Templeknight

New Catholic Study Bible

I don't think you're interpreting the source correctly. It says that there's a distinction between biblical myth and biblical history, it doesn't say that Genesis is part of the latter. Gabbe (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to interprate since its is said very clearly that the Genesis creation documentation is not mythical: "Such a tendency must be resisted along with the opposite tendency to read biblical history as though it were mythical. " – New Catholic Study Bible, Saint Jerome Edition, Literary Forms of the Bible, pages 1360-61 --Templeknight (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that. It says the tendency to read it that way is to be avoided. It's also an opinion. Stop citing it like scientific fact. --King Öomie 14:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Templeknight: It does not say that "Genesis" is not mythical, in fact, it says the opposite. First it describes the beginning of Genesis as "mythical forms of writing", then it says that we shouldn't "read myth as though it were history", then it says that "such a tendency [ie. conflating "myth" and "history"] must be resisted". Gabbe (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It says: to not read biblical history as though it were mythical ! Genesis is a part of the bible.... --Templeknight (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, saying that Genesis is part of the Bible is not the same as saying Genesis is part of biblical history. In fact, the source makes the opposite argument, namely that Genesis is not part of "biblical history". Gabbe (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The main problem I have with you adding it to the article is that you phrased it as though it were factual. It is an opinion. An informed, professional opinion, certainly, but an opinion. You can't take one guy saying "Yeah, but you shouldn't read it as though it were a myth" to mean "Genesis has been confirmed to not be a myth". --King Öomie 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedical opinions are worthy to refer to dont you agree ? Then give an example how you would integrate it. We have a problem here that only can be solved by finding a good compromise. I think " the not mythical Genesis creation myth" is a good compromise. What do you have to offer ? --Templeknight (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The nothing wrong with the source itself, but it doesn't say what you cite it to say. Gabbe (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at The_Bible_and_history --Templeknight (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To directly state that Genesis on the whole is NOT mythical (and I don't mean not a creation myth, but actually not mythical, as in 'true') would be a flagrant departure from NPOV. You're mixing two definitions of the words- your suggested sentence would imply that, while Genesis is a creation myth (a supernatural story of how the world came to be), it is literally true (not colloquially mythical in nature). I think you can see why this is unacceptable. --King Öomie 15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That our main problem indeed is based on different meanings of the same word is nothing new..... until now i am the only one who did contribute a - compromise version -. So instead of posting only negative you should support to find a compromise. --Templeknight (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your addition was unworkable. It wasn't a compromise- it promoted the genesis creation myth as literally true. I don't see a place for that source in the article itself, and it is only of minimal use as a platform for argument against the term "creation myth" itself. --King Öomie 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to judge what is true or not and truth is nothing than can be found by counting the amount of people that think A is true or B is true.... And for this reason (as you can see on the discussion page) there are many that find the combination of of the words in "Genesis creation myth" very problematic. And as long as you are not able to admit that there is at least a tendency of judging truth we will not be able to solve this problem. And until now I did not see a single good argumet why we should not use "Creation according to Genesis". --Templeknight (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because every other article about creation myths on Wikipedia uses the term Creation Myth. It would be a violation of NPOV, and would certainly pass judgment, to put the creation myth in Genesis on a higher pillar than those.

"We are not here to judge what is true or not and truth is nothing than can be found by counting the amount of people that think A is true or B is true...."

I agree. That's why 'creation myth' is perfect- it doesn't say anything about truth! At all! And the second part of that is great also. Let's stop counting the people and rely on the sources. Your source says to not regard it as mythical- as in false. Well we're in luck- that's not what 'creation myth' means! I'm glad we're in agreement. --King Öomie 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I almost agree with you but I come to the conclusion that the titles of the other creation accounts on Wikipedia shouldnt use the word myth either. --Templeknight (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And your argumentation is indeed a very good example ! You say: "It would be a violation of NPOV, and would certainly pass judgment, to put the creation myth in Genesis on a higher pillar than those." That means that using the word "myth" is not as good as using the term "Creation according to Genesis" So right now by saying this obviously neutral term is a "higher pillar" you obviously agree that there is this tendency that many are complaining about ! --Templeknight (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should just start posting the opposite of what I mean and do your work for you.

All the other articles say "X creation myth". It would be a violation of NPOV to say "well, we don't like the term creation myth in THIS instance, so we're putting the one WE like at a title that doesn't include that evil, evil word." --King Öomie 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This are your words: ""higher pillar" and "evil". And it is obvious that with this words you proof the negative tendency ... --Templeknight (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

People who don't know what they're talking about see the word 'Myth' and think "ME RELIGION IS BEING REPRESSED". They are incorrect and foolish. Weeks into this debate, people still refuse to LOOK UP THE DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS THEY'RE ARGUING AGAINST USING. Utterly foolish.

WP:RNPOV: "...Editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."

Me: "I will not avoid a scholarly term simply because people are so set in their ways that they refuse to learn what it means." --King Öomie 17:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the lack of manner of some persons that force the usage of "myth" in this context, combined with the words used in discussion combined with the way they use informal meaning in their argumentation isnt very helpful to solve this conflict. --Templeknight (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Scraping the bottom of the barrel here for argumentation- pointing out inconsistencies and issues with my choices of words, rather than dealing with what I actually said. I'm done arguing this here. Take it to the talk page. Or, you know, don't. --King Öomie 17:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So I guess there is no interest in finding a solution ...... --Templeknight (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not here, no. --King Öomie 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

You're coming close to violating the three-revert rule on Genesis creation myth. Edit warring can result in blocking. Gabbe (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What is this about ? I did only revert the deletion of Kingoomieiii. (Undid revision 344210691 by Kingoomieiii - Before you delete anything explain on Talkpage why you think the New Catholic Study Bible is not a valid source for this article.) And since I posted a good source he did show realy bad manner. --Templeknight (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You've made exactly the same edit twice [1], [2]. You've also made a very similar edit in the last 24 hours, [3]. If people undo your edits, then reinserting them over and over again is likely going to get you blocked. Gabbe (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1) I did post 2) I did move it from text to notes 3) I did undo the reverting. --Templeknight (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. One more edit of the same kind to the same page and you're liable to be blocked for edit-warring. See WP:EW. Gabbe (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not been aware of this so thank you for your information. I just thought it is rude to delete information without giving a good reason so I thought it is obviously right to undo the reverting ..... --Templeknight (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Gabbe (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bishop Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige

Hello, you are a member of the Wikiproject Catholicism.We would appreciate your help. Please take a look at this article about the catholic bishop Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige . Users deleted sources and tried to force their anti-catholic POV on it. They banned many people that tried to add sources. They didnt block me or Eastmain, but they deleted our sources we gave too. It appears that they don't like this catholic bishop.

Best version until now with 13 sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&diff=343039227&oldid=343037941

And after deleting the sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&action=historysubmit&diff=343481960&oldid=343039227

(At first they had planned on deleting the whole article but it didnt work)

Check out at the information on these other wikipedia articles about Seiwert Fleige and compare them to the info that is on there now. You will notice that its quite the oposite:

Pierre_Martin_Ngô_Đình_Thục

Palmarian_Catholic_Church

Sedevacantism

Clemente_Domínguez_y_Gómez

Thank you --Michelle cannon (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can see I did already work on the article. In The start version has been almost every single detail ben wrong or mixed up .... Soon I will work more on it. --Templeknight (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou VERY much for your help with this article. It has been very difficult to work on it alone. I appreciate the support. --Michelle cannon (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome ! I am very interested in this topic anyways because it is very connected to the incidences around the Society of Saint Pius X. --Templeknight (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis page

I'm genuinely interested in who you think witnessed God's creation of the heavens and earth. By the book's own admission, Adam (or rather, Eve) was the final creation, and thus can't have witnessed a thing. --King Öomie 01:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That should be an obvious answer for anyone who has read the book of genesis for the answer is in the book itself ;) but this is not my argument so Ill just watch these exciting arguments of wheather genesis is a creation myth. but here is one point id like to include... since this article is about genesis and genesis is the book about creation then shouldnt the title of article be Genesis- the biblical fact of creation? or how about... Genisis- the creation 'according" to the bible.. since Genesis is a bible based book and it is about creation then it should be "according' or if the article is about creation of a different sort.. like for example...the creation of new life by cloning people then the title would be "creation according to scientist" or creastion- science vs bible....but this article is about Genesis, and genesis is about creation so common sense would be 'GENESIS 'THE BOOK ABOUT CREATION...AND... the article should base the facts straight out of the bible regarding genesis and not whether someone believes if its true or not... this article is not about finding the truth or discussing whether this book is true or false, or if anyone witnessed it.. so the article should offer only the information that is strictly from its main source.. the bible! but myth? first of all its a bit tongue twisting... Genesis creation myth... doesnt have a good flow to it either... and im pretty sure that when most people type in the search box they will be typing in "genesis" and not genesis creation myth.so i dont really understand what all this fuss is about with the name and why this has been a continuous argument. Its pretty silly if you ask me... --Michelle cannon (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

When someone searches for Genesis, they first arrive at a disambiguation page that outlines all the articles that include that name (including Genesis (band)). If someone wants to learn about the book of genesis, then they should read Book of Genesis. If they're only interested in the creation myth in Genesis 1+2, then Genesis creation myth is the correct destination. There already exists an article called Cloning.

so the article should offer only the information that is strictly from its main source.. the bible!

Actually, we rely heavily on secondary sources for analysis. --King Öomie 14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, Satan, the angels and the Gods all witnessed the process of creation by God through Jesus. --Templeknight (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source outside the bible that confirms this? Keep in mind that the bible is a primary source. --King Öomie 14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

All whitnesses are primary source .... --Templeknight (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there some kind of document backing up anything the bible says on the subject? I mean one not entirely based on the bible itself? A text can't be used as a reference for its own claims. --King Öomie 16:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Could the witnesses Jesus, Satan, the angels and the Gods all produce a written statement to prove that they had seen this event happen? Maybe if that happened we could use those at references. Osarius : Natter, blahblah, nag 19:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

First, The Bible is not one book, but many books from different centuries so we already have many different sources. And Yes, we have scientific proof as well as many other publications in many other cultures too... And.... you ask for a written statement from God, and jesus and and and... the bible is their written statement... --Templeknight (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no scientific evidence for any of the supernatural evidence presented in the Bible. And unfortunately, handwriting analysis can't confirm that last bit. --King Öomie 21:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So that begs the question of "how do we know that the bible is the written statement of god?" so that it can be used as a reliable source for what you assume to be a factual historical event? I'm guessing your answer might be somewhere in the circular reasoning realm of "the bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god" but in the off chance you have some other answer I'd love to hear it. Nefariousski (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Big_bang and Mendelian_inheritance are good proofs. --Templeknight (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Nefariousski: Ask himself and he will answer you :-) --Templeknight (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Templeknight: Either we are going to be sensible about this or we are going to go round in loops. Either you find a good, reliable, 3rd party source that is not biased or unbalanced, or you remove the content you have added to the page as unreliable and unreferenced. I am not having a go at you, but you need to be a bit more open minded. A source cannot be a source for it's own statements. Osarius ^{That's me!} : _{Naggin' again?} : ^{What did I do?!} 18:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Needed Consensus on the Genesis creation myth page

Being a latecomer to the article, I'm unclear exactly who is committed to the article and what they are committed to. I've heard a good deal from those in favor of the "myth" title, but not so much from those opposed. Eactly WHAT would be needed for a consensus title before you would be comfortable making improvements to the article? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Alfred Seiwert-Fleige has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Please do not revert other users edits that is reverting vandalism. Discuss it on the talk page if you have any issues. Osarius : Natter, blahblah, nag 13:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation I will take care to give always very descriptive informations in edit summary. I dont revert edits of users that do revert vandalism. I did revert today the vandalism of a user in the article Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige.--Templeknight (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also to let you know: it is not rude or against policies to not give a good reason to remove information. In fact, you do not have to use the Edit summary box at all! It says in Help:Edit_summary that it is good practice to use the edit summary box, but you don't have to. Remember: anyone can edit Wikipedia, and they can add or remove what they wish, as long as it is within guidelines. Don't add information to Wikipedia if you don't want it to be edited beyond all recognition. As it says below the edit box: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.". I hope this clears things up a bit. Osarius : Natter, blahblah, nag 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Im glad i didnt do anything against the policies by not giving very many details in the edit summary. And yes it is wonderful that many people can contribute to the articles and this way they become really good. For this reason, it is good to protect this work against vandalism, like people deleting whole articles and adding false information. This is exactly what User:Peridon did... He deleted the whole article and added false information that has already been proven wrong and he continues to do this over and over... --Templeknight (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add hoaxes to Wikipedia. Hoaxes are caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia in an attempt to test our ability to detect and remove such material. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia policy to learn more about this project and how you can make a positive impact. Thank you.

"Bishop" Seiwert-Fleige

Stop spreading the nonsense that he is a bishop ! He is a costume dresser !

Look at the article Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige.

I am a big fan since what he did was almost impossible. He is the greatest costume dresser ever and for this he deserves his article in wikipedia !

--Ban Yoo (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bischof-Ralph for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Osarius ^{That's me!} : _{Naggin' again?} : ^{What did I do?!} 19:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Today i got attacked by Bischof-Ralph User:Ban_Yoo on my talkpage User_talk:Templeknight and accused of creating hoaxes. He ddeleted my article and posted rediculous stuff which is the opposite I am standing for and now you accuse me to be his sockpuppet?

This is my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&diff=345104517&oldid=345100878

This is Bischof-Ralph´s article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&diff=345233078&oldid=345232662

I guess there is no more proof needed....--Templeknight (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Alfred Seiwert-Fleige

This is your only warning. If you try and post your version of the currently-protected Alfred Seiwert-Fleige on the talk page again in an attempt to work around the protection of the article (as you did [4]), then you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Regards, –MuZemike 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I read these sentences:

"Please discuss any changes on the talk page;"

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page."

So I was thinking that the TALK PAGE is the place where the facts about the article should be discussed.

So I posted the facts and sources to the talk page with the goal to start a discussion about it.

Now you tell me this is wrong.

Please explain to me why this is wrong and what the purpose of all this is.

Before you told me: "It's intended to stop the edit-warring and start discussion and negotiation on the talk page."

--Templeknight (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 22:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC))
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

As  Confirmed by CheckUser. –MuZemike 22:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alfred Seiwert-Fleige

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alfred Seiwert-Fleige. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Seiwert-Fleige (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here