User talk:134.161.138.166

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Warning

Please refrain from making personal attacks, per Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Doing so in edit summaries is particularly irritating (for example "bigot" and "POV spewing vandal" are inappropriate things to say).--Scimitar parley 17:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)



i am sorry, but if a person insists on placing pov vandalism, he is a pov vandal... kinda like if a person bakes bread, they are a baker... how is that a personal attack? 134.161.138.166 17:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


i assume good faith... however that codex guy is breaking wiki rules left and right, and insisting his pov is the only one allowed. even assuming he is doing so innocently, it is unacceptable. 134.161.138.166 17:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm looking into it now. You, though, have violated Wikipedia:3RR, because that was a content dispute, not simple vandalism. I'm not going to block you, unless you do it again, but in the meantime it might be a better idea to visit that talk pages of the articles to see what the consensus is on the Christian mythology category. I haven't done that yet, either, but I'm going to look into it.--Scimitar parley 17:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

i will look into it, but i refuse to say that "jesus" is an acceptable alternatve to "christian mythology"...

just a question... if I were to go to a page, say, "evolution" and remove a category, say "science"..repeatedly and claim it was becasue my god told me to, does that mean that it is no longer simple vandalism? this disurbs me as to how far this religious nutcase can push his pov on wikipedia.....134.161.138.166 17:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed that you seem to be insistent that the article on words of Jesus on the cross belong to category:Christian mythology. I do not mind ether way: I have no strong feelings. However, if someone reverts your edit, you should write a note at talk:words of Jesus on the cross about why you would like the article in that category. If you do not explain your actions, we are left to guess what you are thinking. As Wikipedia is built by consensus, and not by how quickly any one user can revert something, this is the only way you can get want you want. If you show good will and intention, I shall support you. However, I've just noticed that you have broken the 3-revert rule, which means you might be temporarily blocked. Needless to say, this is not how to get things done around here. --Gareth Hughes 17:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
sorry, I was putting it in the category, based on the category discription.... some vandal keeps removing it.134.161.138.166 23:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Because religion is such a touchy subject, describing it as mythology or removing such a description becomes a content dispute, rather than vandalism. POV pushing is usually removed through process, eventually.--Scimitar parley 17:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
So if I re-write articles and claim that it is because god told me to put "penis" after every 5th word, it is not vandalism, but content dispute? seems an arbitrary designation... 134.161.138.166 23:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From the Category:Christian myth page

NOTE: Categorising a story as a myth does not necessarily imply that it is untrue. Religion and mythology differ, but have overlapping aspects. Many English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" to mean fictitious or imaginary. However, according to many dictionary definitions, these terms can also mean a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people, and this Wikipedia category should be understood in this sense only. The use of these terms in this category does not imply that any story so categorized is historically true or false or that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false.

My understanding is that the myth category applies only to traditional narratives built around the Bible, rather than to Biblical passages themselves. Since most people accept that belief in Christianity is a hotly debated personal choice, I really don't know if it needs to be explicitly stated whether or not certain Biblical texts are myth or not; in other words, people have already made their choice and we don't need to tell them. Does that seem reasonable?--Scimitar parley 17:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that according to that note, all my edits would be acceptable... Since the category system is a powerful reverse navigation tool (most people don't use it purely to find out what an article is categorized, but use the system to find other articles of the same categorization) it seems a terrible shame to spit in the fact of the system and refuse to categorize an article based on it's content... Since the Note on the category page explicitly says that we are not stating truth or falsity, we are still leaving that up to the reader, so i don't see why the category would not be allowed... 134.161.138.166 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the category definition:"The Christian mythology category contains articles concerning the body of stories that explains or symbolizes Christian beliefs. A Christian myth is a religious story that Christians consider to have deep explanatory or symbolic significance."

I intend to categorize any article that meets that definition as such, upto and until the definition is changed. 134.161.138.166 23:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please stop adding articles to the Abrahamic mythology category twice. Anything in Category:Torah events is already in Category:Abrahamic mythology, because Category:Torah events is part of Category:Abrahamic mythology (amongst others).

--francis 17:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)