages

Justification (theology)

Greetings,

If you have time, please check out the Justification (theology) article. I have begun to massage the text currently in the Lutheran section, and thus the language is less than ideal. I am looking for a good strong Pieper quote to place in the article, and perhaps a rewrite of it entirely. Any help would be appreciated! --Rekleov 14:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther edit

Can you explain this edit please? I would carefully read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry if I were you. I would also suggest reverting that edit, as a sign of goodwill. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making the accusation of sock puppetry against me, Sir? Drboisclair 18:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix this before it has to become more public. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored what the other editor did against my will. Drboisclair 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found out that my nephew, who is that editor made that change since this dispute is a topic of discussion in our family. I have had him read the policy, thank you. Drboisclair 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CheckUser evidence indicates something somewhat different. In any event, if there are two accounts editing from the same locations, they should not edit the same articles, in order to ensure no violations of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. Is it possible to close accounts? or reopen them on a different computer? Drboisclair 08:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enought to close accounts; just stop using them. I don't think they can be deleted, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My nephew has put the appropriate tag on his account, but we have agreed not to edit the same articles. Drboisclair 19:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Was it renewed? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge it was not renewed in 1999, but I wonder if CTS may have a recent copy of LWs in his stacks. Drboisclair 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, see Jayg's talk page. An act of Congress automatically renewed all works originally copyrighted after 1964. --CTSWyneken 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

There is a dispute over whether or not Christianity is monotheistic. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now the dispute is over the definition of "monotheism." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote on this

[1]--Drboisclair 00:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks against Doright

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -Kasreyn 08:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not even see the tip of the iceberg to this user's misconduct here. So, you might want to scold him as well, thank you. As my final word on the exchange in question: I consider my response to be adequate to all of the abuse, humiliation, and grief that this disruptive user has put me and others through. Sincerely,--Drboisclair 17:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, what is this all about? And, by the way, don't feed the troll. It isn't worth insulting him or her. --CTSWyneken 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see the exchange on the talk page of the category. There was a problem with disclosure of religious position. Advice well taken and received.--Drboisclair 19:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian views of Jesus

Since you earlier were involved in some discussion on possibly merging this article, would you come to the Talk page and give some feedback to my suggestion that this article be redirected to Christology? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply to my talk page : ) would you be so kind as to provide this feedback for general discussion to the article talk page in question as well? I actually started the discussion here. Thanks! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek Wikisource

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitic People

Thanks much for your comments on my talk page and thoughtful comments in the category talk page. I think it has been a stimulating and educational discussion, at least for me.--Mantanmoreland 13:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a difficult personal struggle for me as a Lutheran and a Luther scholar. It is always difficult when our "heroes" are found to have feet of clay and black eyes. I reacted subjectively and not with the objectivity of the scholastic. --Drboisclair 14:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do appreciate how that must have felt. I was horrified when I learned about Niemoller, and still find it hard to believe. Ditto for Stauffenbeg. I think you've shown great intellectual integrity on this subject.--Mantanmoreland 14:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My study of anti-semitism indicates that these sorts of seeming moral ambiguities were not uncommon. Goldhagen describes a sort of "axiomatic anti-Semitism", a Jew-hatred so ingrained into the German social consciousness that it infected almost every level of society. If you look at the German gentiles who were promoting tolerance and equal rights for Jews in the 19th century, for example, you discover that most of them also disliked and distrusted Jews; it often seemed to be a case of "They're scum but because we're enlightened people we're going to show our illumination by allowing them into our society." (And ditto to what Mantanmoreland says about intellectual integrity.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Good point. In fact, that refreshed my memory, as I read about Stauffenberg in Goldhagen's book.--Mantanmoreland 15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same also can be said, until recent decades, about African Americans in the US. For instance, in Indiana, an enlightened state, the Underground Railroad was very active. Yes, they wanted slaves to be free, they wanted them to escape through Indiana, but not settle here. Later, it was a hotbed of the KKK... --CTSWyneken 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is that that's not quite so ambiguous, but my second thought is you've got a point. It's not inconsistant to loathe slavery but also loathe the people being enslaved; and maybe that's not so dissimilar to loathing religious discrimination but also loathing the people being discriminated against. I guess a more modern analogy would be people individually opposed to abortion but also opposed to laws restricting women's right to choose? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Abe Lincoln, his comments on blacks, etc. I am sure some abolitionists may have held views that today would be considered racist. I think that perhaps the requirement is to view the person in the context of his time. --Mantanmoreland 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kolb

As a LDS I have never heard it referenced as the home of the gods, but only as the star closest to where God the Father resides.

My understanding of Hinduism is that Hindus recognize and reverance all of the gods in their pantheon, but they choose which god is their main god of worship. Further, they may change their main god of worshp, but remain faithful to one god at a time. I don't believe this is a structure required of worship, but I suspect a cultural practicality.

The WIKI article on henotheism does claim that both Mormons and Hindus are henotheistic, but I think they do it in erroneously. I do think that the term polytheistic may apply to Hindus, but it may not be universally applicable to every Hindu. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are right on this, and you are well read on the subject. I appreciate learning more through interaction. I also hope that as an LDS you are not offended by what I have written about the LDS. I don't want to push any anti-LDS POV. I have met many LDS people, and I have found them to be fine, decent people. --Drboisclair 19:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you so much! I really do appreciate it. It has made my day. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a fellow scholar, I can say that it is well deserved! I think that it is great that you are a natural at editing.--Drboisclair 19:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowing formats

Hi David, good taste :). I'll be happy if you reuse my framework. There is no copyright, so it's very nice of you to ask. Could you consider mentioning where it came from - either in small font or in the comments. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Diet of Worms

Dave, please check this out and comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diet of Worms (Medicine) --CTSWyneken 21:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology to Doright

I was moved. It's not often that I meet someone who's willing to swallow their pride and admit a mistake even when sorely frustrated and irritated by another person. You have my respect for that. Humility like that is the true message of Christianity, in my opinion. Best wishes, Kasreyn 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In the Jewish religion (I speak as 1/4) I think this is referred to as being a mensch. --Mantanmoreland 02:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind encouraging words. I am glad there are folks like you that are a part of Wikipedia! All the best,--Drboisclair 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your very kind and thoughtful words on my user page.--Mantanmoreland 14:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award drboisclair this Working Man's Barnstar, for tireless documentation on Martin Luther and Lutheran-related pages. CTSWyneken 21:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this great honor for a true labor of love on my part. --Drboisclair 09:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deserved it! I'm actually pretty stingy with my barnstars, young Skywalker! --CTSWyneken 11:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You know, I was going to take the liberty of awarding you a barnstar myself, for your work on the anti-Semitic category, but this user beat me to it. Actually I was held up because I had trouble locating a Barnstar for "integrity," which per se does not exist. --Mantanmoreland 13:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help

I ask you, as a colleague, friend, and as a Christian, to help me here [2]. Please review the recent edit history of the article. I did not think that using BCE and CE would be offensive to Christians, and the fact is the article has used these twerms for years. Moreove, I didn't think identifying the article as relevant to Jewish articles would be offensive to Christians. I appreciate your help, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, I wish the "good thinking" was mine, but it's not - at least not in this case. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on my page. I didn't expect you to share my preference. But I have known you to be someone who is sensitive to the views of others, and who values our NPOV policy and the spirit of compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary!

You did not make me mad at all, That is one of the most level headed mediations I have ever seen here. You actually talked some sense back into me and convinced me that it is not only a waste of time to fight this petty stuff, but probably a bad reflection in the long run. Sorry if I was starting to sound too shrill. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message! Always remember that you have something to contribute to Wikipedia and the world, and never to feel threatened by others who may think differently than you do. This is an understanding that has brought much peace to me as I find that there are things that I believe deeply in. --Drboisclair 20:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Snow Queen

Thank you for the help with this article! Your recent edits were particularly nice! Cmapm 20:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to my talk page! and thank you for your kind regards. I have left you a message on your talk page. Translation is almost finished, but I would guess that you could translate that into English much faster than I can.--Drboisclair 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no! Unfortunately, I am not able to read in Danish. I just translated the main words in the sentences and found, that their essence corresponds to that of the translation, which I have. This is great, that you can translate everything without actually studying the language! I noticed that the article can be improved, because I've just read this great story and still under impression. Perhaps, after a week or so, I should not be able to recall all those details. I've looked through the history of that page, your work on it in November was really great! My respect! Cmapm 21:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help?

Codex Sinaiticus has angered me, something I regret. But he has accused me of suppressing Christianity, which deeply offends me. Do you share this view? I as you honstly and as someone I consider a friend. Would you mind commenting here [3]? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

I truly appreciate your gesture - it means a lot to me. I hope that we can continue to work together on articles of mutual interest to the betterment of the project. And I do mean it, if you believe I am ever coming close to crossing a line I want you to tell me, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Talk about a test for an editing saint! Your even-handed and patient approach would be welcome in the contentious issue relating to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his anti-Semitic statements, and ferocious ongoing debate in the related talk page. The issues are not entirely dissimilar to those discussed in relation to Martin Luther and the anti-Semitism issue. A calm and compassionate approach and deft hand is sorely needed at this point. I tried to come in as a non-Jewish, non-Muslim "outsider" and wound up under a barrage. I trust that you have more patience! --Mantanmoreland 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther

I understand largely your reason for disliking my revert. While it is true you have worked greatly on that section, and I commend you excellent work, I have also worked extensively on the Martin Luther and On the Jews and their Lies articles. My only problem with your edit was that the material was relevant and properly cited. Perhaps I should ask CTs if he agrees with my edit, as he and I have been working together, mostly to revert the bad edits of Doright, and to improve the article. I would ask you if we could leave the referenced material in the article, and start a new discussion on the talk page to decide if we should remove it. Thank you, and happy editing. Thetruthbelow 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on your most recent edit to Martin Luther. It definetly was POV, and I thank you for changing it. Thetruthbelow 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working with CTS on this. Him and I are always on the same page. Some months ago someone added this material to emphasize Luther's hostility toward Erasmus. I was the one who supplied the quotation from the Packer/Johnston edition of On the Bondage of the Will. I didn't like having it in there, but I made sure that it was properly sourced. I will honor your concern because you have been doing a lot of good work here.--Drboisclair 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your great civility. I really appreciate it. Anyway, I asked CTS to comment on my change, and if you and him disagree with me, I would have no problem with reverting myself. On a related note, I think that this is exactly the way editors should work together, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you again, Thetruthbelow 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category on Martin Luther

Thank you very much for your warm thanks. I actually am Jewish myself, and I did not agree with the categorization as an anti-semite that a few others did. I think he was the greatest reformer of all time, and I think that that greatly surpasses his slight bias toward Jews. By the way, Doright has attacked CTS again, and he has warned him three times. I am going to comfont him right now, and I would be glad if you would help. Thank you my friend, Thetruthbelow 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorights Attacks

I have left him a warning and told him that if he continues I will report him to the Arbitration Committee. Can i count on your testimony if it reaches that point? Thetruthbelow 21:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course--Drboisclair 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award User:Drboisclair the original barnstar for his great edits, revisions, and general work on the Martin Luther pages. I also award you this barnstar for your great amount of civility. Good work, and good luck! *Thetruthbelow* 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very kind barnstar you awarded me. It is nice to be recognized for working hard. I look foward to working with you on Martin Luther. Shalom, Thetruthbelow 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to you: shalom, I have written you two emails through Wikipedia e-mail.--Drboisclair 21:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got them and sent you one back. Shalom l'cha Thetruthbelow 22:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my emails? Thetruthbelow 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I sent you two more!--Drboisclair 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just sent you another regarding speaking hebrew. Thetruthbelow 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I have responded, thanks.--Drboisclair 23:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth, please see my userpage! The barnstar is a happy addition.--Drboisclair 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great! And, I just sent you another email. Sorry about the constant flow of my writings ;D. Thetruthbelow 23:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New online correspondents are always welcome!--Drboisclair 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, full title, please

I think you meant St. SlimVirgin of Wikipedia, did you not? I hope you got my e-mail, by the way. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know it! :-)--Drboisclair 23:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther FA

I recently nominated Martin luther for FA status. Would you please add your thoughts to the FA discussion? Thanks, Thetruthbelow 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A cat rename that might interest you...

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 13#Category:Anti-Semitic people to Category:Anti-Semitism (people)--CTSWyneken 00:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Luther Page

David, I am not sure what is going on, but for some reason there are sections now missing on the Martin Luther page, but they show up on the "edit article" screen. You'll notice under "Exile at the Wartburg" section, toward the end, in the article there are several sections missing, and the article ends with a sentence from the "Luther Bible" section, but nothing is on the page. But in the edit screen those articles are there. I am not sure what happened or how to fix this.Ptmccain 14:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

In fact, it should be the other way around: if you believe there is a dispute, it's up to you to provide credible evidence that there is one. Pecher ^Talk 15:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but I would like to hear from you why you think that there is no basis for dispute in a gentlemanly or gentlewomanly sort of way. Maybe it will persuade me and others who have issues with the fairness of this category. It seems that the consensus in the voting was that it should at least be renamed.--Drboisclair 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, appreciate much your very kind words on my user page. May I respond here?

My take on the dispute tag is that it misleads the reader. It implies that there is a substantial dispute regarding a substantial number of persons in the category, and that is just not so. There are maybe two or three disputed, but with all due respect I just don't think those disputes have any merit whatsoever and are objectively contradicted by verifiable evidence.

We've discussed Martin Luther in the past and I know people of goodwill will differ on this point, but is there any real dispute that Martin Luther produced anti-Semitic writings? I know how painful for you to read comments from a cyclops in human form like Julius Streicher speaking favorably of Martin Luther, but indeed he did so and indeed, Luther's writings did contribute to the history of anti-Semitism. So it is more than just a few anomalous statements made in the heat of passsion.

That's just one of those aspects of history we all have to wrestle with. Remember too that when one makes an issue of the dispute tag because of Martin Luther, one is casting a cloud on the entire category, including all kinds of people I am sure you detest. So I'd urge you to let it stay. Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good enough for me. I agree with you whole-heartedly, and I think that you have a fair and balanced take on things. I appreciate your courteous words, and would say that you and I are on the same wavelength here. Thank you for your response! --Drboisclair 20:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks! I know this is painful issue for you, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

Oh, and postcript: Someone not so thoughtful is reverting and re-reverting the tag. If you could toss in a word on this I think it would be a big help.--Mantanmoreland 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitic people

A "nonconclusive" result is not surprising, and of course the "keep" crowd considers it a win. But the important thing to do now is to consolodate the argument, and find various methods (some unorthodox) for waking people up to the fact that its a POV violation.

The first thing you and I can do is draft a statement and overview to wikien, which outlines various points. Naturally, we can use argumentum ad absurdum in making our point by (slightly) disruptive means.

The issue of "Consensus" has always been one in which an "inconclusive" vote ultimately means a lack of deciciveness. This is a strength though, because things eventually get sorted out. And now its our job to convince people of how using a subjective pejorative as a category is completely biased. If necessary we can even add Category:Anti-Arab people to various pages to illustrate our point, but first we should simply write something to wikien.

What may be very basic bonehead level NPOV to us may in fact be very hard for people to understand, and its telling of the degree to which newbies have fidelity to NPOV. This will be a good teaching lesson in basic NPOV. I will draft a statement in my user subspace, and you can edit and co-sign it, and we can add others to it as well. Petitions may actually be a good way to handle the "consensus" problem. People often dont bother to read other comments on VFD pages. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I wanted to clarify something. Let's be totally fair and accurate in characterizing the discussion. In summing up the discussion, User:Consensus stated as follows:

The result of the debate was no consensus to rename (but there is consensus for the category to exist). Conscious 06:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[emphasis added][4]

So I hope the endless attempts to rename/delete/etc. this category have come to an end.--Mantanmoreland 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That de-listing by User:Conscious (not "User:Consensus") has no material meaning, except to say that someone de-listed it. Very simplistic, but nice try. Please read NPOV. -Ste|vertigo 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion, if you care to have one with the editors interested in the issue, should move to the category talk page. Drboisclair, I have the same suggestion to you, if you have continued concerns. --Mantanmoreland 13:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther & anti-semitism

Hi Drboisclair

I see you have reverted my inclusion of the word 'anti-semitic' in the opening of Martin Luther, citing "rv to the negotiated text". I can't find the relevant discussion on the talk page, can you please let me know where to look?

Thanks a lot,

- sYndicate ^talk 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, thank you. - sYndicate ^talk 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hello David, I just wanted to pop my head in and say hi. We haven't talked in a while, especially because I was on vacation, and I wanted to see how you were doing. Shalom--Thetrutbelow 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matt, I am doing just fine! It is good to have you back from vacation. I hope it was a good one!, we lecha Shalom, Achi--Drboisclair 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luther and the Eucharist

Do you think it works? Also, what do you think of what I've said on the talk page? --CTSWyneken 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it works. I think that what you have posted on the talk page is very helpful, and I am sad that we have to go through all of this.--Drboisclair 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman not co-editor of the whole set

You may want to double-check, but I do believe there was a co-editor on the set level for LW. I'm betting he was volume editor. --CTS Wyneken 17:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit puzzled by that myself. As you know I am just Wikifying what other editors have put in. Thanks for jogging my memory.--Drboisclair 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory material before quote

Inserting "as part of medieval Christian anti-Semitism" is unecessary editorializing. Putting in that comment outside the quotes is in my view a POV push and quite frankly I think it whitewashes Luther somewhat and minimizes the significance of this book. Saying it is "part of medieval Christian anti-Semitism" sort of indicates that Luther was just being "one of the boys," conforming to a norm and not a ringleader. Please don't re-insert this statement. --Mantanmoreland 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have shortened the introductory sentence. I appreciate that it is wise to leave the medieval Christian anti-Semitism out of what Wikipedia says, but isn't what you're saying is whitewash exactly what Halsall is saying? Halsall was not allowed to say all of what he had to say. --Drboisclair 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Halsall material is fine. I did remove the other added material as frankly I felt it did not added anything. The current synopsis is certainly more than adequate and there is no need to put in the rather inflammatory quote. --Mantanmoreland 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Jews and Their Lies

Hello david. I was just coming to you to inform you that I have put a citation needed mark at the end of the sentence saying that luther decide to write the book after being sent a pro-jewish pamphlet by a Count. I was wondering if you could get a reference for that statement. Good luck! Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 21:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting that right now, Matt. Have a look at it when I get it in.--Drboisclair 21:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job...that really supports the sentence. You have become even more of an example of a great editor. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 22:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to retire

Hello Drboisclair. I just wanted to come here and thank you for everything before I retire from wikipedia. I have decided not to stay for various reasons, mostly from the past. I have seen what this place has done to people, and I have decided to not let it happen to me. I don't know if I will come back, but regardless I wanted to thank you. You were always nice to me, and for that I am forever greatful. I will always treasure our emails. Thank you my friend for everything. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 04:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that circumstances force your hand in this way. It fills me with great sadness and regret.--Drboisclair 04:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

returned from my retirement because of you all

Hey man. I just wanted to tell you that I have returned due to your’s and others kind messages and emails. I missed this encyclopedia, and I have missed you as well. I really appreciate all that you have done for me. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 06:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a true Wikiasset! Glad to hear it.--Drboisclair 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your apology for the emails

Calling you a "bigot" (off-wiki) was painful, and certainly I should have used less strong language in characterizing your emails. To me, personal attacks and slurs are really just the sign of a greater issue. Based on the comments that you made to me in your private emails, you really should recuse yourself from further editing concerning Martin Luther-related topics, because they do indeed put you into friction with Jewish editors. Look, this is just my opinion but I hope that you take it seriously.--Mantanmoreland 16:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just to add one further point: Look, I used to be an anti-Semite myself. I used to have those feelings, but a parish priest, a sainted man, turned me around. Look into your heart. I mean that sincerely.--Mantanmoreland 16:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but back when we were on friendlier terms, I noted to you with some dismay a tendency, almost an impulse, to slant the POV of Martin Luther-related edits. This is not just you, but other editors. The word "anti-Semitic" danced around my head but I never verbalized it, and then came your emails. Look, not being judgmental, just saying that I see a pattern here and there will be eternal conflict until you divorce yourself from this subject matter on Wiki. In that regard, remember that I indicated also dismay with a tendency to demonize and launch attacks on another editor (Doright). This subject matter just brings out the worst in all concerned, including you with all respect.--Mantanmoreland 16:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candor and your concern. I would like to join you and other editors in opposing antisemitism, which is evil. I am ashamed of Luther's writings against the Jews, which are inconsistent with Christian love and theology in fact; however, I cannot help but desire that these writings and Luther himself be dealt with according to all the historical facts. The idea is not to whitewash him in any way, nor to unhistorically bash him. I hope that we can return to mutual respect as fellow Wikipedia editors.--Drboisclair 17:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are ashamed, and I think quite frankly that that is the problem. Look, what are my REAL hot buttons? Abortion, the Catholic church and the constant slanders against the priesthood. A parish priest literally saved my life. I will have none of that. I know that if I get anywhere near those subjects I will blow a gasket, so I don't. You talk about anti-Lutheran bias, which I really don't see here, but I am not aware of Lutheran ministers being subjected to a constant stream of abuse by TV comedians.--Mantanmoreland 17:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that we all could be NPOV. I guess that it is a process of working things out. My intention as I know your intention is to be NPOV. Thank you for your comments.--Drboisclair 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A time check--Drboisclair 17:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: help request (deletion)

Done. And, no, you couldn't have done it by yourself. If it happens again, put {{db-author}} on the page, and any admin will wipe it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JP, hope you are having a nice day :-).--Drboisclair 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Don't confuse incivility with personal attacks. If I call you an asshole, that's a personal attack. If I instead use a hundred words to say the same thing, it's incivility. Or something like that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right in calling me that :-) lol. I appreciate your help. Maybe I should spend a day or two and read all of those policy pages. Thanks, JP!--Drboisclair 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism and Martin Luther

Thanks for clarifying that. Are you quite satisfied with the characterization of ML through the lens of anti-semitism? Just curious. It seems over-wrought to me.

Doremifasolatido 06:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. No I do not feel satisfied with such a characterization of ML because I think that it is an anachronism, something imposed on the 16th century from the 20th-21st centuries; however, it is a losing battle on this website to oppose it. I completely agree with you that it is over-wrought. Have you read "On the Jews and Their Lies"? It is astounding in its cruelty. For those of us who admire Luther for his greatest work it is a let down. We live in a post-Holocaust world where there is a sensitive perspective in matters like this. I thank you for your courtesy in asking me what my views on this subject are. With kindest regards, --Drboisclair 08:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the wiki article on "Von den Jüden ...". Wasn't aware of it before. It is astonishingly virulent, even violent. I guess that's what happens when philosophers get involved in politics later in life. I read that Plato had a setback when he tried to put his principles into effect in Sicile. Perhaps it's endemic to visionaries to suffer a sense of crumbling defeat when they realize that in fact the world isn't going to change that much and ideals aren't all that contagious. There is of course a larger perspective, but I'm hardly a scholar. Interesting that the "u" was umlauted back then. I look forward to reading your further contributions. Doremifasolatido 05:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Thank you. You may want to create your user page: it will turn your red signature blue. That is if you want to. Thank you for visiting my talk page.--Drboisclair 05:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response

I just wanted to let you know, I'm going to wait and see a few others' responses on the talk page before responding to yours. I'll probably come back later this evening or sometime tomorrow. I don't want this to be a conversation between you and I, if everyone doesn't participate, we'll get nowhere. Thanks, Sam 21:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I appreciate the time it must have taken you to write your comments.--Drboisclair 21:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

My RfA

Regarding my RfA, I would like to thank you for your support. Although my RfA did not pass, I am hopeful that a future one will. I hope you will vote again when I try again. Paul Cyr 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Wiksistentialism ==

(I was told to pass this on to 10 people or my grandma would die. I assume the same applies to you.)

Are there really any coincidences in Wikipedia?

My wikstentialist journey began when an anonymous editor added two links (one pro and one con) to the naked short selling article. Fortunately, Mantanmoreland was quickly on hand to revert without explanation[5] (after all there was just no time for explanations...it was two LINKS after all).

At one point, Mantanmoreland left comments on the anonymous scofflaw's talkpage, which the scofflaw then edited[6]! What a coincidence, for I've actually seen that happen once before[7].

Mantanmoreland also got upset by the maniac editor's brazen use of the word "petulence."[8] Believe it or not, I'd actually seen that before too[9]!

As if that were not enough, the evil editor dared call Mantanmoreland a stalker and a vandal[10]! And though you may not believe me, I'd that before too[11]!

Before long, Mantanmoreland had reverted these terrible links not once, nor twice, but thrice, putting him in WP:3RR trouble. Was it coincidence that Tomstoner, until that moment absent from Wikipedia almost six weeks[12] -- possibly in drug rehab -- shows up out of nowhere just in time to take the baton?

Are there really coincidences in Wikipedia?

My mind harkens back to another near-wikatastrphe, only two weeks ago, when Mantanmoreland was doing his duty jealously guarding a non-notable article[13] as if to say "All articles on Wikipedia matter!", only to land in triple revert jeopardy (I'd link to the diffs but they've been permanently deleted).

Yet just in time, Lastexit miraculously emerged from a month-long retirement to fight that worthy battle[14].

Back to my wiksistentialist journey...Tomstoner asseses the situation and makes a wise observation: it's wrong to say something is vandalism simply because you don't agree with it. Aaaaaaaah! I've seen that very counsel given before[15][16]!

And with good reason, for it's a slippery slope, because the next thing you know, legitimate talk page comments are dismissed as "nonsense"[17] or even "trolling."[18][19]

Coincidence? Is there really such a thing in Wikipedia?

SlimVirgin would call it synchronicity which, she says, equates to sockpuppetry[20] -- unless you happen to be Mantanmoreland, in which case it really is just a silly old coincidence.

What do you think?

Pass this on to 10 other UserTalk pages or risk being found guilty of synchronicity by SlimVirgin, too. Unless you're Matanmoreland, Lastexit or Tomstoner in which case you don't need to worry about it. --65.203.19.10 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]