User talk:Sophia/archive7

Jesus Myth discussion

As on the talk page, I understand that that was one of the points that was raised (the general "proponents are not respectable"), but other claims like the one I was talking about were also brought up, and I was trying to figure out what the deal was. Thank you for answering.

However, I don't really understand how you're pinning the "bringing too much emotion" thing on me - I have been trying to be as neutral as possible on this page, frequently reverting anti-myth material that has no basis and trying to preserve pro-myth material as much as possible, and yet you keep attacking me as biased and seemingly denigrating me for the other kinds of articles I edit (like immediately assuming I'm trying to "apologetics the article out of existence", when even a cursory glance of my edits would show that prediction as ridiculous). I can try to be compromising and keep the discussion on the article, but at a certain point it's impossible for me to not get annoyed when I am near constantly attacked by you and certain other of the article's editors.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And I don't remember "crusading" for the Gospels to be taken as the ultimate source on that page. In fact, the closest thing to it that I can remember is claiming that the earliest of the canon Gospels were written in the first century, which is accepted by most historians. My question had been that earlier discussion had complained about any criticism (the topic starter specifically mentioned the "reputable" bit, but the discussion as a whole covered any criticism) being in certain sections of the article. That's it. No asking for a greenlight to remove the article, as you accused, just a question of what the positions currently were, so that, for example, I knew whether an editor adding quotes or info against the theory in a section should be reverted as POV, or merely have the edit checked and integrated.

As I said, I'm doing my best to be as un-biased as I can be on that article, and all I'm asking you to do is to not attack me every step of the way. I honestly can't see anything I've done on the article that would warrant the things you accuse me of.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I understand that I don't have as much expertise in the topic as you, and have read less applicable books. I've never disputed that, as far as I can see. That's why I've studiously avoided editing any of the parts of the article that are out of my depth - I generally stick to vandalism reversion and general copyediting. In fact, I think I've actually made more edits which would be considered pro-myth than anti-myth on that article. I'm not asking to be given as much authority as you, I'm not asking for anyone to view me as any kind of authority on the subject - I'm just asking for you not to constantly attack me, since, again, I can't see where I've "overstepped my bounds" or done anything to actually warrant the accusations you've made towards me.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the Jesus myth hypothesis article lately? I think we are finally making some progress and I remember your input on the talk page and tha tyou had been involved with it for 2 years. It would be good to see some old hands return now that the article seems to actually be going somewhere.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HK30

He is HK30. --DHeyward (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons. The first is the decision of "User:Professor33" to contact "User:HK30". They didn't overlap as editors (HK30 was blocked in May2006, Professor33 wasn't created until June 2006). HK30 posted this "email" over at Wikipedia review. Giovanni33 admits to being Professor33 even though at the time he denied it is as vocally as he denies his other, more recent, sock puppets. Professor33 "contacted" HK30 for "help" to get unblocked. The only other people he contacted were admins. In the email and in other places, Professor33 published the material that HK30 was banned over. In reality, HK30 and Professor33 are the same person (according to MusicalLinguist as well) and he used the HK30 to publish the "email" at Wikipedia review. It was practically the only thing that HK30 did at Wikipedia Review and he used that account because it was already banned at Wikipedia indefinitely. here's more evidence [1] but you've probably seen this. Giovanni33 has also admitted that ML was correct about his sockpuppets. His denial about HK30 is not credible given all of his admissions, the evidence that link all the accounts he has admitted to, the coincidences and the material being published by his sockpuppets being so similar (including the outing information). --DHeyward (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Giovanni is SimplePilgrim or TrollWatcher, though I haven't looked at them closely. I think he got caught up with them when they were doing their stuff and helped them. Here's the most compelling sequence of edits that introduces HK30 (HK30 is a play on another users name KHM03, which is similar to other SP accounts he's admitted to).

Here's the WR post. It's just not believable that they aren't the same person given the circumstances and the fact that he's admitted to all the other ones that Musical Linguist identified and this one fits the pattern of his other ones in terms of account name and linguistic clues. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this rant where the "Professor" talks about the sites that you are concerned about and also protests how innocent he is. Then read this [2]. I think this is the first time he's actually admitted to this sockpuppet, previously only admitting that he used sockpuppets in the past and only admitting to the confirmed checkuser cases. --DHeyward (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and bye for now

Dear Sophia, you welcomed me some time ago at Wikipedia. Thank you for this but I can see that I will "leave" for some indefinite time. I tried to contribute to the Jesus Myth (and historicity), in a way which I felt similar to yours. But I must say I am giving up now, it is so time consuming, and in some sense hopeless. I will let evolution do her work by herself :-) Good luck in your further endeavours!Jelamkorj (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Sorry, but I don't think it's rude and it makes sense to me. You're not making a credible case that being an atheist does not give you a conflict of interest. Being an atheist gives you a conflict of interest with any of the Biblical claims just as it gives you a conflict of interest with any religious claims. It's possible for an atheist to accept the historicity of Jesus in the same way that it's possible for a Christian to reject the existence of a personal God or that Jesus didn't rise from the grave (as some Christians do). That doesn't change the fact that is in the best interest of an atheist to deny the truth claims of any religious work. You can't tell me there's no conflict of interest. Do you think it's a sheer coincidence that those who assert the Jesus Myth are all atheists? Where are all the Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus denying that Jesus ever existed? They have absolutely no stake in his existence whatever, and the Jews in particular have a stake in his non-historicity. You really seem to think that atheists are incapable of personal bias and are uniformly objective in their assessment of evidence and issues which infringe on their worldview. That's just not realistic. But all of this is beside the point. The fact remains that a case has been made which is entirely falsifiable. All you have to do is falsify it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you chose not to respond to any of this, except to repeat your demand that I don't 'refactor' your posts. I'm going to repeat the point. The fact remains that a case has been made which is entirely falsifiable. All you have to do is falsify it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Brights

Category:Brights, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Brights movement seems to be a British thing. I once said, "I seem to be pretty bright (intelligent) but not too Bright (naturalistic thinking)." In other words, I don;t seem to have much cnfidence in my sense of common Sense.

Can you tell that my typing skills are rusty? I wish I could hire someone to take dictation,

I would like you to send word to my sister, Dawn Marie Vanderhyde, nvywfe72@ yahoo.com, NAVy WiFE, DMV, &c. She is my durable power of attorney for medical affairs. We've talked enough that she knows I consuder you to be another sister, or at least a tolkienish Elf-friend. Dawn knows who SOPHIA is, anyway. I'm going down the membershio roll at User:Archola/The_Centrist_Fellowship. Dawny Dawny Doo, where are you?

I am suffering from lung cancer that invaded the human brain and required brain surgery. Trying to coordinate information in my environment is like waiting for the Pony Express. (Coordination is going to be difficult suce the lung tumor invaded my brain through the Cerebellum-Spinocerebellar tract complex. Oh, joy! Not to mention that I heard the doctors here at Skilled Neurosurgery discussing with my sis that they were planning to remove a bone from my skull and let my neck muscles support the back of my head.

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beale

Hi Sophia, I believe you've been involved before in determining whether Nicholas Beale fits our notability criteria. Although the article was deleted, the subject has moved it back into mainspace. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion here and offering an opinion, if you have time? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't able to help but by the red tag I see notability has not been established ;o) Sophia 21:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again

Not much has changed. [3]. I think we went over this a few years ago. Take care, ^^James^^ (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't been around but I have had a real life/job to live! Just popped onto the Christ myth page the other day and thought I would see how an IP was treated!! Not well! When you appeared I thought I should log on. Sophia 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sophia! Glad you stopped by. The fun here never ends! :D I liked what you said here: Wikipedia used to be about selecting sources to represent an overall picture of a subject, not finding whatever quote you could to make it stick. I see a lot of that. ^^James^^ (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! I'm hoping that you (one of the sanest voices around) can pop by mediation every now and then to register your presence. I don't have time to get caught up either. (2.5 month old daughter, 1.5yr old son.) Either way, I'm glad you stopped by! ;) ^^James^^ (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (OK, I can't resist [4]). :)^^James^^ (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So cute! :o) Sophia ♫ 20:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Christ myth theory has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Eugene (talk)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory.

For the Mediation Committee, Seddon ^talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Christ myth

Hello Sophia, thanks for your note. I'm reluctant to get involved because I'd like to be able to review the article if it comes back to FAC. I've already been the subject of criticism over my oppose at the first FAC, and that would only get worse if I were to become further engaged. I'll put the peer review page on my watchlist just in case I can add anything of value, but my feeling at the moment is that it's best I stay away. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, just to let you know that this is now back at FAC. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christ myth theory/archive2. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment, and I see others are now weighing in too. I've tried to make a few edits today, but there's a lot more that would need to be done. I don't have any of the reading material to hand, so I'm limited in what I can do beyond copy editing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Christ myth theory and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Thanks for your note, Sophia, and for offering to help with the Martin book. I've ordered several books but they're going to take some time to arrive, so in the meantime I'm struggling to do the reading via Google or Amazon, but they don't show everything. I was thinking of writing up a section on Martin's view of Wells, so perhaps if there are pages I can't access about that, you could either help me write it, or let me know what the missing pages say? That would help a lot.

In the meantime, Shell Kinney, one of the Arbs, made a good suggestion, namely that we ask each editor to list what would satisfy their concerns about the article. I've started a section about that here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry

I'm so sorry to hear that, Sophia. Don't worry about the other thing even for a minute; it's massively unimportant. I hope you and your family are coping okay. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Hello Sophia, in case you didn't see it, Ari asked for a clarification to your vote on the CMT talk page. When you get a chance, can you please explain your "oppose" vote, since it is contrary to what you have affirmed in the past? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]