User talk:Bus stop/Archive1

Wikipedia's cesspool

There's a good deal of lowlife activity on Wikipedia. (There is also a lot of good work done on Wikipedia.) List of notable converts to Christianity is primarily a cesspool of the worst I have ever stumbled upon on Wikipedia. Bus stop 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, this account has been blocked indefinitely for persistent refusal to abide by site policies. Durova^Charge! 04:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite Christian antisemitism

Per Christian antisemitism, List of notable converts to Christianity uses that article (list) to "showcase" Jews. If they have ever displayed any passing interest in Christianity, especially if they have celebrity status (Bob Dylan, for instance) they are fair game for that article, which has been a locus of antisemitism since its inception. Bus stop 09:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite Christian anti-atheism

Per Christian anti-atheism, List of notable converts to Christianity uses that article (list) to "showcase" Atheists. If they have ever displayed any passing interest in Christianity, especially if they have celebrity status (Larry Flynt, for instance) they are fair game for that article, which has been a locus of anti-atheism since its inception. Ttiotsw 11:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is debatable whether atheism is a religion. Bus stop 12:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock|Your reason here (A)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bus stop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

editing an article shouldn't be a reason to be blocked

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for merely editing, but for being disruptive. Mangojuice^talk 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have not been blocked for being disruptive. I have engaged in far more Talk page dialogue than any other editor. I have tried to argue my point of view on the article's Talk page. You obviously have not looked at the article's Talk page if you think I have been "disruptive." What I have tried to do, far more than any editor in this discussion, is to articulate my argument using the article's Talk page. That, in Wikipedia terms, is the opposite of disruption. That, in fact, is essential to Wikipedia. My comments on the Talk page especially in recent days have been vandalized repeatedly. In fact the use of the Talk page in recent days has been all about vandalism. My remarks were moved. Other people moved or removed their remarks. Topic headers were inserted separating my comment from the person I was responding to. That I also edited the article on occasion too is not a violation of any policy. As an editor I have as much right as any of the other editors to directly make changes to the article. I have been anything but "disruptive." I have been articulate on the Talk page -- that is what this is all about. Rather than engage me in dialogue editors have chosen to report me on ridiculous charges, and engage in a lot of personal attacks, to which I have by and large not responded. It is my reasoning, articulated on the article's Talk page that has the present bunch of editors fuming. They cannot engage me in dialogue because I am using sound logic to present an argument. There have been plenty of personal attacks, and they have not been by me. I never called any individual an antisemite. I have characterized the placement of a known Jew on a list of converts to Christianity as antisemitic. That is my prerogative, because it is a comment on the article; it is not a comment on an editor. Any and every excuse has been attempted to harass me and get me blocked and drive me away -- just as they've successfully driven away several other people whose opinions were dissenting. Please just look at the Talk page. I don't think there is any reason why I should have to point to anything on the Talk page in particular. The bulk of my involvement with this article involves the articulation of a point of view. That was done by me on the article's Talk page. Nothing in that articulation of an argument in countless posts on the article's Talk page constitutes "disruption." Please see below for some applicable policies in support of this argument. And please, just look at the Talk page for yourself. Bus stop 15:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Another point that I would like to make is that I rarely if ever report anybody about anything, but the horde mentality so prevalent here has reported every misconstrued misstep that they could possibly find or dream up about me. Bus stop 15:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not at all about "disruption." This is about making a cogent argument. The gang of editors can't counter a cogent argument. My "offense" is making a cogent argument. I've argued that non Christians should be excluded from this list. I've argued that this list should confine its contents to Christians. That is my prerogative, to make that argument. I don't have to cave in to majority opinion if I think it represents something sufficiently problematic. It is my argument that has the editors here fuming. This is their way of responding to cogent argument. "Disruption" is not even a factor. The editors here are at least as guilty of anything they've accused me of. I've had tons of my comments on the Talk page removed. I've just moved on from there. I haven't compiled a list of wrongs done against me. I haven't gone complaining to administrators about it. My offense is the strength of my argument that this list should stick to straightforward parameters. These folks first decide what list they would like to have, then they concoct the parameters and the title that will result in that list. I am completely within my rights as a Wikipedia editor for speaking my mind, and that is not disruption. Bus stop 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Bus stop. I'm going to have to reiterate that your argument, no matter how awesome and glorious you find it to be, is merely your own opinion. Sorry to say, but others find your argument wholly lacking, myself included.

Likewise, I'm certain that any other editor involved finds their own argument cogent and worth great consideration, but that doesn't make it so (and as you continuously ignore arguments presented against you, your portrayal of the supremacy of your own argument is rather hypocritical).

You really need to get off this high horse and drop the drama. Your argument is nothing more than simply that- your own argument. It is not holy scripture. It is not the path to enlightenment. As other users have responded to your argument many times, and moved to such a critical standpoint of your position, it's safe to say that your re-pasting of your argument is more a cause of annoyance to the other editors than of actual concern.

Your original responses are always appreciated, but you are achieving nothing by repeating the same half-baked argument ad nauseam.--C.Logan 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.

Polling discourages consensus

Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wiki has allowed. Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is a strength, not a failing. Dialectics is one of the most important things that make Wiki special, and while taking a poll is very often a lot easier than helping each other find a mutually agreeable position, it's almost never better.

Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding that discourse; participants don't interact with the other voters, but merely choose camps. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. No one can address objections that aren't stated, points that aren't made.

Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing.

FYI

Hey Bus stop--I've made a personal appeal to the two admins who blocked and upheld the block against you as I felt the indefinite block was unusually excessive. I've followed the situation from a distance as I don't know too much about the subject matter. I am inclined to side with you on your principle points, in particular the agenda to promote Christianity through wikipedia (I know born-agains and recognize their tactics), and as well, the ganging up tactics used to discredit you. However, to be blunt, I'm not in favour of your own tactics and have felt you let things get out of control, rather than step back and find a different approach. The admin Durova has made an offer which you may want to consider. I won't get involved beyond this, mainly out of respect for you (I wasn't sure if "budding in" was the answer or would be considered insulting or patronising). Good luck and don't let the bastards get you down. Freshacconci 16:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova's proposed conditions for your reinstatement can be found on the User talk:Durova page under the heading of "Blocking of Bus stop". Unfortunately, I don't know how to make a link to a page that already has braces in the title, but it's the last heading on that page. John Carter 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Durova#Blocking of User:Bus stop? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop - Try editing for a while away from those pages. You've made your points, and you've made your stand. Its time to let it go. Modernist 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Freshacconci, I'm one of the "bastards" on that article and I have no Christian agenda (I'm not even Christian). Please keep the polemic out of this as there is no anti-semitic agenda. Drumpler 06:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify things if there's any doubt, I'm not asking for any admission of wrongdoing. I'll unblock you if you pledge to enter WP:ADOPT and avoid one article for three months. As I explained some time ago at User:Durova/Recusal, I could have headed down the wrong path myself. Maybe you'll regain good standing if you stay away from this hot button topic. Durova^Charge! 19:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not asking for an admission of wrongdoing from who?

I accept absolutely no constraints on me. The constraints suggested are equally applicable to several of the other editors who filed these complaints against me. My opinion (about the article) is backed up by a strong argument. Let the other editors use the Talk page of the article to counter my argument after this block is removed. I've done nothing that they haven't done.

Nor have you articulated anything I've done that they haven't done. Bus stop 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong argument? I haven't seen a single point from you which has not already been responded to multiple times, and yet you still feel inclined to post the same argument over and over again.--C.Logan 23:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All right Bus stop, since your unblock review request has been denied your other option is arbitration. You can submit a statement to the open request by e-mailing an arbitration clerk. If you change your mind about my unblock offer you can contact me by e-mail or if I'm not available you can post a new unblock request to this talk page. Regarding the other portion of your comment, tu quoque is not a defense. That said, I'll take a look at an e-mail if choose to back up your assertions with a well researched report in the style of User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. It wouldn't affect your block status one way or the other but it might result in action against other editors. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That sleuthing on Joan of Arc is excellent work. I like drilling down like that trying to match editors with IPs based on traffic/pattern analysis (have spent 20 years on fault finding on Telecoms and Network systems so it's in my blood). Lot to learn on that one (like using impersonation accounts).

On the other matter though I'd like to point out that Bus Stop was blocked for edits on Bob Dylan and List of notable people who converted to Christianity which was so eloquently described as the "cesspool" by him, so two pages not one. Shift happens though and it's probably moot now anyway. Ttiotsw 09:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Freshacconci, and Modernist for your support. Bus stop 10:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock|Your reason here (B)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bus stop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The administrator Isotope23 has been "protecting" the article for weeks at the drop of a hat. I have edited the article little in weeks. The administrator Isotope23 has been "protecting" the article for weeks even when I had not edited it in days, in each instance citing "edit warring" as the reason. The administrator Isotope23 has thus created the atmosphere in which to get me blocked. The administrator Isotope23 claims to have no interest in the outcome of any issues involved here. That seems unlikely.

My "offense" is the successful use of the article's Talk page, combined with my occasional edit to the article itself. What the editors dislike most about me is that I have used the Talk page to articulate an argument for confining the use of this list to Christians only. It is my cogent argumentation in support of that point of view that is my offense. I have actually put up with enormous personal attacks constantly. Anyone who looks over the Talk page and is in possession of an objective state of mind can see that I have been anything but "disruptive." I've put up with near constant personal attacks that I've rarely responded to.

I have occasionally edited the article. That is something that I am permitted to do. Everyone edits the article. The administrator Isotope23 has been constantly "protecting" the article even in the absence of edits from me. Drumpler posts this on Isotope23's Talk page:

"Where's the edit warring? I see no violations of WP:3RR or anything of the sort in the recent edit history. There's only one edit warrior (I guess you could call it) and its been User:Bus stop. Is it sensible to protect an article because of one person? I'm fairly certain your recent actions on the List of notable converts to Christianity article was because of this user and I'd sooner have this editor who has had a repeated history of such abuses removed from participation from this article, whereas the rest of us have been seriously discussing it and trying to come to a consensus. Drumpler 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)"

Drumpler, of course, filed this complaint against me. Yet even Drumpler is seen here saying to Isotope23, "Where's the edit warring?" See it for yourself here. Bus stop 10:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your statement is too long, and the supposed offenses of others are irrelevant for the question as to whether or not you should be unblocked. At any rate, it appears that all of your last 500 edits involve a very few articles and the single question of what religion Bob Dylan is. This is a pretty good indicator for disruptive editing. This makes the block appear, on its face, to be correct. Please discuss the terms of any unblock with the blocking admin. — Sandstein 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sandstein -- The question is not what religion Bob Dylan is. The question is whether or not non-Christians should be on a list of Christians. Why would a non-Christian be on a list of converts to Christianity? A convert to Christianity is a Christian. Look at the parameters expressed in the tag which heads up the List of notable converts to Judaism:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

Why would anybody think it would be otherwise? Bus stop 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it goes on from there. Here is Drumpler's next comment on Isotope23's Talk page: "Again, you blocked the page. Where are the violations? I am just curious as I would like to know your reasoning for doing so. Thanks. Drumpler 05:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)" It's in the same place, here. Bus stop 11:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23 has been blocking the page when I hadn't touched it in days. But Isotope23 will tell you that he has no interest in the outcome of this dispute. Of course, Isotope23 also blocked me for 48 hours for editing the page one time.[1]. He says that I do not use the article's Talk page. Please look at the article's Talk page. In point of fact I make extensive use of it. In point of fact I use the article's Talk page probably more than any other editor. I don't use it to make personal attacks on other editors. I use it to articulate my point of view. That is what this block to my account is primarily about. Secondarily it is about my edits to the article itself. But primarily this complaint has been filed against me in lieu of addressing my points. They can't address my points. Because they are using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and ignoring Wikipedia's primary policy of neutrality, not to mention failing to respect the differences between different religions. Bus stop 12:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Any protection I did to the page was not specifically about you Bus stop (talk · contribs), it was because of edit warring, which I explained to Drumpler (talk · contribs) after he contacted me. The fact that you and others were continuing to add and remove the same content from the page over and over constitues an edit war, plain and simple. The one time I blocked you was for resuming said edit war immediately after the page was unprotected. I didn't create any atmosphere to get you blocked Bus stop (talk · contribs); my page protections were interrupting the edit warring and despite what Drumpler (talk · contribs) stated about protecting the article from one person I didn't see it that way. It takes more than one person to edit war. It was a choice to either protect the article or block the lot of you who were edit warring... I chose to protect the article.

Though I suspect you don't believe me, I really do not have any interest in which wrong version of the article is ultimately at that namespace; I just want the disruptive edit warring to stop. I'm sorry to see you blocked indefinitely for this, but I suspect that this second attempt to request an unblock by trying to blame me for your woes isn't going to be very successful given the fact that I didn't block you. It's unfortunate the earlier ARBCOM request was not accepted because, in my opinion at least, there were multiple issues at this article that went beyond just your behavior there.--Isotope23 13:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23 blocked me for making one edit to the article in several days. I don't think Isotope23 ever blocked anyone else for editing that article. Isotope23 never once spoke up about near continuous personal attacks on me on the article's Talk page. Isotope23 had no comment on the ongoing vandalism of a lot of varieties that plagued that article's Talk page, on which I tried to make my case for the List of notable converts to Christianity to confine its name collecting endeavors to Christians only.

My argument that the List of notable converts to Christianity should exclude non-Christians is what this argument is about. The complaints filed against me and my subsequent account block are because I argued an unpopular argument. "Disruption" is nonexistent, not from me anyway. Bus stop 14:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I blocked you for making adding the same disputed edit immediately after the article came of protection. That is disruptive. As for the article talkpage, there were/are a lot of editors saying a lot of things, some rather incivil, which is something I was hoping the arbitration request would address. I never took action against anyone, yourself included Bus stop, for talkpage issues. I wasn't there to be the "niceness police". My interest was in seeing the revert warring on the article stop. If you had an issue with the conduct of other editors, you should have brought it up on WP:ANI.--Isotope23 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I had every right to edit the article. Did anyone else ever edit that article? Did anyone else ever edit that article after it came out of protection? Did you block them? How can you tell me to use the Talk page? I used the Talk page more than any other editor. What does this mean [2]? Are you saying that I did not use the Talk page enough? As an editor I had the right to not only use the Talk page but edit the article. Every time the article came out of "protection" someone edited the article. Who edited the article was dependent on the state that the article was in when you put it in protection. And you were unusually fond of putting the article in "protection." Even Drumpler said to you, on your Talk page, "Where's the edit warring? I see no violations of WP:3RR or anything of the sort in the recent edit history." And in Drumpler's next post on your Talk page he says, "Again, you blocked the page. Where are the violations? I am just curious as I would like to know your reasoning for doing so." (link)

You, Isotope23, were putting the article in "protection" even if I had not done any editing to the article in days. And you were not, concomitantly, blocking anyone else for editing the article. And all the while the horde on the article's Talk page were plotting their next move against me. Were you aware of that? Was I not being blamed for the fact that the article was in "protection?" Were you not aware of that? You caused this situation as much as any editor did. You used your power as an administrator improperly and you failed to use your power as an administrator properly. Bus stop 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is really no point in continuing dialogue with a disruptive editor who honestly believes he has done nothing wrong. What can be gained from attempting reasoned discussion with an editor who suffers from a delusional perspective of events and holds a strongly narcissistic view of his own argument?--C.Logan 15:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the diff you posted, I meant exactly what I said; going back to removing Dylan & continuing the add/remove/add/remove pattern that has been happening at this article for a while now, right when the article came off protection, & during a conversation on the talkpage about said content was disruptive... hence the temporary block I issued. I replied to Drumpler (talk · contribs) here; I don't feel it is necessary to rehash that. It appears you feel that my use of protection was implicitly to protect the article from you Bus stop (talk · contribs) and that simply is not the case. I was protecting the article from edit warring by multiple editors. If it had been my intention to protect the article from any one specific editor I would have used user blocks instead of article protection. I don't doubt that there are individuals who would have been much happier had I chosen that route... Regardless, as Durova said above, you are welcome to email an ARBCOM clerk if you feel that my actions or your block merits further review.--Isotope23 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23 blocked no one but Bus stop. And Isotope23 "protected" the article when no "edit warring" was going on. That is what Drumpler's remarks are saying. Drumpler says:

"Where's the edit warring?"

And Drumpler says:

"Again, you blocked the page. Where are the violations?"

And furthermore, if you were "protecting" the article from "multiple editors" then why did you not block anyone else besides Bus stop? In point of fact you only blocked Bus stop. Bus stop 16:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• In response to your contention that I protected the article when no edit warring was happening, I again direct you to the diff of the response I made to Drumpler's orginal post above. As for page protection and blocking, I've answered all this above. Sorry, but I have no interest in tediously repeating myself here ad infinitum. If you have a problem with my actions, please email an ARBCOM clerk.--Isotope23 16:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me fine tune what I said above: You sometimes protected the article when no edit warring was going on. That is not only my opinion. That is what Drumpler says in two posts on your Talk page.

When there was edit warring going on, why did you block no one but Bus stop? Was only Bus stop edit warring? Bus stop 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as you're going to continue using my quote for your own cause, no matter how noble you think it may be, let's quote it in full, shall we?

Where's the edit warring? I see no violations of WP:3RR or anything of the sort in the recent edit history. There's only one edit warrior (I guess you could call it) and its been User:Bus stop. Is it sensible to protect an article because of one person? I'm fairly certain your recent actions on the List of notable converts to Christianity article was because of this user and I'd sooner have this editor who has had a repeated history of such abuses removed from participation from this article, whereas the rest of us have been seriously discussing it and trying to come to a consensus. Drumpler 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote said comment, I was actually commenting against you. My gist was that I didn't think any editor was being disruptive at the time of this incident except you. If my memory is correct (and I may have to go back to the diffs to substantiate this), editors were correcting one another, true, but I didn't see any contentious editing, only people making improvements to each other's edits. It was then I noticed that you reverted at least twice. That's why I called you an "edit warrior". That's why I thought you were being problematic. And although I still think that's the case and I protect that statement, I actually have no point to even argue this with Isotope23 as he perceived the events differently. This, however, stems beyond one incidient of disruptive editing on your own part, so I think using this quote in isolation and out-of-context to be wholly deceiving. You may or may not perceive it the same, but it is best to look at the case at a whole and not mistake the forest for the trees. Drumpler 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- What does the following mean?

"Where's the edit warring?"

And, Drumpler, What does the following mean?

"Again, you blocked the page. Where are the violations?"

Please stop trying to transform black into white, and/or white into black.

You are clearly in your above two statements responding with incredulity to blockages being applied to the article without the presence of causes, by Isotope23. Please stop trying to transform the intent of your past statements into a revised meaning to suit your present concerns. Bus stop 13:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See that, Drumpler? First, he tells us what the actions of Bob Dylan really mean. Then, he tells us what the reliable and explicit sources really mean when they claim conversion.

All the while, we've been told what the disclaimer on the List of notable converts to Judaism really means, and also what the title of List of notable converts to Christianity really means (not to mention dictating his own scope of parameters like a knight in shining armor).

Now, he's telling you what your statements really mean, because apparently he can provide an exegesis of your words which holds more weight than your own explanation of what you'd actually meant when you said them. That's a superhuman power!--C.Logan 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not too worried about it. Obviously, the only thing that matters is what my own words really do mean and if I alone know what they mean, that's sufficient for me. My concern, however, is that he wants to establish himself as being the victim and is using childish tactics in order to reclaim his status as editor, a prospect I find more and more unlikely the more he posts these same accusations to these page. Drumpler 22:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Since C.Logan and Drumpler are obviously not seeing what is so obvious, let us just look at the entire topic under the heading For your information on Isotope23's Talk page:

For your information

Please see here for what I believe may be an example of someone you had earlier warned not to do something doing it again. John Carter 15:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's the edit warring? I see no violations of WP:3RR or anything of the sort in the recent edit history. There's only one edit warrior (I guess you could call it) and its been User:Bus stop. Is it sensible to protect an article because of one person? I'm fairly certain your recent actions on the List of notable converts to Christianity article was because of this user and I'd sooner have this editor who has had a repeated history of such abuses removed from participation from this article, whereas the rest of us have been seriously discussing it and trying to come to a consensus. Drumpler 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you blocked the page. Where are the violations? I am just curious as I would like to know your reasoning for doing so. Thanks. Drumpler 05:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As I explained here, the continued addition, removal, and re-addition of sections while the discussion is ongoing constitutes edit warring; that is why I protected the page. I've been away from the talkpage for a couple of days (busy elsewhere). I know the protection says "indefinite", but that is simply because I didn't want to update the protection every time it lapsed if the talkpage conversation took too long. I'm fairly satisfied there is a consensus on the page right now and I'm willing to unprotect it.--Isotope23 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your help, however, it would seem Bus stop is already gaming the article.[3][4] The individual has not taken part in any of the discussions and when consensus has been reached, often filibusters in order to distract from the issue at hand. The problem is not with the article, its with him. I have asked other editors not to touch the article, inspite of Bus stop's edits. We've already been through two mediators and this user has ignored all counsel and attempts at consensus -- in fact, he rarely participates, except to give his own "copy-paste" dry response. What would be the next best step? Drumpler 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC, WP:CN, or possibly WP:ARBCOM. This article is going to exist in a continual state of flux unless some of the editing behaviors here are addressed. Protection was the band-aid I slapped on there to let a discussion happen without continual edit warring.--Isotope23 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The above is the entirety of it. I've merely underlined and bolded the relevant parts. Bus stop 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock|Your reason here (C)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bus stop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

decline,Your statement is too long, and the supposed offenses of others are irrelevant for the question as to whether or not you should be unblocked. At any rate, it appears that all of your last 500 edits involve a very few articles and the single question of what religion Bob Dylan is. This is a pretty good indicator for disruptive editing. This makes the block appear, on its face, to be correct. Please discuss the terms of any unblock with the blocking admin. — Sandstein 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is not what religion Bob Dylan is. The question is whether or not non-Christians should be on a list of Christians. Why would a non-Christian be on a list of converts to Christianity? A convert to Christianity is a Christian. Look at the parameters expressed in the tag which heads up the List of notable converts to Judaism:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

Why would anybody think it would be otherwise?

Decline reason:

In other words, you're saying "but I'm right." Administrators will not be choosing sides on the issue; you will certainly not be unblocked for being right. I don't care one way or another but I will say that consensus is clearly against you but you keep making your points anyway, over and over, and this is accompanied by editing the article in a way that is immediately reverted. This unblock request makes it clear you are not interested in dropping the issue, which to me makes unblocking a remote possibility. Mangojuice^talk 12:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bus stop 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your statement is too long, and the supposed offenses of others are irrelevant for the question as to whether or not you should be unblocked. At any rate, it appears that all of your last 500 edits involve a very few articles and the single question of what religion Bob Dylan is. This is a pretty good indicator for disruptive editing. This makes the block appear, on its face, to be correct. Please discuss the terms of any unblock with the blocking admin. — Sandstein 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is not what religion Bob Dylan is. The question is whether or not non-Christians should be on a list of Christians. Why would a non-Christian be on a list of converts to Christianity? A convert to Christianity is a Christian. Look at the parameters expressed in the tag which heads up the List of notable converts to Judaism:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

Why would anybody think it would be otherwise? Bus stop 11:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please DO NOT unblock this user.

Sorry but this banned user was still on my watchlist and I noticed he's still at it. To any passing admin I'd just like to point out that the same argument about the "This page is a list of Jews......" was posted around 12 times on the talk page of the List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity article. He's now used it 3 or 4 times here on the user talk page. Please do not reverse this ban as the block so far has just caused him to generated the same screeds of talk here that had caused the disruption on the talk pages. Post reply on my talk page as I'm unwatching this page.Ttiotsw 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw -- What you fail to realize is that the much vaunted consensus for the inclusion of non-Christians in the List of notable converts to Christianity is a fiction because consensus is the result of dialogue, not simple voting. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. I am not posting the following for my health:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately." [5]

In order for you and your bunch of editors who cling together like peas in a pod to claim consensus you would have to address the implications of the above, and you would have to satisfactorily counter the implications of the above, as those implications would be applicable to the List of notable converts to Christianity. You have not done that. Nor has any other editor. Instead you and others have used the article's Talk page to attack me. I have presented the above and other arguments to support my contention that the List of notable converts to Christianity should exclude non-Christians. I think that in order to claim consensus you have to actually respond to someone who presents a point of view that you disagree with. Personal attacks do not constitute adequate response. Most of the Talk page use by Ttiotsw and a gang of other editors is merely personal attack on me. There is failure to address relevant points, such as the one I raise above. If you can't adequately respond to it and counter it, then you do not have consensus. Please see the following:

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.

Polling discourages consensus

Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wiki has allowed. Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is a strength, not a failing. Dialectics is one of the most important things that make Wiki special, and while taking a poll is very often a lot easier than helping each other find a mutually agreeable position, it's almost never better.

Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding that discourse; participants don't interact with the other voters, but merely choose camps. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. No one can address objections that aren't stated, points that aren't made.

Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing. Bus stop 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mangojuice

Mangojuice -- Consensus is not "against" me. You have apparently not looked at the Talk page for List of notable converts to Christianity. Consensus is not arrived at by taking straw polls. And consensus surely is not arrived at by personal attacks. Consensus is arrived at by honest debate. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY:

Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing.

Bus stop 14:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to quote the policy on your page, especially not three times. I'm well aware of it. What you fail to realize is that consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree: in particular, you don't have to agree. Wikipedia is not a democracy but neither is it a tyranny of an argumentative minority who refuses to accept that their arguments have not convinced others. If there is a time that the majority should be overruled it is when policy supports the minority over the majority, but here, policy supports the majority. There is no policy that will tell us what should be covered at any individual article: that is up to the editors. However, policy (WP:V) does say that it is up to those who want to include the information to justify it, and it has been justified plenty. You've had plenty of opportunity to convince the other editors that you are right and they are wrong but you haven't convinced them. At this point you are continuing to argue because you can't accept that you haven't won the argument. On top of that you have been insulting the users who disagree with you, bickering over minor points, and also, reverting the article to your preferred version whenever you seem to pluck up the courage to try again. What we are all saying is, enough is enough. Mangojuice^talk 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is fundamental Christian animus toward Jews to put Jews on a list of Christians. Wikipedia should know better than to fail to respect differences in this fundamental way. Bus stop 14:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

BUT it's NOT a list of Christians? It's a List of notable people who converted to Christianity Teapotgeorge 14:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And the difference is what? A convert to Christianity is a Christian. Bus stop 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as you want to hold to this view that the whole of Wikipedia is on an anti-semitic agenda, I don't think there's much that can be done. A reasonable proposal was made above to mentor you, on the condition that you stayed away from previous problematic articles, but you ignored that proposal. I'm not saying you don't have the right to hold the view that you do and you may even be right in the end . . . however, this isn't about who is "right" as much as it is about behaviour and as an editor involved with the above dispute with you, I fear the day that you are unblocked is the day you will return to disruptive editing on the articles mentioned above. I'd suggest the proposal considered above. I think when you can learn to discuss with people, instead of throwing up a brick wall of accusations and ignoring other editors concerns with a copy-and-pasted response, then I would be more comfortable with your unblocking. Until then, use this as an opportunity to grow and consider the mentorship. There's no shame in that. Drumpler 14:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I said that the "whole of Wikipedia is on an anti-semitic agenda?" Does Drumpler have a respect for truth? In my opinion this discussion could be more meaningful if Drumpler responded to what was actually said. Bus stop 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whenever an individual joins the discussion and disagrees with you, they are easily maligned and eventually grouped in with all the other individuals with whom you disagree. Individuals, it seems, whose editing stance you believe is purely antisemitic. Nevermind what they say! Don't bother listening to their explanation! Don't even consider that the majority of individuals to whom you attribute the development of a pro-Christian agenda are not even Christians!

You'd made it clear on your userpage that you do not edit antisemitic Wikipedias. Well that's good, because neither do I, nor should anyone. The point is that you have to move beyond your conspiratorial suspicions and just accept the fact that people disagree with you. If individuals argue over whether or not tomato should be listed on List of vegetables, they are simply arguing opinions.

Every individual has a different concept of what would make Wikipedia more informative, more useful, and more user-friendly. This doesn't mean that having a majority of individuals supporting the inclusion of the tomato implies an anti-fruitarian bias.--C.Logan 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not concerned with anyone's religious identity. It does not matter whether an editor is a Christian or not. Does Wikipedia ask you your religion when you sign up? Do Wikipedia's guidelines apply differentially depending on the editor's religion? Bus stop 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How does that pertain to my above comment?--C.Logan 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am unconcerned with whether any editor is Christian or not. Your above post implies that I am. That is obfuscation. You say that some of the editors in opposition to me are not even Christians. What difference does that make? Have I ever stated that anyone's argument was incorrect because their religious identity was Christian? You are throwing up obfuscation. Please stop doing that. I have never cast negative aspersions on anyone's argument because their religious identity might be Christian. Bus stop 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, you have ascribed the opinions of individuals (who are unbiased in the matter) to a pro-Christian agenda, not really considering the fact that maybe - just maybe - people disagree with your opinion simply because they think your argument holds no real weight. The concepts which you so frequently espouse, such as that of the parameters being 'contrived', is based wholly on the concept of an agenda affecting the development or adherence to such parameters.

Unfortunately, with little involvement from Christian-biased individuals in the matter, it would seem that the parameters in use are a matter of preferences and the improvement of an article rather than the pushing of any agenda. Why, then, do you choose to view the scenario as such? You have consistently raised proselytization as a major factor in Dylan's inclusion. The ultimate problem with this fallacious assertion is, again, the fact that almost none of the editors involved have a bias towards Christianity (and if anything, they stand quite contrary to it), and therefore form opinions independent from any method which might benefit Christianity. In simpler terms, the editors involved don't care about Christianity, and view it disdainfully.

If your assertions regarding the reasoning behind inclusion are true, then why do these individuals so whole-heartedly support the inclusion of this individual and the others? Could it be that your argument is not as cogent as you believe it to be? Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the inclusion of such individuals actually makes sense? Could it be that your argument is so single-minded and unflinching that you can't begin to comprehend why other individuals might actually support the inclusion of such individuals? You repeatedly cry 'obfuscation' when an editor raises a point which takes the conversation in a direction you don't want to go. Give it a break, Bus stop.

The repeated times in which you cry 'obfuscation' because you don't realize or understand the point being handed to you does not paint a pretty picture of your level of comprehension, so I would advise you to discontinue this ploy. I doubt that anyone else sees your cries of obfuscation as holding any validity, and it rather seems that you yourself are ironically committing obfuscation through your misdirection, misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

The fact that I've had to explain this to you because you take the last sentence in the first semi-paragraph of my earlier comment down the wrong alley is a troubling sign. Again, in plain terms: You have an opinion. Others disagree with you. This doesn't make them wrong. This doesn't mean that they are catering to any sort of agenda. It simply means that some individuals believe something, and you believe in another thing. You are as "wrong" as they are, and they are as "right" as you are: that's how opinions work, Bus stop.

My opinion is that the article would be more useful in general if the individuals in question were included. Apparently, many editors agree, and given their backgrounds, it's hard to continue arguing that any sort of agenda is being pushed in this scenario.--C.Logan 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- I couldn't care less what any editor's religion is. Nor have you the foggiest idea what my religion is or if I have a religion. I don't attend to such petty matters that are none of my business anyway. If the article is "antisemitic" then that is a problem with the article. Please don't try to censor my comments on the article based on some trumped up charges of personal attacks on any editor based on that editor's religion. The article (List of notable converts to Christianity) in its present state happens to smack of Christian antisemitism. That is a criticism of the article. Bus stop 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You can believe the article is antisemitic, but I wholly doubt that that's ever been the intent. Surely not on my end. And this doesn't seem to be working for you, so I advise you stop it and become a more reasonable editor and consider the proposal above. Drumpler 22:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- No one said anything about anyone's intentions. Have you been following the discussion? Bus stop 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd think an article could only be anti-semitic if that was the intention of its author(s). As I do not see any evidence to support that statement, I don't perceive the article as anti-semitic. Maybe you could argue that that could be the perception, but it certainly is not the intent. But then again, you're banned from editing that article so I don't know why I'm even discussing this with you. I would heartily recommend the proposal above from the admin who offered you mentorship. Drumpler 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- I'm blocked from editing List of notable converts to Christianity because you nor any other editor was able to address the problems that I raised on that article's Talk page. My disruption is not to the article itself. I presented argument that you and no other editor were able to respond to. Straw polls don't establish consensus. Consensus is the result of honest discussion. You would have to have been able to counter my argument to have been said to have established consensus.

Wikipedia should not be creating meandering parameters at List of notable converts to Christianity in order to include Bob Dylan on that list. The name of that article was changed only a few days ago. That change was for only one reason and that was in order to try to justify the inclusion of Bob Dylan on that list. The other 200 names on that list are Christians. The name change was only in order to accommodate Bob Dylan, who is not Christian. And that name change was brought about totally by my actions. I find the name change a laughable contrivance. But the editors at List of notable converts to Christianity would certainly have not made that name change if not for my pointing out the illogic of the list. That illogic happens to still be there. Name changes and other contrivances don't change underlying illogic. Bus stop 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments have been responded to numerous times, and refuted numerous times- you simply choose not to listen. In the end, all you have here is an opinion. So does everyone else. When are you going to realize this?--C.Logan 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to remove the template cited because it was listing your talk page as an article, but my question is this -- should we preclude mentioning Jews on any page where there's a crucifix? What if they are noteworthy and belong on a Christian article?

To me, the question is petty and is yet another attempt to find an anti-semitic reasoning for the editors who disagreed with you. Much like when you tried to convince every one that we were part of a "hate group". You may not say that you weren't questioning intentions, but that's a lie. Drumpler 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- Why is there a crucifix hanging over Bob Dylan's head on the List of notable converts to Christianity article?

Have Drumpler or C.Logan noticed the following tag at the top of List of notable converts to Christianity:

How does the above apply to the people on this list who don't happen to be Christian? Bus stop 14:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a cross, not a crucifix. John Carter 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

John Carter and Drumpler -- This is not just any article under the auspices of the Wikipedia Christianity Project. This is specifically a list of converts to Christianity. Christianity is a religion that places great importance on converting people to Christianity and on proselytizing in general. Judaism, by contrast, is a religion that does not seek converts at all. The crucifix is a symbol of Christianity. Since this is a list of converts to Christianity, and it contains visual implication of that, in the form of a cross, obviously it is offensive to a Jew such as Bob Dylan. Bus stop 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I favored removing the former converts, but I think you might be misunderstanding the project and what a crucifix is. Wikiprojects are put in wherever the article is relevant. It does not imply the article is, necessarily, a Christian article. For an example see Talk:Elijah. Elijah is clearly Jewish, but is in the Christianity project for relevance to Christianity. (Although he doesn't seem to be in the Judaism project, which I'll admit seems a little weird) Talk:Capital punishment also has the Christianity project in it, but is not an issue solely among Christian. As for the crucifix it is a cross with an image or representation of the crucified Christ. A cross without such an image may represent the Resurrected Christ, but it is not referred to as a crucifix. There is no project I know of that uses the crucifix. (Just popping in. Good luck with letting go of this issue and moving on to do more art stuff either here or in life)--T. Anthony 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as has been noted elsewhere, he seems only to be amused, not offended, by religious classification. What I think you really mean, and have effectively stated repeatedly, is that it is offensive to you. And removing verifiable information because another editor finds it offensive is not really permitted by wikipedia policy. John Carter 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- It is offensive to Jews, to Judaism, and to anyone who respects the distinctions between religions, or any other differences that people take seriously as concerns their personal identity. Bus stop 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for once again making yet another broad, sweeping generalization about the character and motivations of others. I'm sure your repeatedly demonstrating your willingness to insult others will be a great help in your effort to get the block lifted. :) But, as stated before, it is evidently not offensive to the subject, Dylan, himself. On that basis, the real concern seems to be not whether the subject himself finds it offensive, which would matter, but whether certain editors do, which does not. As stated before, there is no WP:IDONTLIKEIT policy, and any and all people who find certain facts offensive should know that their objection to the facts does not alter the nature of those facts, or their potential relevance for inclusion. John Carter 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"And then the usual gang of editors, including Isotope23, were claiming that the article had to be "protected" because of me."

Really? I claimed the article needed to be protected because of you Bus stop? I'd love to see a diff of that. In fact another part of your statement would seem to contridict that ("Isotope23 was repeatedly "protecting" the article when I had not made an edit to the article in days.") Did the thought ever cross your mind that if you didn't edit the article in days and I was protecting the article, perhaps I wasn't simply protecting the article from "you" as you've stated? Trust me, if it had ever been my intent to simply protect the article because of you Bus stop, I would have indef blocked you weeks ago rather than protect the article. Pulling out-of-context posts from Drumpler and trying to blame me for your block is just retreading your same old argument... and it wasn't compelling the first time around.--Isotope23 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still curious as to the location of these magical, mystical, invincible arguments you've been referring to recently. So far, I've only seem the same tired argument which has been responded to and overturned numerous times- apparently, you like to skim over those comments, if anything is evidenced by your consistent aversion to replying to many of the items addressed to you in various comments. You need to get off the ego trip concerning your 'awesome' argument- it wasn't, and it isn't, and I don't think anyone besides you holds it in such a high place.--C.Logan 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider the bottom of this page: "Categories: WikiProject Christianity | List-Class Christianity articles | Mid-importance Christianity articles | Biography articles of living people". This is because of these templates on the page (I've already had to remove them twice, but Bus stop keeps adding them). Why is Bus stop adding himself as a subject for WikiProject Christianity when he finds it offensive that Dylan is part of this project, just because his name is on a list? ;) Drumpler 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Template:Jew list

At http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Jew_list Mangojuice is proposing deletion of that template.

At http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Jew_list Mangojuice expresses his reasoning on why this is called for.

Is it my imagination or is that pretty much exactly what Mangojuice is arguing against right here on my Talk page? Should I understand that my account should be blocked because Mangojuice (twice) has declined to unblock my account, with those opinions in place that leads him to propose the deletion of the Template:Jew list? What does the above say about this administrator's ability to be unbiased in relation to the entirety of the issue of my account being blocked? Bus stop 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent example of failure to assume good faith. I proposed the Jew List template for deletion because it's obtrusive and unnecessary, and serves no encyclopedic function. Yes, I think what you have said led me to notice that problematic template (not the other way around). I apologize for declining your unblock twice, but in my opinion the first one was pro forma because you didn't justify your actions, respond to the complaints against you, et cetera, at all. If you request unblocking again, I will not be the one to review it, but I note that your blocking has already been reviewed by Durova (who has offered very reasonable conditions for your unblock, that you have still not responded to), Sandstein, myself, and four Arbitrators have so far not seen any reason to review the case. I suggest you do some self-examination before you throw up another unblock request, though, full of accusations of bias on behalf of everyone that disagrees with you. Mangojuice^talk 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice -- In order for me to assume good faith I require at least a shred of evidence for doing so.

It continues. Now Mangojuice is putting "former converts" back on the List of notable converts to Judaism. This represents a lowering of the standards of the List of notable converts to Judaism. I guess rather than raise the standards of one list you can alternatively lower the standards of another list. Here: [[6]]. It is interesting that this administrator has twice declined to unblock my account. Pretty interesting. Bus stop 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be getting pretty close to declaring "cabal" Bus stop.--Isotope23 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the Template being proposed for deletion:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately." [7]

It explains that only Jews are contained on, for instance, the List of notable converts to Judaism. The reason why the above Template is being proposed for deletion is that editors at List of notable converts to Christianity want to include non-Christians on that list of converts to Christianity. That constitutes flabby parameters which open up the possibility of point of view pushing, which is the problem that we see at List of notable converts to Christianity. This represents the lowering of standards at one list in order to accommodate the unwillingness of the editors at another list to hew to higher standards. Is this the direction in which we should be going? Bus stop 13:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I note your comment above seems to once again indicate that you believe your own opinion regarding an issue is one which you seem to believe is almost dogmatically true. Just for your information, I would like to point out to you how dangerous that is, regarding one of your oft-repeated allegations regarding what you have charactized (not word for word) as my own blatant "agenda". I mention on my page that I am a Roman Catholic because of my involvement with several of the Christianity-related project, particularly WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, primarily to indicate to others that I am less than really well informed on the articles relating to that subject, so that if I do make a mistake that they can feel free to correct it. You will note that I was the first person to join it, and actually the creator of the page, because I believe that content needs to have some variety of focused attention, and because the tagging and work on all the huge number of Christianity-related articles is often pretty poor, not for any didactic purposes. I say this primarily to indicate to you that your oft-repeated statement that my involvement in the previous debate was driven by evangelical purposes was, at least I believe, inaccurate. You will note, by the way, that I have never joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, which would be the logical group for me to belong to if I were trying to push my own beliefs. Perhaps, if you were not so quick to rush to make such insinuations and actually respond to the substance of what others said, as opposed to simply repeating your own previous statements, the discussion there would have been settled more amicably and without your being blocked. Anyway, just a thought. John Carter 15:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Angle

I just thought I would try this in different words. I know you probably look at me as your enemy, and whatever I say will probably be replied to with a direct quotation of something you said above, or a link to irrelevant policy, but I'm going to try anyway, because I really believe that you have the potential to be a great editor if you just let go of this.

At the list of notable converts, yes, you presented a very reasonable argument against including "former converts" on the list. It was well considered and made a lot of sense. However, most of the rest of the group disagreed with you. I would go so far as to say that by the end of it, all but one of the group disagreed with you. Now, in order for there to be consensus, everyone does not need to agree, so long as almost everyone agrees, and there's no policy against doing whatever "almost everyone" wants to do. So, yeah, we understand that you're unhappy, because nobody agrees with you, but you can't win them all.

My point is this: you're blocked because "everybody else" agreed on what to do, and you insisted on doing something else, over and over, in such a way as made it hard for "everybody else" to do what they'd agreed on doing. No, a straw poll doesn't imply consensus, but when only one person holds your position, and eight or ten people hold the opposing position, that's a pretty clear consensus.

That's what we mean when we say that you were being disruptive. Removing Dylan and folks like him from the list, even after the rest of us had agreed to keep them, was the disruption. I understand that you find their inclusion offensive, but that's really not the issue at hand- if you want to keep on making your argument, without changing the article's content, you won't be blocked for that. I suggest, though, that you just leave it alone for a while- you seem to be stuck in your position, and it should be clear to you now that you're not going to sway the rest of us easily. No, we're not fundamentalist Christians trying to push an agenda- most of us aren't even Christian- we're just trying to move on with our lives. Please do the same. --Moralis (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A note to those who need to smarten up

I don't think a name should be added to a list for decoration. Since Bob Dylan is not a convert to Christianity he has no rightful place anywhere on a List of converts to Christianity. Please remove his name. It is a farce. People should smarten up and stop trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes. Bob Dylan has nothing to do with Christianity and the folks posting here should stop engaging in the perpetrating of a hoax.

It is extremely difficult to understand your (seemingly willful) lack of comprehension in this matter. The inclusion of these individuals, one of whom you focus on almost exclusively, has already been explained to you many times, and I believe it is rather difficult for you to say that a person who converted to Christianity does not have a rightful place on a list of individuals who have converted to Christianity. Anyway, not much else is accomplished with the above comment beyond a seeming exhibition of paranoia concerning the article.--C.Logan 12:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah -- "it has been explained to me." Blah blah blah. It is impossible to articulate anything as nonsensical as that Bob Dylan ever converted to Christianity but some will never cease trying. Please stop mocking Christianity. Christianity happens to be a great religion. A performer uttering something about Christianity is not the conversion to that religion, despite the media's use of that term. There is no conversion in the case of Bob Dylan. There is no formal conversion. There is no statement attesting to having converted on the part of Bob Dylan. There is no statement that the person is a Christian, on the part of Bob Dylan. There is the original research of a bunch (an admittedly large bunch) of editors at Wikipedia who think that by saying that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity makes it so. It doesn't work that way. Without reliable sources indicating conversion to Christianity it is just an assertion of the bunch of editors who assert this. As such it is original research and should be removed. Bus stop 12:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the "original research" of those at the Encyclopedia Britannica? Drumpler 14:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No source implies conversion. (That includes Encyclopedia Britannica.) Use of the word does not imply factuality. No source states that actual conversion took place. The use of the word and the factuality of the act (of conversion) are two different things. Editors here should not be stating that conversion is a fact when in fact no source exists for that. Bus stop 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I really do believe you ought to make a submission here. It would seem that the Encyclopedia Britannica is anti-semitic, as it expressly states: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows. Critics and listeners were, once again, confounded. Nonetheless, Dylan received a Grammy Award in 1980 for best male rock vocal performance with his 'gospel' song 'Gotta Serve Somebody.'" Drumpler 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the Encyclopedia Britannica was antisemitic. Please try to stay on topic. The above quote in no way asserts formal religious conversion to Christianity. It doesn't state that any sort of religious conversion took place. Clear reference is made to style of music. The reference is to music. Preaching between songs does not imply religious conversion, and Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't say it does. A 'gospel' song is just a 'gospel' song. It has nothing to do with religious conversion, and Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't say it has anything to do with religious conversion. Bob Dylan should be removed from List of converts to Christianity because no source exists saying that religious conversion to Christianity took place. Bus stop 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me requote this part again: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity . . . " That's from the Encyclopedia Britannica link I provided on Bob Dylan. Where are your sources? Drumpler 19:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No religious conversion is referred to whatsoever. In fact the several references are only to musical styles. Can you find a source that indicates religious conversion? Obviously not, or you or another editor would have presented it by now. Religious material refers to a style of music. As does "gospel." It may be Christian material but musical styles do not necessarily accomplish conversion to that religion. What you need is a source indicating religious conversion. Please find a source that states actual religious conversion. Without a source for actual religious conversion Bob Dylan should not be on the List of converts to Christianity and should be removed immediately. Bus stop 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Do I detect an aversion to conversation here[8], here[9], and here[10]? Apparently dialogue on this important subject is being avoided. Bus stop 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No "formal" conversion is required in order to change religion?... Religious conversion is the adoption of a new religious identity, or a change from one religious identity to another. This typically entails the (sincere) avowal of a new belief system, but may also be conceived in other ways, such as adoption into an identity group or spiritual lineage. Teapotgeorge 18:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No source exists for any religious conversion whatsoever, formal or otherwise. "Sincere" avowal of a belief system does not necessarily include "sermonettes" between songs or "gospel" songs themselves. But that is not for you or I to decide. Let us not debate the significance of art. The important point is that there is no source indicating religious conversion, or if there is a source for that then cite it, please. Bus stop 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources for his baptism into Christianity, which is almost (except by you) uniformly taken as being a clear sign of conversion, have been cited repeatedly. I acknowledge that you personally find them to be insufficient. However, I also note that you seem to find that to be the case only with this one person, and have rarely if ever shown any interest in any of the other parties named, calling into question whether you are coming to this discussion in the interests of discussing the issues involved or are solely interested in that one party, a question which has been raised by others repeatedly. I don't know if I've ever seen a response, by the way. And I also note the absurd oversimplification of the above statement, once again trying to imply that these "sermonettes" which the audience clearly reacted negatively to and by the evidence available have been indicated as being what they clearly appeared to be, should be at least considered to have been made for some sort of completely undefined "artistic" purposes, despite no evidence to support that contention having ever been put forward by you. Without clear and explicit cited evidence to the contrary, we more or less have to take the apparent truth as the real truth. To date, I have seen you put forward no such evidence. John Carter 13:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock|Your reason here (D)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bus stop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It's stupid to tie the hands of an editor who is making a valid point. Yes, there has been a dispute. No, I was not any more disruptive than any other editor. I've been far outnumbered. But that does not blunt the validity of my point. Ganging up on one editor to get him blocked does not suppress the basic validity of the point that he has stood for. The validity of my argument does not go away by confining me to my Talk page. Why are editors hobbling my ability to take part in this debate? The debates that I was involved in have been going on since my account was blocked. Not a day goes by that the discussions that I was so much a part of do not go on. All that a gang of editors succeeded in doing was suppressing my ability to speak in those discussions. Bus stop 18:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The language of your unblock request says it all really. You see wikipedia editing in terms of a battle and this is not the way we do it round here. You were blocked because you simply failed to follow site policies and you have absolutely failed to convince me that you see any fault in the way that you have behaved. We can do without that. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz -- My "failure" to follow "site policies" is the failure to slink away from the Talk page of List of notable converts to Christianity when confronted with not only a quantity of editors that succeeded in chasing many other people away with dissenting opinions but also a quality of editors that have no qualms about using personal attacks and intimidation. The entire block on my account is just the result of a concerted crew to suppress my opinion. Please spare me your sanctimonious claims that I "battle." I argue my points forcefully and convincingly. That is the only reason I am blocked. It is because editors on the Talk page of that article could not respond to valid concerns that I raised on the Talk page of that article that they had to get me blocked. And there was never for a moment consensus, because there was never the dialogue that by definition must precede consensus. Bus stop 18:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:BLP

A person's religious affiliation is a sensitive matter.

WP:BLP says, "unsourced or poorly sourced material must be removed immediately."

As we see there are no sources unambiguously attesting to religious conversion for Bob Dylan. We certainly have no statement from Bob Dylan (at any point in time) that "I have converted to Christianity." Nothing like that exists. This being the case then under WP:BLP this material should not be included. My efforts to remove this material have been justified because WP:BLP allows for the removal of poorly sourced material about people. Religion is clearly a sensitive subject, so it is especially justified in this regard. Bus stop 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do I even bother with this? I'm afraid you're mistaken. There are at least three reliable, biographical sources (by Dylan experts, further satisfying WP:BLP), all of which are quite explicit about his religious conversion. Of course, you neglect to mention that, as far as you're concerned, any source which disagrees with you is either "off the table", uses "figurative language", or is only considerable when it is O.R.'d to an agreeable 'interpretation'. Give it a break- you aren't fooling anyone with this nonsense plea to WP:BLP. You're only making yourself look clueless and straw-grasping.--C.Logan 01:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP says that poorly sourced material not only can, but should be removed immediately. Bus stop 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

...And this is material which is not only not poorly sourced, but is actually sourced very well, almost to the point of overkill. Even beside the biographies, which are in and of themselves wholly sufficient as far as WP is concerned, there are still 11 other sources (or even more) which attest to the same material. Do you understand that your unwarranted criticism of the sources is leading you to mis-apply policy in a case where practically any other user would find the citations to be entirely satisfactory?--C.Logan 02:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The labeling of Bob Dylan as a convert to Christianity is conjecture and pseudo information. WP:BLP clearly cautions against this. Bus stop 02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of argument let's say you are right. Now what have you accomplished on the matter? Has Dylan been removed? No. Have you persuaded other editors you are correct? No. Has your continued discussion of the matter led to you being unblocked? No, perhaps the opposite. You should at least consider that you are not succeeding on the Dylan matter at the moment and need a new strategy. I'd suggest accepting whatever deal you need to in order to get unblocked. Then in the months following you can improve your editing skills and try to make friends. Once all that reaches a certain momentum you will be in a much better position to get Dylan removed. It's sort of a The Count of Monte Cristo/The Stars My Destination kind of a thing. Right now you may appear to just be a whiny crackpot.--T. Anthony 03:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The far future may be fun to ponder, but as of this moment, it seems that Mr. Bus stop is still stuck on this policy which he's quick to mis-use and abuse. You're right about one thing- BLP does caution against conjecture and pseudo information... when the information is poorly sourced. In this case, the "conjecture and pseudo information" to which you refer is considered "clear information supported by very reliable sources" by others. You are, it seems, quite pleased to persist in this delusion that the sources present are insufficient for this subject. If that is the case, then it is indeed futile to continue to reply to you- at times, I feel as if you are a Flat-Earther and I'm showing you orbital pictures in space only to have them cast aside as 'pseudo information'.--C.Logan 03:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Strategy? There is no strategy. There is adherence to BLP. There does not happen to exist any source asserting religious conversion. Don't confuse other uses of the term with religious conversion. Bus stop 03:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That was too Machiavellian, nevermind. Still it seems clear you'll have to act differently or your block will stay. I guess you can't act differently because of your principles, which is maybe a good thing. Being indefinitely blocked might allow you to focus more on your art or life. Or have greater respect for yourself. Or whatever, point is it's not not necessarily worth spending time on anyway. I don't think it's really worth my time either.--T. Anthony 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan is not an insignificant person. Why do we not see a prominent publication stating that religious conversion has transpired for Bob Dylan? Even the Christian sources do not state that actual religious conversion has transpired for Bob Dylan. This presents a BLP concern that requires closer examination. Bus stop 04:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Without a source explicitly saying that actual religious conversion transpired, for a person as prominent as Bob Dylan, the inclusion of him on a list of converts raises real BLP concerns.

By the way, Bob Dylan himself says the following: "I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing. The media make up a lot of these words for the definition of people." Bus stop 09:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[11] This was written in 1985, right after Dylan renounced Christianity. I still refer you to this sentence fragment from the Encyclopedia Britannica: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity . . . "

I recommend the adoption proposal below. A member of ArbCom? Shesh. I'm jealous. ;) Drumpler 09:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Another quotation from the Britannica article: "By 1982, when Dylan was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, his open zeal for Christianity was waning." Its important to note that Bob Dylan quotes do not exist in a vacuum, that they do have a context and the context of that quote is when Bob Dylan already renounced his Christian beliefs.

Even the interview, where this quote you shared was initially introduced, said this in its introduction: "Bob Dylan, poet laureate, prophet in a motorcycle jacket. Mystery tramp. Napoleon in rags. A Jew. A Christian. A million contradictions. A complete unknown, like a rolling stone. He's been analyzed, classified, categorized, crucified, defined, dissected, detected, inspected, and rejected, but never figured out. . . . Later, during the height of "flower power," when everyone was getting into Eastern religion, Dylan went to Jerusalem, to the Wailing Wall, wearing a yarmulke. A decade later he was a born-again Christian, or so it seemed, putting out gospel records." Drumpler 09:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Again: the Encyclopedia Britannica usage of the word does not attach a religious conversion meaning to the word. Were there any evidence of any actual conversion of a religious nature there would likely be a source stating explicitly that. Religious conversion is a serious event in a person's life. It raises a BLP concern when one makes the leap from the mere use of the term in a descriptive way to the comprehension that real change in religion has taken place. When a musician immerses himself in Christian poetry in his songs and publications refer to his conversion that cannot automatically be assumed to be religious conversion. That is a descriptive use of the term in relation to the words used by the artist. He is a prominent enough person that if any semblance of actual religious conversion transpired, that conversion would receive its own separate treatment, apart from a description of his shift in artistic style. Bus stop 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Again: Original research. I think you either a) see what you want to see or b) misunderstand the word "conversion" and its relation to Christianity. Be that as it may, this is fruitless. Drumpler 11:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Origional research is that there is conversion. Sources plainly confirm the Christian influences on Dylan at this time, but no source affirms conversion. The list (List of converts to Christianity) concerns itself with religious conversion. It doesn't concern itself with anything else. For Bob Dylan no source affirms any transition to Christianity. Why is that? Obviously because no source of that sort exists, obviously because no knowledge of such transition exists, obviously because nothing of the sort transpired. When Drumpler, above, says I don't understand the word conversion in relation to Christianity, what he is really saying is that anything constitutes conversion to Christianity, but I just don't understand that. Nor does any reliable source. That is why no reliable source reports that religious conversion to Christianity transpired for Bob Dylan in about 1979.

If there were religious conversion it is reasonable to expect that publications would make a separate and distinct point of that, because religion is itself a subject of interest to the public, apart from the public's obvious interest in Bob Dylan, the artist. We know that the public is interested in the lives behind celebrities. Why is there no source dwelling on, to any extent, the supposed conversion to Christianity of Bob Dylan? No such source exists. Isn't anyone curious as to why no such source exists? Obviously the reason is because no religious conversion is known to anyone. It is thus original research to say Bob Dylan converted to Christianity. He should be removed from the list of converts immediately. BLP concerns are applicable here. BLP says that poorly sourced information should be removed immediately. Bus stop 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough

If the above editors feel Bus stop is in the wrong, that he is disruptive and paranoid, and that none of you are what he claims (i.e. as disruptive as he), why do you persist in responding to every comment he makes on his user page? It is unlikely he will be unblocked anytime soon, and I doubt he will change his mind on any of this. Why continue with this? He claims that several editors have ganged-up on him to push a specific agenda. Your obsessive responding to everything he writes on his talk page lends at least a little bit of credibility to his accusations. At the very least it makes you all look as obsessed with being right as you claim he is. Enough is enough already. Let it go. He can't do anything to the article at this point so move on. Freshacconci 11:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. However I'd like him to be able to edit again or at least be a bit happier. In my bumbling way I was just saying "why don't you quit talking about this issue for awhile so you can concentrate on whatever you need to do to be unblocked" or something.--T. Anthony 12:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If Bus stop would like to continue to discuss the article and to argue over what's right and wrong, then I (at least) have no great issue in responding to his comments. I'm afraid that I don't agree much with ignoring any user's comments, even if they are an anchor. Bus stop, as it is, has some unusual beliefs, but I have some hope that he might soon realize why he is in the position he is in.

I feel that if he continues to be ignored, he will wrap himself further in this self-righteous cloak that he's begun to take on since the blocking point; he's become strongly convinced that he was blocked in a last ditch effort because the other editors 'simply could not topple his cogent argument'. This user needs a reality check, but unfortunately such an occurrence seems rather distant at this point.

The issue at 'the article' may have been largely settled without the argumentative impedance of this user, but to simply have him blocked and ignore his attempts at argumentation almost lends support to his theory. I, at least, find speaking with him to be amusing, and I hope that he might be getting something out of it.

I'm a little troubled by your outlook of, at the very least, my own involvement, Freshacconci. This is not an argumentative issue of 'right' and 'wrong' concerning the article- if you haven't noticed, Bus stop now disconnects words from their meanings and attempts to argue to that point, and I'm showing the fallacy in that. Again, if he wants to discuss, then by all means I will discuss things with him when my time is free.--C.Logan 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been my viewpoint also. I'm not "obsessed" with commenting to anything he states. I've been trying to reason with him. But it seems fruitless. He hasn't taken the adoption attempt. It just seems he wants to be right. If I'm wrong and Dylan never converted to Christianity, I can change my viewpoint; however, he has never demonstrated anyone to be wrong. I'm completely sorry for trying to reach another editor and maybe he needs to "wrap himself further in this self-righteous cloak that he's begun to take on since the blocking point". Drumpler 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Freshacconci. Bus stop has been asked to leave the article alone, and has to now, and I think the other parties should leave this page alone so things can cool down. I'm not going to take a postion on who the trolls are, but one thing's for certain: you shouldn't feed them.--Ethicoaestheticist 19:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, in any case. I suppose I should drop this discussion, as Bus stop will continue to believe what he will and it doesn't seem as if he's going to be convinced of anything, no matter how he is outnumbered, any time soon. To me, it's a little bit like speaking to a moon-landing conspiracy theorist. Although I fret when misinformation concerning the discussion is presented, I would hope that any administrator reviewing his umpteenth unblock request is thorough enough to realize what's fact and what's fiction in his request. With that being said, I think I'm done here, so I can hope that this will be my last post.--C.Logan 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi

I second the comments above by Freshacconci, and reluctantly I'm adding these comments by Gandhi. Modernist 12:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mohandas Gandhi

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."

- Mohandas Gandhi

"The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind."

- Mohandas Gandhi

When he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:

"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."

- Mohandas Gandhi

I would only like to say that I hope noone uses the last above quoted comment as justification for including Gandhi on the lists of converts to all those religions mentioned. John Carter 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Good one.--C.Logan 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen, John Carter, lets let it alone. Modernist 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure for the purpose of the inclusion of these quotes. Are the editors here being corrected for "unchristian" conduct? I'm not a Christian, so that doesn't apply here. Drumpler 16:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Drumpler, don't worry, I meant those Mohandas Gandhi quotes for everybody else. Those quotes don't apply to you, and anyway you aren't even a christian. Modernist 02:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that the placement of the first comment is a rather sensitive one, depending on what you mean by "everyone else".--C.Logan 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Offer

{{Adoptoffer}}

Bus stop, this is a very generous unsolicited mentorship offer from a member of the arbitration committee. If you accept it and stay away from those two articles for three months, you're welcome to edit everywhere else. You may cite the diff of this edit in your unblock request. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the other article he has to stay away from? Fred Bauder 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that Durova is referring to Bob Dylan.--Isotope23 19:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, Bus stop had the temerity to edit the Bob Dylan article too. We need to suppress his power of speech wherever it pops up in relation our agenda to portray Dylan as a convert to Christianity, despite our dearth of sources for such contention. Bus stop 13:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm here, I'll remind you to give the agenda accusations a rest. Remember, WP:CABAL. Additionally, I hope you're joking when you speak of a "dearth" of sources... unless you mean a "dearth of sources which Bus stop accepts by his own measure". That being said, I don't think that you have been entirely problematic on the Bob Dylan article, and you may perhaps have been quite helpful previously, but it does seem that your later edits catered more to your personal 'agenda' than to what the sources actually stated.--C.Logan 13:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

When was Bob Dylan baptized into any Christian Church or confirmed? You say you have sources. You have jack shit. Fred Bauder 13:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I take that back. You have this giving a pretty good portrait of a stray sheep. Once a sheep always a sheep? Fred Bauder 13:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kenn Gulliksen's 1999 speech, written about in an online Christian web site confirms Dylan's conversion? Gulliksen is a preacher. His primary agenda is spreading Christianity to non-Christians. And, where are the details? Where was Bob Dylan "Baptized?" Who was present? No one? When was he Baptized? "Sometime?" It rings of boloney. Why hasn't Kenn Gulliksen spoken up about that in over 20 years? Did any reliable news organization report his words? Guess what? If a Jew checks out Christianity, he doesn't become a Christian. That is not conversion. Curiosity about Christian identity doesn't automatically cause a Jew to become a Christian. Wikipedia can only put Bob Dylan on the list of converts to Christianity if they have reliable sources for Dylan's conversion to Christianity. That's utterly absent.

It is plainly obvious that the period of time (1979) passed with no one reporting any conversion of Bob Dylan whatsoever. Do we understand that therefore he converted? In commonly used language anyone can refer to his conversion. That is not meant to be literal conversion. Inclusion on a Wikipedia list of converts should require literal conversion to a religion. I don't see why so many people are willing to cut the Wikipedia Christianity Project the slack to use clearly poorly sourced information. What is needed is a source that asserts conversion, not mere flirtation with Christianity. It is very obvious that people use the word conversion in the imprecise way all the time. But that is not what inclusion on a list of converts implies.

A list needs parameters. This list has a history of fudging its parameters and even fudging its name -- just to get Bob Dylan on it. The parameters should not even allow for the inclusion of those who did convert but didn't remain converted. That in itself is a contrivance of what should be a list such as this. These same editors who succeeded in getting me blocked for writing like this on the article's Talk page, have recently taken part in changing the Template that once headed up the list of converts to [[12]] Judaism. That template confined the list of converts to Judaism to only those conversions that were "permanent." Changing those parameters applicable to the "Jewish lists" was just part of a long running agenda to loosen criteria necessary for inclusion on all these lists. Its sloppiness with an agenda in mind. Bus stop 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a scintilla of evidence in any source thus far cited for actual, literal, conversion to Christianity. That is the reason we can't list Dylan as a convert to Christianity. A source showing that in the opinion of an "expert" biographer that Dylan has converted falls far short of the sourcing we require for inclusion of a name on a list of converts. We want to hear concrete details from a reliable source. We want to know in no uncertain terms that the person converted. Bus stop 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the best answer we could come up with in this case was "once a sheep, always remains former sheep". His current affiliations, if any, are hard to pinpoint, as Judaism has no specific "reversion"-type ceremony he could take part in, exacerbated by statements by Dylan which seem to indicate ongoing belief in at least some nominally Christian things, like the Apocalypse of John. So, in a sense, we can't in any absolute way say that he is definitively no longer some kind of "Christian", and on that basis have taken what seems to most of us as the safe middle ground of saying "he was a Christian, and he hasn't subsequently said he no longer is one." I'd have preferred a clearer situation myself, but Dylan has declined to clarify anything on this subject. John Carter 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

With WP:BLP we don't take a middle ground. We have to have certainty over content. Tyrenius 13:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. And considering we do have certainty regarding his previous conversion, based on the numberous contemporary reports, and do not have certainty regarding his leaving Christianity, based on the lack of sources to substantiate that, we have to, reasonably, take the position that we cannot say that he has himself left Christianity. My apologies for my earlier inexact phrasing, but my thanks to you for effectively pointing out your agreement with the principles used in determining not removing him from the list. John Carter 14:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to be smarmy, nor to speak for others. Freshacconci 14:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

note Jewish people do not "reconvert," or have "reconversions" if they were born Jewish, they are Jewish. Modernist 13:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The terms are unfavorable, but that is what happens. A "return" to Judaism from, say, Zoroastrianism is the same as a "reconversion", a "reversion", or a "conversion". "Return" simply sounds better, because of the intertwined concepts of cultural and religious elements within Judaism. We need to remember what the terms themselves mean. For example, Environmentalism can be called a "religion" (the definition is wholly compatible), though this term is unfavorable in appearance. For sensitivity issues, the official phrasing should be "return", but within discussion, I don't think we should nitpick over terminology used. We know what the person is trying to say, for the most part.--C.Logan 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In 1979, by the Vineyard Fellowship Church, which was operating under the leadership of Kenn Gulliksen (which I believe it still does, though I could be mistaken). Dylan first made a vocal profession of faith, apparently in the home of his girlfriend, Mary Alice Artes, which is essentially the point of conversion for many Protestant denominations (specifically evangelical or "new age" denominations, such as the Vineyard Fellowship). Baptism, being a peripheral symbol for many such Protestants, was undergone by Dylan sometime afterward, though the location of which is not known for certain (although the ocean is given as the likely location, possibly because many churches will take groups of baptize-ees to the sea for mass baptisms, for 'efficiency' purposes), a point which Bus stop likes to play up as if it denies the factuality of an occurrence (as if the act is a magical point of change in and of itself). I'm unsure what the source of antagonism is, but I welcome you to take a look at the partial transcriptions from the biographies, which can be found on my user space (it's linked there).--C.Logan 14:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources -- have to scroll up to the top-right to continue, as the table divides in two Drumpler 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that according to our own Association of Vineyard Churches page the Vineyard movement does not make it a consistent practice to document their baptisms. Otherwise, I would agree that the lack of a record of baptism would be telling. However, when the body in question doesn't record baptisms, and is still considered recognized enough to merit an article and about 1,500 member churches, I think that non-contradicted contemporary sources regarding these baptisms are the only evidence available, and such accounts have been provided in a number of places. John Carter 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- Nor does anyone know where said Baptism took place. Nor does anyone know when such Baptism took place. Nor are there any witnesses to said Baptism. In fact, no one, not even one source, confirms that such Baptism took place. Not one source affirms that any such Baptism took place. Correct, or not correct? Bus stop 13:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Will people let off the baptism issue? Conversion to Christianity (depending upon its sect) doesn't necessarily require baptism. Catholicism requires rituals in order to initiate people into its fold, but not many mainstream Protestant sects. Some are content with a simple affirmation of faith in Jesus Christ or something such as the Sinner's Prayer. Whether or not Dylan was baptised is not an issue, depending upon the sect he chose to align himself with. What is an issue, for Wiki purposes, are reliable secondary sources. Drumpler 16:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is that we should accept conversion based on nothing. Secondary sources for something that has no definition can be nothing more than opinion. No secondary source can possibly say that something transpired if that thing has no definition and there exists no known indication for its occurrence. Bus stop 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, what are we to make of the utter absence of a description of the sorts of things you refer to? I don't recall coming across a source for the things you suggest:

"Some are content with a simple affirmation of faith in Jesus Christ or something such as the Sinner's Prayer."

Nor do we see any source for anything that would similarly accomplish the process of conversion. Bus stop 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of requests for unblock

The tag on each request for unblocking says that the request should be removed 2 days after the request has been made in cases where the block is 7 days or longer. This block has been in place now for over seven days, and the first three requests for being unblocked could probably be removed according to that policy now, based on my own lack of knowledge of such things. Also, on the purely pragmatic front, I don't get the impression that any admin who sees that any editor has requested being unblocked four or more times already is going to be at all persuaded by arguments that have already been tried and found inadequate by other admins. On that basis, I also tend to think that accepting the adoption offer above might get at least one admin, the proposed adopter, to be willing to lift the block, and might be the only realistic option available at this point for getting the block rescinded. Just a thought. John Carter 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock|Your reason here (E)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bus stop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Under BLP poorly sourced material should not be included. I have tried to enforce BLP. 3RR is not applicable to removing material in violation of BLP. My attempts to implement BLP is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. That is according to policy. Religious affiliation is a sensitive matter. There is a dispute about what exactly Dylan's status is or has been in this regard. There is uncertainty about exactly what constitutes "conversion." Dylan has not stated "I have converted to Christianity." There exists ambiguity. If we do not have rock solidly reliable material to go on, then under BLP this should not be included. I have tried to enforce BLP and exemptions exist for BLP enforcement. Bus stop 12:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Denied for all the reasons listed below. Please stop being disruptive. — IrishGuy ^talk 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can IrishGuy specify anything I've done or said that constitutes disruption, or is this just robotic repetition of term? Bus stop 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the fact that you have been denied multiple times for unblock, yet you continue to request it...and continue to maintain that you are right and everyone else is wrong. IrishGuy ^talk 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How about saying something when you speak? Have you ever tried that? Bus stop 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And you think that attitude will get you unblocked? Good luck with that. IrishGuy ^talk 02:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

IrishGuy -- That is not an attitude. That is my response to the opacity of your end of the conversation. I enjoy conversations with people who make the effort to articulate ideas that are both stimulating and informative. Regardless of my account being blocked I happen to be the person you are speaking with. Have you considered being cognizant of that? Bus stop 02:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please, Bus stop, do not fabricate situations simply in order to get unblocked. You yourself have admitted that although you disbelieve what the sources, which are fully WP:RS and considerate of WP:BLP, say concerning his conversion, you have admitted that the sources are acceptable by Wikipedia standards (though that feels like ages ago). Now, you're riding this wave where you believe that biography statements such as "his full-blown conversion to Christianity" does not actually translate into a "religious conversion". I'm uncertain if you've even read the sources, but I have provided text for them on my userspace, so you can knock yourself out. WP:BLP is not the issue here, as there are 15 sources which attest to a religious conversion, 3 or 4 of which are strongly reliable sources, and the rest of which are peripheral references. It seems as if you're simply trying to stretch (misapply) policy in any manner possible in order to get yourself unblocked. I would strongly suggest you take up the adoption offer given to you by Fred Bauder.--C.Logan 13:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Full-blown conversion to Christianity" meaning what? Based on what? According to what? We do not label someone a Christian based on opinion. Where is that found, in a biography? Where are all the mainstream publications? Has Time magazine, or Newsweek magazine, delved into the nuts and bolts comprising that conversion? Obviously not. That is for the plain reason that no basis for conversion exists. We should not be including, as though there were factuality to it, Bob Dylan in a list of converts to Christianity based on a biographer's opinion. He can spin any opinion off the top of his head that he wishes. A person as prominent as Bob Dylan we would expect to find numerous mainstream fact based details confirming conversion. We don't. Conversion is not confirmed, not by a long shot. BLP says that we do not put questionable material in an article. Just because he flirted with Christianity is not basis for calling him a Christian. That is original research. That is mere opinion. Bus stop 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A list and an article are two different things. An article provides ample room for finding and using language to fit a particular situation. Bob Dylan's particular case can be depicted in the Bob Dylan article, no problem. A list happens to be different. One need not be a rocket scientist to comprehend that parameters are of crucial importance to a list. No matter how many times you and your crew change the title of the list of converts to Christianity, or insert disclaimers willy nilly throughout the article, or tweak the introductory wording in that list -- it remains primarily a list of those who embraced the religion of Christianity by way of conversion. Those are its basic parameters. By putting a name on that list you are affirming that without a doubt, in a clear cut way, the person being added to that list, is a convert to Christianity. It is not like the Bob Dylan article, written in prose form, in which editors can use their writing skills to articulate the particular picture that applies to Bob Dylan's encounter with Christianity. There are no clear cut sources affirming conversion to Christianity for Bob Dylan. Placing him on the list of converts to Christianity is patently wrong because of that. BLP exists precisely to block such incorrect statements. Placement on a list affirms factuality because a list conforms to parameters much more strictly than an article written in prose form does. Bus stop 13:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of the fact that when considering what sources are reliable concerning living persons, an emphasis is made on strong sources written by an expert on the subject? How would a magazine article covering the general subject of Dylan for whatever publicity reason be more reliable in your eyes than a biography written by Clinton Heylin, Nigel Williamson, or Howard Sounes, all considered experts on a particular Mr. Dylan. Essentially, these biographies are more reliable on the subject then the sources you are demanding. I'm surprised I bother speaking with you concerning sources, as you reject anything which disagrees with you, no matter how reliable it is considered, while largely accepting sites of questionable reliability, or even expecting others to take your own word for it, concerning his supposed 'return' to Judaism of which you so often speak. I hate to tell you this, but the experts on the subject disagree with you on both the point of conversion and the point of his 'return' to Judaism- confirming the former and even debunking rumors about the latter. I would suggest that you head to your local library and rent these books out, and see exactly what they say. No matter what you believe concerning Dylan, to argue that these sources do not make a religious conversion explicit is a show of ignorance in regard to the sources.--C.Logan 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The experts on the subject disagree with me based on what? On their opinions? You mean because somebody who wrote a biography of Dylan expresses the opinion that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity, that becomes fact? Opinion and fact are different. A big red flag should go up due to the absence of substance backing up that author's opinion. How does that author distinguish between conversion and lack of conversion? Even if he is an expert his opinion needs fact based substantiation. BLP concerns are about not mislabeling a person, among other things. That expert's opinion does not sufficiently confirm conversion to Christianity.

Ample opportunity exists for editors on the Bob Dylan article to delve into Bob Dylan's flirtation with Christianity. The list of converts to Christianity should be reserved for those names that fit its purpose in this regard beyond doubt. A lot of doubt exists relating to Bob Dylan. BLP would seem to say that adding a name so questionably applicable to parameters of that list is highly problematic and should not be done. Bus stop 14:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And again, you voice your own opinion on the matter, and consider with more weight than individuals who, as you claim their report is an 'opinion' (a claim driven largely by your own disbelief in the situation), are essentially offering an 'opinion' which is better informed than your own. I never said that you had to believe what sources say- you don't.

You don't have to believe what any source says concerning any matter, no matter how scientific the statement may be in its determinability. You don't have to believe that we've actually gone to the moon, and I'm sure there's a handful of individuals who'll join you assuredly in that belief. But as far as we are concerned here, this is the only attested possibility to occur at this point in Dylan's life. There are no sources which deny his conversion. Why, then, do you so strongly deny the occurrence in the first place? What is the origin of your total rejection of the possibility? I don't understand it entirely, given that you yourself have presented no sources to argue your viewpoint.

Again, I don't feel that this assertion, presented by these biographers, is an opinion. If 50 out of 100 students happen to like the color blue in a study, then the data compiler is not voicing a simple 'opinion' when he claims that "50% of students like the color blue"- he is taking the data which is in front of him and presenting it for what it is. Again, I urge you to read these biographies, at least in part, before you continue to comment on their content.--C.Logan 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly do not reject the possibility of conversion. The responsibility is on the editor who wants to put information into the article. The burden is therefore on you or other editors to show that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity. Where are the reliable sources describing the means by which Bob Dylan's conversion transpired? Opinions from "experts" in the absence of detail are not sufficient. I don't have to provide sources that Bob Dylan did not convert. You have to provide sources that Bob Dylan did convert.

It is not a list of those who like the color blue. Nor is it a list of those who flirted with Christianity. Nor is it a list of those who had biographers express opinions about them vis-a-vis conversion to Christianity. It should be a list of those for whom substantial reason exists to understand that they converted to Christianity.

Concerning Bob Dylan there is a conspicuous absence of anything of substance indicating conversion. Opinions of so-called experts I don't think are meaningful. Bus stop 16:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, because the uninformed opinions of a disruptive editor are, I don't think, very meaningful when analyzing the reporting of experts on a subject. Any 'reasoning' you have presented here is no more sound than the reasoning behind skepticism of the moon landings which are exhibited by a small but sizable group of individuals. If a biographer, in intensive study, comes upon the information that I'd moved to Paris, sees photographs of this, speaks to neighbors I had in Paris, then it is safe to say that I certainly moved to Paris. You can doubt my move all you'd like, assuming that you have a disdain for the country of France and you simply cannot stand the idea, but that's the uninformed opinion which is about as valid as any other conspiracy theorist's theory.

Now, you claim that you do not "reject the possibility" of conversion, but you've done a good job of doing just that by rejecting every source, no matter how reliable it is considered by Wikipedia standards, or how many sources corroborate with each other. It's as if a Flat-Earther were to say "I don't reject the possibility of the Earth being round, and then dismissing orbital images of Earth, gravitational data and topographical information as being mere 'opinions' from "experts".

With that being said, I'd like to remind you and everyone else that the information you keep requesting, which you keep denying, is already present, and has been for nearly two months now. Perhaps you don't understand how the policies work here, or perhaps you are so beyond reason that you cannot accept the way things work here, or perhaps you just get a kick out of all this.

Either way, it's tiring, and I again advice you to put your interpretation into perspective, lest you end up like a Flat-Earther or a moon-landing denialist- skepticism is reasonable, but I'm afraid your requirements for evidence are unrealistic and extremely focused on a point the you disagree with; there are many other 'controversial' points on the article's you've been involved with, certainly, which you haven't bothered to challenge because they do not directly conflict with your personal interpretation of events. Realize, then, that the majority is against you in your 'interpretation' of the sources.--C.Logan 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No source documents any conversion process whatsoever. We simply have no source substantiating by any means the conversion that would be necessary for inclusion of this person on a list of converts. Opinions do not constitute fact. The burden is on you to find the source that confirms that any conversion took place, or else the assumption is that no conversion took place. Bob Dylan most certainly did not ever say that he converted. He most certainly never said, "I'm a Christian." So, on what basis does any editor claim Dylan is a convert? Certainly not on the basis of a reliable source. Let us keep in mind that this is for the use of a list, not an article in prose form.

How did conversion transpire? Did no publication think to ask that question? More likely is no news publication received any information on that to report. Who witnessed Bob Dylan's conversion, assuming any conversion took place? How did he convert? What constituted conversion? Why would Bob Dylan be placed on a list of converts to Christianity without any evidence for conversion? BLP concerns are all about preventing this. Bob Dylan is a prominent person. Did all the major news organizations overlook detailing how conversion came about? Have any witnesses to any process of conversion ever come forward to report about it? Why would all sources be so mum on what would be a meaningful event to the reading public?

Conversion to another religion is a serious matter. BLP concerns do not list as a convert someone who an "expert" author deems a convert, or at least not on that basis alone. Bob Dylan is a prominent person. It is inconceivable that Newsweek and Time magazine and other mainstream publications overlooked reporting on such an event, unless of course they heard nothing of any such conversion. One need not be an expert to report an event. Just what expertise does it take to report on an event constituting conversion?

We are not talking about using the word "conversion" in an article such as the Bob Dylan article. Sources using the word conversion might justify the use of the word conversion in relation to Bob Dylan depending on the rest of the wording used. But inclusion on a list implies factuality. A higher standard applies to a List, just as BLP requires a higher standard for inclusion in Categories. For inclusion in Categories it is necessary that the person affirm in his own words his religious orientation or his sexual orientation. See WP:BLP#Categories. Bus stop 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Review of sources

I've reviewed the page mentioned earlier of quotations on User:C.Logan/Bob Dylan. There are certainly verifiable sources which state that Dylan converted to Christianity. There is also what Dylan himself said on the subject:

"Whether you want to believe Jesus Christ is the messiah is irrelevant, but whether you're aware of the messianic complex"

"Christ is no religion. We're not talking about religion."

"religion is repressive to a certain degree. Religion is another form of bondage, which man invents to get himself to God. But that's why Christ came. Christ didn't preach religion."

By being immersed in water, Bob became, in common parlance, a born-again Christian, though he would later shrink from the term, claiming he had never used it. Yet he was clearly quoted in a 1980 interview with trusted Los Angeles Times journalist Robert Hilburn saying: "I truly has a born-again experience, if you want to call it that. It's an overused term, but it's something that people can relate to."

The List of notable people who converted to Christianity uses the term Christianity to mean a religion: "The following is a list of notable people who converted to Christianity from a different religion or no religion." (emphasis added) In Dylan's own view, he specifically rejects Christianity as a religion. The terminology has been applied to him by others through "common parlance", as in the last quote above, which mentions Dylan's statement that he never used it himself. What he said was, "a born-again experience".

It seems his own view is therefore that he was not someone who "converted to Christianity", and it is inappropriate over such a sensitive and personal issue that the view of third parties about what he did should predominate over what he himself said he did.

Tyrenius 09:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been covered numerous times throughout the discussion. Despite what may seem obvious to any particular individual upon reading a primary source, we have to be mindful that this is original research. Concerning the usage of sources, these biographies, with the information given in context, is what we should be using to determine things concerning Dylan, not his own personal statements. WP:OR:

• ...Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. (emphasis mine)

• Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. (emphasis WP's)

Concerning the context, the 'shrinking away' from the term born-again is just that- a shrinking away from that particular term. This does not say anything beyond that, and as I've stated before, it is certainly OR to assume that the disdain for a certain terminology (which Dylan himself has lamented is a media buzzword) signifies any greater "renunciation" beyond that specific element. (And as I've pointed out, I and many other individuals reject this terminology as well, myself strongly so, and this has no bearing on any element of religious belief.)

Additionally, please don't begin a discussion on the "not a religion" statements. That, as has been covered several times as well, is a manner of speaking which is common amongst Evangelical Protestants (especially amongst non-denominational churches, such as Dylan's own Vineyard Fellowship), considering the idea that Christianity is not a religion, but is a relationship/way of life/etc. This has become more common in recent times, when most people tend to move away from traditional religious movements and gravitate towards new-age spiritual movements (which, in actuality, is exactly how the Vineyard movement is described). Interpreting what was said beyond this without considering how such statements are treated by the sources is, essentially, an OR (and misinformed) exegesis.

If we are to follow Heylin and Sounes, considering that they are operating from an informed, expert standpoint, then it is clear that Mr. Dylan most certainly did convert to Christianity- I'm a little confused how an individual can read the citations and not come away with that idea solidified in their minds (or at the very least, left with the idea that this is what the biographers are most certainly attempting to convey). I don't mean to sound rude or anything, but you have to keep in mind exactly how much has been discussed in the past 2(+) months of discussion; all of what you present above has been discussed numerous times, and the editors involved have still repeatedly arrived at the same conclusions concerning his conversion (sans Bus stop and Cleo). Volumes have been written over a minor issue, and it's all a bit exasperating- and a bit difficult to get newly-arrived users up to speed at what's been gone over already (sometimes ad nauseam). Therefore, I wanted to explain this to you a bit, even though I really didn't want to post here again. If you have more issues or concerns, I would appreciate it if you might speak with me on my user page about it, or possibly on the article talk page, if you will.--C.Logan 10:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You chose to continue the discussion here. When Fred Bauder challenged you, you gave a link to your sub-page as proof. I have reviewed it as a non-involved party, expecting to find the unambiguous proof to justify inclusion in such a list. What I found was inconsistency between what Dylan said about himself and what other people said about him. One of your sources states that Dylan said he had never used the term "born-again Christian", and then attempts to show he did by using a quote where he doesn't. It should also be noted that Christian sources testifying to his conversion have a vested interest in the matter. WP:BLP demands a priority of caution.

There are obviously unresolved issues here, when the List of notable people who converted to Christianity defines Christianity as a religion, while your explanation of Dylan's anti-religion statements is that he was part of a "new-age spiritual movement", which is "not a religion". His inclusion defines him as a convert to a religion. WP:LISTS states, "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria", but there now exists ambiguity. It also states, "Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list." It might have seemed obvious as to what constitutes a "conversion to Christianity", but it is clearly not always so, and there is a need for this to be defined in the lead section by citing verifiable sources on the matter.

I don't feel comfortable with the way Dylan is in this list as it now stands. There is already a section of "Forced conversions", so there is an acceptance that not all "conversions" are alike. A solution to the current issue may be the addition of another such section for those people who identify with Christ, thus being called Christians "in common parlance", but who are not Christians in the sense of accepting Christianity as a religion. As you point out, there is a difference.

I am not surprised that you are "a little confused how an individual can read the citations and not come away with that idea solidified in their minds (or at the very least, left with the idea that this is what the biographers are most certainly attempting to convey)", as you're attributing a view to me, which I do not hold. I said: "There are certainly verifiable sources which state that Dylan converted to Christianity." I'm not disputing that's what secondary sources say. However, Dylan's own statements are somewhat relevant, and don't need any interpretation as they unambiguously differentiate Christ from religion and condemn the latter.

Tyrenius 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The separate is, at least, a considerable concept, but in application it becomes rather faulty. Forced conversions form a separate section not because of differences in belief, but because of the non-willful transition. I'm not really a strong supporter of that section being included, although I think it makes things a little more useful and informative in general, so I don't raise any strong objection to it, either. The problem with such a section is that Christianity means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Buddhism, likewise, is a philosophy to some, and a religion to others. When "Christianity" is used, we must me mindful that definitions are determined by the manner in which a term is commonly used. For these purposes, and because of the lack of discernment amongst sources, we cannot differentiate between this minute level of belief any more than we can differentiate between many other concepts which are used in both "lists" and "categories". For example, referring to an individual as a Jew can relay two meanings- a religious/philosophical one or an ethnic/cultural one. This is why Who is a Jew? is a necessary article, lest incorrect assumptions be made from the listing alone (even the blatant "I am a Jew" sort of statement by the source tells little concerning what they may be implying if taken alone).

I'm not sure what the issue with the born-again quotation is. "Born-again" has a negative connotation to many nowadays, and holding disdain for such a title doesn't say much about an individual beyond the disdain for a particular title. The concept of "Christian" and "born-again" are quite separate, and I could essentially be what is commonly considered a "born-again Christian" (Evangelical Protestant) while abhorring that terminology. Additionally, your problem with the author's quotation should be a clear indication that you're misunderstanding something slight- he's speaking of Dylan's aversion to the term "born-again", not with the term "Christian". It's similar to being called a "new-age Christian"- you may indeed be a Christian of such a style, but it is not unreasonable to dislike such a prefix, especially when it becomes a media buzzword.

Concerning the terminology of "religion", you have to remember that you may call a duck anything you'd like, but it is still a duck. The term religion has a broad meaning, but many individuals tend to confine the term to the concept of hocus-pocus rituals and traditionalist interpretations of Holy Scripture. Saying that Christ "did not bring religion", as I'd said was a common manner of speaking amongst many Protestant churches, puts forth little more than a clear differentiation between the frequently rejected traditionalist, "high religious" elements of faith and between the core beliefs which permeate throughout nearly all denominations: love your neighbor, emulate Christ, and so on. In the 'new-age' sense, Jesus is a spiritual guru of sorts, and he essentially outlines some sort of path to enlightenment or heaven. Individuals who use such statements are commonly of the opinion that Jesus himself rejected "high religion" (which is, though I disagree, a reasonable interpretation of the Gospels). Whatever the state of an individual's belief may be, we must keep in mind what the definition of a term is. Here, for example, is the definition of a 'religion':

re·li·gion (r-ljn)

n.

1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Keeping in mind that this definition includes both "high" and "low" concepts of religious belief (in the latter sense, perhaps even called a philosophy, as is the common case with atheistic Buddhism), then it would seem that it would be senseless to imply constricting limits on what is and is not a 'religion'. By this definition, animal rights activism or veganism can be called 'a religion' to a respective individual. We must then keep in mind that the subject's usage of the term religion in this common manner of speaking adheres to a narrow definition, and at the same time does not escape the concept of "religion" in and of itself (that is to say, the individual is using separate terms than we who are compiling an encyclopedia are using, and thus it is fallacious to take personal interpretations of the individual's phraseology and present it as hard evidence on its own, with a reliable secondary source to present an informed exegesis on the subject.

With that being said, I would agree that clarity in using the term 'religion' is important when compiling such lists. Perhaps a religious template which defines the term would be in order for all such religious lists (assuming that there is not already a general one available). As has been shown, the definitions of "religion", "philosophy", "lifestyle", "cause" and other terms are largely inter-related, and this should be clarified. Additionally, only so much can be gained from what a source says concerning conversion: What of denominations? What of theological particulars? What of ritualistic practice? With the lack of such specificity generally rare, it would seem half-baked to split the article further into such concepts when such specifics may be impossible to verify. As long as the individual identifies with Christianity in any sense of the term (in the sense of conversion), I see no qualm with including him on a list of individuals with relation to Christianity.

Concerning your final statement, I believe I've already discussed this before. You are, perhaps, making the same "mistake" in assessing what may seem clear to you. To you, such statements condemn/contradict secondary source claims. To me, and to the other editors who have been discussing the issue, they do not, and for many of the reasons which I have explained. Essentially, and I mean no offense to you, if you are unfamiliar with the figures of speech used by a group of people or are unaware of the connotation of particular terms, then you would be presenting a largely uninformed exegesis. Consider terms such as "fifteen minutes of fame", however flawed an example that may be, which presents a concept which may be misunderstood by an individual who is unfamiliar with certain figures of speech. A speaker new to English may not understand the term at all, or might actually take it literally (e.g. "The source states that the individual had 15 minutes of fame, but later goes on to speak about the individual's involvement on a reality show for two months. How is this contradiction resolved?"). When you understand the terminology/phraseology, however, the confusion over the matter is lifted.--C.Logan 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

However, per the policies cited above, it is for reputable secondary sources to interpret those statements. Anyone can change their mind, lie and say they did or didn't do something. However, the secondary sources say otherwise, even the Encyclopedia Britannica. Drumpler 14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite, and that's why I'm not interpreting them. I'm just quoting them, so they can speak for themselves, which they do plainly. You've not addressed the issues raised. Tyrenius 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If the issue being raised here is your interpretation of Dylan's statements as being "proof" he wasn't a Christian, I am just saying its irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Secondary sources are what matter on Wikipedia. Anyone can write a blog, make a website, or otherwise publicly protest and challenge an idea or belief that they used to hold and lie about it. That's why primary sources in and of themselves are not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'd imagine Wiki policy on self-published sources exist for this very reason. Drumpler 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually all sources matter and have to be given appropriate weight. Primary sources used appropriately and with care are permissible, as are self-published ones relating to the author of them. In this case, I was taking the quotes from the page you specifically pointed to with text that you selected, so don't obfuscate. The quotes were published in secondary sources, which failed to find a statement by him to directly corroborate "conversion to Christianity". My reservation is that the list is about people converting to a religion, and you have specifically stated that his affiliation is to something which is "not a religion", although it may still be called Christianity. The term Christianity thus has two different definitions a) formal religion b) "lifestyle", one or both of which may apply to someone. It would seem a) does not apply to Dylan, but b) does (or did). The list defines itself as a) which in this case is misleading. This needs to be clarified, not fudged. Tyrenius 17:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not Christianity if it is not a religion. Christianity means religion. If Bob Dylan "converted" to something other than the religion of Christianity, then he should not belong anywhere on this list. No "section" of the list should contain anyone other than those who "converted to Christianity." That is what the title says, and the contents should not contradict the title. Therefore also "forced conversions" also should not be on the list, but for a different reason. "Forced conversions" contradict the title because acceptance of a religion can never be involuntary. Bus stop 13:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I added that because the editors wanted it and it was in the other conversion lists. I'd be most happy to have all "forced conversion" sections removed from every list. However there's fairly strong insistence that forced conversion to Islam must be mentioned in the Islam list so the others have it for consistency. I also think Tyrenius is making an intriguing point that's worth considering and somewhat different from ones I'd heard then. I have known of people who, for a time or permanently, deemed themselves as "followers of Christ" in a philosophic sense that did not mean they deemed themselves Christians. Whether these people count as converts is interesting and has potential to effect lists like List of notable converts to Buddhism. I think there was a bit of a discussion on something like this, but it was ruled a bit too "thorny" of an issue. However I think it might be important enough of an issue that it needs to be discussed in a wider venue than someone's talk page.--T. Anthony 14:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The secondary sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, are using the term figuratively. It is your original research to attach the literal meaning to it. "Conversion" is a term being used to refer to Dylan's Christian imagery in his music and his stage performances, and to an extent his offstage comments. But none of these constitute literal conversion. The article List of notable people who converted to Christianity uses the term literally. Furthermore, a List, more so than an article written in prose form, implies greater literalness. Inclusion on a list such as this means actual literal religious conversion. It is not good enough that a source mentions conversion. When we look into this we find that there is no basis for actual literal conversion. Editors are not bound by superficial uses of words in sources when factuality for those superficially used words cannot be found. No source confirms conversion. No source points to a conversion process. Conversion to Christianity has to be factually established by sources in order to justify inclusion on a list of converts to Christianity. Attempts to do so fall way short of what would be necessary to clear the cloud of doubt over this supposed "conversion." Therefore inclusion on a list such as this is a clear incursion into personal life, in a way that BLP is designed to prevent. No source actually makes a point of saying that Dylan converted to Christianity. Were there actual conversion there would be detail. It is inconceivable that a conversion of a person as prominent as Dylan could take place with no one taking note of the time or the place or any other detail. There is not one detail to this conversion. The conclusion we reach is that it never took place. To conclude that there was transition into the Christian religion is original research. Bus stop 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm I hope you're not directing this at me. I'm actually thinking I may have been mistaken to think he was a convert. I'm just not sure. Either way I never wanted him on the list, I only tolerated it to avoid continued argument.--T. Anthony 14:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so the plain statement of Encyclopedia Britannica, which states plainly that Dylan converted to Christianity, must be interpreted metaphysically, Bus stop? Niiiiice. Drumpler 15:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The word is being used figuratively, not metaphysically. We editors are not bound up by words. We look at words and we look at the entirety of context. When we do so in relation to Dylan we find no actual conversion. Encyclopedia Britannica would not be using the word literally, or they would follow up with details on said conversion. As editors, we look at the whole picture. When we do so, we find no details for any conversion process anywhere. We find no source that points to any conversion process. No source indicates a time, a place or a witness. Without a source indicating actual, literal conversion, we should not be putting him on a list of converts. Again: not a single detail exists for conversion. Surely if conversion was real some source would point to some aspect of it. But in point of fact none does. Why is there no description found in any source for this supposed conversion? Bus stop 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, no one pop Bus stop's narrow view of reality. I'm afraid he'll hurt himself. I recommend small increments (probably a "word a day" with definition from the dictionary). Drumpler 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC) I apologize. However, I still disagree with metaphorical interpretation of sources. Drumpler 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In the circumstances, your remarks are inexcusable, and I suggest you withdraw them. If you continue in that way it will merit being blocked. Tyrenius 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.:) Tyrenius 17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Drumpler 18:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We've gotten a little weary from the discussion, so it's natural (but still unacceptable) to shift towards sarcasm and ridicule. I don't think any user who's been involved for a while has clean hands on this issue. Still, I feel that the usage of such an argument is undeniably fallacious. Like I've said before, I feel that the argument of terms here is similar to saying that "He went to the store" only meant that he "contemplated the concept of a store, flirted with the idea of buying something, but never actually went". It's essentially forcing an interpretation of explicit terms (whether you believe them or not) for the promotion of an individual point. I'm sorry, but I don't see how that particular argument can be taken seriously. Words and phrases can have many meanings, and figurative uses, but believe it or not, the secondary sources choose to be explicit in this matter.--C.Logan 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite clearly Encyclopedia Britannica is using the expression in the conventional sense. They are a tertiary source, which synthesises secondary sources, who also use the term in the same way. However, wikipedia does not always treat such sources as admissible for article content when it comes to BLP. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#WP:BLP.23Categories is examining this in relation to religious affiliation. Tyrenius 18:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the mention of EB is for admission, as I myself have noted that it is a tertiary source and is generally not as weighty as secondary sources. However, I do believe that it is important to note that a grouping of experienced, professional (for the most part) researchers have arrived at the same conclusion that the majority of editors involved have- that the conversion was, in actuality, a real religious conversion. As far as I can see, the secondary sources certainly come to this conclusion, and notably arguing at points where rumors of a "return to Judaism" arose at one particular point in his life that Dylan (e.g.) "still believed that Jesus was the Messiah". I suppose that alternate viewpoints concerning the authors' intent are reasonable, but we as editors are supposed to replicate information in a robotic manner- and when the biography, fully mindful of the entire 'life-story' of Dylan, still chooses the explicit terminology of "conversion to Christianity", then it is only reasonable that we would follow this presentation by listing the individual among individuals who 'converted to Christianity'.--C.Logan 19:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Encyclopedia Britannica can be treated as a secondary source according to WP:OR:

Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. (Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source.) Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one.

I'm not really familiar with their process, but I'm sure that, given its breadth, the entries are written by experts in their fields. I'm also sure the articles are peer reviewed and carefully scrutinized. This is why I think it is probably regarded as a secondary source according to policy. Although it is true, we shouldn't rely on it primarily. I have just repeated this argument ad nauseam because I wanted to see Bus stop's reaction to it. I have constantly provided the link where he can bring this suit to them and suggest corrections to their own article. If there are legitimate reasons as to not include it, they would probably be the ones to know (or to find out). Hopefully you can understand my backwards logic here. :) Drumpler 21:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Then they (Encyclopedia Britannica) are repeating the mistakes of others. Encyclopedia Britannica, we have to assume, has swallowed hook line and sinker the mistakes of others. It gets back to the question: What is conversion dependent upon? Nothing? Then there is no conversion. Conversion is not dependent on authors of biographies. Authors of biographies too are required to substantiate claims of conversion. We are not talking about a subject who is buried in the recesses of history. We are talking about an extremely prominent character of recent times. Yet we haven't a shred of evidence of any process of conversion. In the absence of any source indicating any process of conversion whatsoever, what are we basing conversion on? The opinion of an author? Opinions of authors do not to any degree bring about conversions.

Furthermore, we are not talking about the mere use of the word conversion in a prose article such as the Bob Dylan article. Justification can be found for repeating verbatim the word used by a reliable source because surrounding text can qualify the use of that term. But a list lives by its parameters. This is not the list of those whose authors of their biographies referred to them as converts. Those are not the parameters of this list. The list is of actual converts. Actual converts especially in recent times don't come about by the means of someone merely calling them a convert. There has to be something more substantial upon which to base such a claim. As we see in this case there is not. Without any hint of a process of conversion we should not assume there has been conversion. Bus stop 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you added a second part, I'll respond to both paragraphs separately.

1st:

Forgive me, but I chuckled a bit upon reading this. Upon what do you base your assertions, Bus stop? Upon what sources? How can you judge the assertions of others to be a "mistake" without anything to provide support to your own assertions? Evidence is need for any assertion, of course, but then again, there are still conspiracy theorists who reject all the proof which is solid to others and repeatedly ask for more (it would seem as well that they consider the majority opinion similarly to be the continued propagation of misinformation). Because of the misguided interpretation of sources by these minority believers, should we really cast such a critical shadow on the actual sources themselves. You continuously claim, quite erroneously, that you do not need to provide sources. I'm sorry, but you do. You must provide a published source which agrees with you; which similarly criticizes the conversion of Dylan and considers the interpretation of the majority of individuals as misplaced. Until you provide sources for such an assertion, it is essentially the same as adding your personal opinion of a source directly into an article- that is, original research.

As you, apparently, do not even understand what constitutes a 'conversion', despite the numerous times over the months where it has been repeatedly explained and reiterated to facilitate your understanding, it appears that you simply refuse to consider any elements which are not supportive of your argument. Your focus on this one particular individual (possibly for some personal reasons) drives you to demand higher standards of evidence only because you find what is already presented to you as being unacceptable.

In this specific case, there is no universality in the process of conversion, and seeing that when we were all asked to provide a definition of what constitutes "conversion" on the talk page a while ago, and your fellow editor Cleo stated "confirmation" (in the Catholic sense), then it becomes apparent why you may not grasp how things work in other denominations in Christianity. Despite your obsession with baptism, most non-denominational groups only require the acceptance of Christ as the Messiah as the initiating point- nevermind the fact that the need to verify the individual facts which a secondary source presents as given information is, in itself, an act which raises a question of motivation on the part of the scrutinizer.

The sources state that "Sometime in the next few days, privately and on his own, Bob accepted Christ and believed that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah". As far as we should be concerned, this is the most applicable point of conversion amongst a group of Christians who have no universal conversion practice. Accepting Christ, often through the "Sinner's Prayer", marks the point where an individual moves to their new belief, officially, if the term can be used in these loosely-defined denominations.

The question of baptism, which is confirmed in act but unclear in location, is a peripheral one which only stands to reinforce the issue of conversion, not harm it if no such ritual is undertaken. Why do you obsess with it so? Why don't you listen to individuals who might understand what certain people believe and how they believe it a little better than you do?

Your assertion that the opposing editors are arguing that "conversion depends upon nothing" is a very ignorant one, and it shows not only that you do not understand anything about (specifically American) Evangelical Protestantism, but that you choose to ignore the explanations and elaborations of all other users who are merely attempting to help you understand a particular concept.

2nd:

"As we see in this case" essentially dooms you as a researcher in any respectable sense of the word. How can you honestly claim such a thing with such certainty. I'm sorry, but as I see it, and as almost all the other editors involved see it, there is substantial evidence upon which three individual, separate biographers, all experts on the subject at hand, base their informed assertions concerning Dylan's conversion.

Where, again, is the evidence to any of your own assertions? An individual may reject even clearly observable evidence, but if you really hope to convince anyone else concerning what you believe, you may want to start supporting your statements with some actually sources. Any armchair historian/theologian/philosopher can argue against a particular belief, but without a notable opinion which supports your assertion, what weight does it hold which is greater than any other individual opinion of any editor on Wikipedia? Essentially, what you believe doesn't ultimately matter. If the sources are explicit about a matter, it is included as such. The only editors in the discussion who continuously rejected the verifiability of conversion are you and Cleo. And might I remind you that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".

Continuing with this concept, it's humorous to see the assertion that this is a list of "actual converts", not of individuals who are called as such by the source. Do you understand how Wikipedia works? May I redirect you to the above italic statement? The only verifiability viewpoint concerning Dylan states explicitly that he converted. Is there an actual reliable secondary source which challenges this assertion? Additionally, does such a source follow the more demanding concerns of WP:BLP, which the sources at hand (which claim conversion) do? Essentially, Wikipedia is not based on what it is (as this is a subjective viewpoint, might I remind you), but is based on what reliable sources say it is.

Hardly any of these individuals are with any certainty "actual converts", but are merely individuals who are considered as such by reliable sources. You can claim that Muhammad "actually converted to Christianity before his death", but without a reliable source to support you, it is entirely original research. Personally, I do not claim to know on my own the religious affiliation of any of these individuals. I do not try to synthesize tenuous elements in order to paint a picture, as you have in the past concerning Dylan's Judaism (a point which is possible, but given the dearth of sources in the matter seems unlikely). The reliable, secondary sources state something, and as a Wikipedia editor I relay what is stated. When "full-blown conversion to Christianity" is what is stated, then I'm obligated to present just that.--C.Logan 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler, C.Logan: I do not have to find a source that Dylan did not convert, not for inclusion on a list, anyway. You have to find a source indicating that Dylan did convert. Inclusion on a list is only (should only) be done if it is known that a person (in this case) converted to the religion in question. Yes, the threshold is verifiability, not truth. That applies to articles. Lists are lists because their contents have already been screened for factuality. In this case it does not matter even if as prestigious an organization as Encyclopedia Britannica uses the word conversion in a way that some people may want to take literally. If all else argues against taking that word literally then a name should be left off a list. To put a name on a list despite pretty strong evidence that there really is no "conversion" for that individual is original research.

The "Baptism" comment that C.Logan offers is nothing at all. It is conjecture, nothing more. That comment goes on to say that the Baptism "probably" took place in the ocean. And by the way, that one comment is as close as we get to the supposed "Baptism" of Dylan. Isn't anyone curious as to why no people who were witness to that Baptism have ever come forward to share that interesting experience with others? Concerning that lone individual who said that the Baptism probably took place in the ocean, does anyone think he was there? Unless he forgot whether he was near an ocean or a swimming pool I don't think he was there. And finally he doesn't say he was there.

In point of fact nothing is brought forward by any source for conversion. It is simply absent. That is the reason Bob Dylan has no place on a list of converts to Christianity. In an article (the Bob Dylan article) his biographer's use of the word "conversion" can be woven into a long and complicated story. But the contents of this discussion are not going to be inserted into a list. What kind of disclaimers are you going to put next to his name on the list. Are you going to put an asterisk with the words, "According to his biographer?"

Find a source which sheds light on even one detail of a conversion process and then you can consider listing him on a list of converts. At this point "conversion" is a product of a Dylan biographer's mind. It is unthinkable that a person whom crowds follow has not one witness to a process that cannot be undertaken alone. Is there such a code of secrecy surrounding Dylan's conversion that not a detail of it has leaked out? Was he Baptized, or not? Was there "confirmation?" Was there the "acceptance of Christ the Messiah?" Was there a recitation of the "Sinner's Prayer?" I am not questioning the validity of any of these things as means of conversion. I am asking you which one or ones apply. The answer is that you haven't got a clue. Why don't you have a clue? You don't have a clue because you have no source shedding light on any detail of any method, or process, of conversion. Yet you want to put the man's name on a list of converts to Christianity as though it were a forgone conclusion. It is not anywhere near a forgone conclusion. It is as best we know an opinion of a few biographers. That's good enough for a prose article (maybe); it is not good enough for inclusion on a list.

By the way, concerning the above, where did they take place? Who was present? What was Dylan wearing? Was it sunny or raining? Day or night? Indoors or outdoors? No anecdotes to tell about how it transpired? If no detail is present, that is a pretty good indicator that nothing of the sort transpired.

We are talking about a superstar and we are talking about three quarters of the way through the twentieth century and yet you are trying to foist upon the public that conversion of a Jew to Christianity transpired but not a detail of it is known. And you want this to take place on a list, where the assumption is that inclusion indicates certainty and factuality. Bus stop 22:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm questioning the wisdom of even continuing this discussion. Bus stop's opinions are fine -- he's allowed to hold to the viewpoints he does. However, if one reads the myriads of material written about him, it isn't due to this viewpoint. It is due to disruptive editing. It is for this reason that maybe this conversation is best left for List of notable people who converted to Christianity? Then we can allow Bus stop continue to make his appeals for unblocking on his own. Why are we even having this conversation with a disruptive editor? Drumpler 22:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- Do you have any explanation for why not a detail of this supposed conversion is known? Bus stop 22:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A) It occurred in private, on his own. B) It was relayed from Dylan to Larry Myers and Kenn Gulliksen, directly or indirectly. C) It was relayed from Myers to Sounes, in general terms because- believe it or not- it is likely that the speaker did not really expect anyone to give a shit about the weather or Dylan's fashion choice. Additionally, there's really no issue with general terms, because it's unlikely that they would foreseen a Wikipedia editor nitpicking endlessly through sources because he can't come to terms with an event that pretty much everyone else agrees on. Again, I would be overjoyed to remind you that the argumentum a silentio is yet another logical fallacy, and therefore you're looking a little silly trying to prove anything with it. That is to say, you're claiming that because nobody felt like going into specifics in this interview with Sounes, that they don't really know anything concerning the event and probably made it up. Once again, that is a fallacy- for all we know, Myers could know what kind of deodorant Dylan was wearing, and just because he doesn't say it doesn't mean he doesn't know what occurred, and it certainly doesn't mean that it didn't occur. Therefore, trying to prove anything with such an argument casts a light on exactly how you're trying to go about things.--C.Logan 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- We are talking about an utter absence of any detail. There is not even a mention of whether we are talking about Baptism or one of the other myriad means you've cited by which conversion can come about. Bus stop 23:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt any explanation is going to change your months-long viewpoint on this subject. Actually, I'm more concerned with bringing this discussion to the appropriate talk page. Unless I misunderstand ban policies, your user page is supposed to be used to appeal your ban. We shouldn't be discussing this here. As of right now, you can't edit said article, so its fruitless, as you are banned indefinitely and, technically, aren't even an editor (unless banned editors can contribute to consensus also). Continue to make your ban appeals. The rest of us need to take this to the talk page at List of notable people who converted to Christianity. Drumpler 23:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- I take that to mean you cannot explain the utter absence of any details of said conversion. Does curiosity make you wonder where all the details went? Perhaps they are nonexistent? Do you have the foggiest idea if we are talking about Baptism or one of the countless other means for conversion that have been advanced by you and your compatriots? Bus stop 23:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And I as well. He isn't aware that we've already gone over the inclusion standards for lists and satisfied them with the very sources we're discussing (and by the way, "factuality" is not required for lists- are you kidding? Verifiability and reliable sources are what matter, in all cases- please don't broadcast that bs). At this point it, he seems to nitpick things further and further simply because he doesn't like what the sources say. He feels it proper to undermine the judgment of a biographer who has spent years upon years compiling sources on a subject in which he is well versed, all in favor of the conjecture and hair-splitting of an editor who simply can't accept that he may be wrong about something, when the sources disagree with him over conversion, as does nearly every editor involved. It would be a joke to apply the above standards and scrutiny to any other issue or claim, and I'm concerned that he has made it his personal vendetta to oppose this possibility (which most would likely call a fact) by any manner possible, whether it be by stretching policies or stretching source text. In addition to that, he appears to have selective amnesia concerning the past 2 or so months of discussion, and feels refreshed to retread the same fallacious arguments again and again- although, I might add, he's been mixing it up a bit lately, so it makes a better read.

With that being said, continued involvement here is utterly pointless. I'm going to spend more time working on the List itself, beginning with the restoration of names removed for lack of sourcing. This user page is a monumental waste of time that proves itself to be occasionally amusing, but ultimately fruitless. Best of luck to you, dear Bus stop, and I hope that's the last time I'll have to bid you adieu, at least until you've grown out of this DE stage.--C.Logan 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- Please find a source detailing, to any degree, conversion. Right now you have not a single source alluding to any process of conversion whatsoever. Are you aware of that? You have the word of an author of a book on Dylan, and that is it. Are you not curious about why no detail about any conversion process whatsoever has come to light? Perhaps because no such conversion process ever transpired? Bus stop 23:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity. Anyone who can post there should bring this convo there. Drumpler 23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#WP:BLP.23Categories

I have put forward a proposal on the policy talk page to clarify that the same principles apply to lists as to categories. The text regarding religious affiliation would be relevant to the current debate. Tyrenius 17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've commented on the Talk Page there. Interestingly, this is another issue which has been gone over during the discussion, with a lot of reasoning put forth into the differences between lists and categories and why self-identification is essential for the latter, but not the former (although all sources concerning BLP must be reliable).--C.Logan 17:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock|Your reason here (F)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bus stop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no disruption. There never has been any disruption, unless Wikipedia considers cogent argument to be disruption. I've made it clear that conversion, for Bob Dylan, consists of nothing more than a biographer's assertion. The dozen editors who filed a complaint against me consider that disruption. In point of fact it is reason for excluding his name (Bob Dylan) from a list of converts to Christianity. Not a shred of evidence, not even the slightest detail, exists for any such conversion process. I'm not even particularly interested, as an editor, in the subject of religion, or of rock superstars. I actually would like to have my account unblocked so I can edit articles related to the visual arts, primarily, so please unblock my account so that I might do so. Bus stop 08:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Argumentative and disruptive... I don't see any apologetic behavior from you. I don't even see any acceptance that your attitude an behavior was inappropriate. Both of those factors lead me to believe the actions that lead here would continue if the unblock request was granted. — ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What would Bus stop apologize for? Can J.smith articulate that? I think J.smith needs to learn to assume good faith. And it wouldn't hurt if J.smith also made some effort to take his speaking style out of a rut. It does not move a discussion along to fall back on words and phases that have lost their meaning through overuse. "Disruptive" is utterly bereft of meaning in this context. Can J.smith put "disruptive" into his own words? Bus stop 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(re-factored comments to pull out of unblock template) The assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact. Feel free to appeal to the arbcom, but I doubt you will get much sympathy there either. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words J.smith cannot articulate a thought for why he has declined my request to be unblocked and J.smith does not, at least in this instance, assume good faith. The reason for J.smith's inability to assume good faith has not been articulated, and the reason for declining my request to have my account unblocked has not been articulated. Bus stop 20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, insult the people your asking to be unblocked by. That sure proves your not disruptive. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using a word without defining it. What do you mean by "disruptive?" Is any disagreement disruptive? Bus stop 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Violations of behavior guidelines are disruptive. See WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL & WP:EQ, for instance. Also WP:TE and WP:DE are applicable to the situation. Also, continuing to throw straw men and ad hominems at everyone who disagrees with you is also disruptive. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words J.smith has nothing to say. Conversation happens to involve human verbal interaction, not hurling Wikipedia style letters about, not pinning unexplained charges on another person. Dialogue involves articulation that is tailored to the recipient. In other words, what I am saying to J.smith is directly crafted to reach J.smith. It is that effort to try to understand something about the specific identity of the person that one is speaking to that makes all the difference. It's hard for me to understand why one would understand their job so narrowly that they would at the same time that they are declining a request for unblocking, hold back from actually speaking to the person that they are denying the unblock. That is what I've observed not only in J.smith but in all or most of these denials to be unblocked and including the initial block put in place by Durova. Human interaction is still important even if you are speaking to someone whose account is blocked. Does J.smith understand what Bus stop is saying? Bus stop 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that you are asking someone to unblock you, not demanding it. The person doing the review of your block is not technically obligated to do anything other than respond yes or no and supply their reasons for doing so. Your apparent presumption that they are somehow obligated to show respect to you by answering follow-up questions, when you have rightly or wrongly been blocked from editing, is very likely not one that they share. John Carter 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: if you'd familiarized yourself a little better with what's behind those "Wikipedia style letters" that J.smith posted here again for your edification, you might not have ended up in the predicament in which you currently find yourself.--C.Logan 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop, It's not my job to spoon-feed you the policies and guidelines. I read the block reasoning, checked out the evidence presented at the community sanctions thread and looked into your history myself. Everything indicated that your block was valid. Since your block was valid I look at something else: Is the blocked/banned likely to reform... with your inability to even admit you have done wrong it is extremely unlikely.

This is your last warning: If you post any more messages with even a slight bit of incivility in them I will lock this page. Please review WP:UNBLOCK for the next steps in requesting an unblock. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

random section break

You've been offered unblocking as above if you agree to leave "the two articles" alone for three months and have mentorship from Fred Bauder - this is a good opportunity to work with a very experienced editor. If you agree, I don't see a problem with unblocking. Tyrenius 08:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius -- What kind of rationality is there to that? I am put on a tether because I've made rational argument? Do you realize how many changes I have brought about by my supposed disruption? Do you think they've changed the name of the article for any other reason than the rock solid validity of my argument? What about the recent discussion concerning revising guidelines for BLP concerning Categories and Lists. That was brought up by Cleo123 a couple of weeks ago. She was hounded off of Wikipedia by persistent attacks from the editors who got me banned. It is not because I am a disruptive editor that my account is blocked. That is nonsense. If disruption were a factor all the editors who filed the complaint against me would have their accounts blocked. I have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Me having my account blocked and then accepting working on a tether is wrong. Wikipedia should get that straight. I know you mean well and I sincerely thank you for trying to help me. But after six requests to have my account unblocked I think administrators have had ample opportunity to look into this matter, realize the injustices, and right them. That is considered assuming good faith. Bus stop 09:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what tether? Tyrenius 09:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's stating his view that being "adopted" is being placed on a tether. The term does have a slightly "infantilizing" ring to it.--T. Anthony 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I realise that is what he is referring to! I am questioning why he should see it as a tether, as opposed to a rare opportunity to develop wiki skills through a working relationship with a member of ArbCom. Tyrenius 13:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop I hate to intrude here again, because it encourages the trolls. I agree with Tyrenius, and I'd like to see you unblocked. I think its wiser to step back, having profoundly made your points to edit another day. I agree that compromise when you are right is a drag, however sometimes the direct path is the wrong path. If working with Fred Bauder doesn't cut it, then you'll deal with that, as best you can, but it might be really good. Sometimes what looks like a bad deal, turns out to be the best. Modernist 12:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please clarifhy who are the trolls you are referring to, or may I suggest per WP:NPA please refrain making from these sorts of comments. I would like to believe you and User:Freshacconci are here to present a devil's advocate view from your prior experience with this user, but considering User:Freshacconci e.g. seemed to be implying all who found Bus Stop disruptive are "born-agains" and "bastards" using "ganging up tactics used to discredit [Bus Stop]." http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABus_stop&diff=140765159&oldid=140759118 (I'm pretty sure I'm not a born-again Christian since I don't believe any god exists, so I find that logic particularly bothersome) , and then asked others to not post here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABus_stop&diff=141992340&oldid=141989470 --are the pro-Bus Stop camp taking the attitude only their side should come here and possibly distort truth, make personal attacks and accusations, and the other side cannot respond to defend their viewpoints while you purposely add rather incendiary comments like "I agree that compromise when [Bus Stop is right] is a drag"? If you believe in Bus Stop's points, please feel free to post your reasoning on the talk page for the List of Converts to Christianity where numerous editors (including at least a couple who were against including former converts and hence more towards Bus Stop's camp initially, but towards the end grew so tired of his disruption and aversion to consensus they have agreed he's disruptive) are ready to listen why you think he's so right. Thanks. Tendancer 14:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tendancer -- We are not interested in whether you believe in God or not. Please try to not burden us with your personal beliefs. Bus stop 15:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you for one are interested, as both you and User:Freshacconci are taking the approach of accusing numerous editors who find you disruptive as e.g. "born-agains", "bastards", "using" "ganging up tactics to discredit [you]". I see you ignored the rest of my edit, whether by accident or as a red herring, specifically the point: don't ask others to not contribute if you're going to post accusations, call people "trolls" and "bastards" and commit personal attacks and insist others don't defend themselves. In addition, per WP:USER which explicitly states a user page should not have Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc. , please take all opinions about Bob Dylan and Christianity to their appropriate talk pages. Thanks Tendancer 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Tendancer, but I'm not taking the bait. "Don't let the bastards get you down" is from a faux-latin phrase attributed to Joseph Stilwell (and, as well, is a song by Kris Kristofferson and I think it was used once by John Wayne). It's offered to someone whose back is against the wall (plus in this case, a play on the "bus tard" slur). Nothing more. The reason I used this talk page was to inform Bus stop of the offer from Durova to get him unblocked. It would be useless to inform him at the talk page for the List of Converts to Christianity since Bus stop is blocked (not to mention actually irrelevant to that talk page). Finally, I suggested that editors drop the matter because it was going nowhere: no one was going to change their mind, and the seeming obsession with arguing with each other basically proved each other's points. I have no reason to carry this discussion to the talk page for the List of Converts to Christianity as I have no interest in the topic. I've worked with Bus stop on art-related articles and wanted to help him out, for which I will not apologize, nor be dragged into anything further. Freshacconci 16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree, I've been watching this page for days and this whole discussion is basically a dead end. Bus stop (talk · contribs) has an active request for unblock; either it will be accepted or rejected. He also has an offer of mentorship from Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) which he will either accept or reject. Spending day after day rehashing and arguing over the same exact points you have all argued ad nauseum at Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity isn't really benefiting anyone at this point. Depending on your viewpoint it is either poking a blocked editor in the eye with a pointy stick or feeding the trolls; neither of which is really productive use of anyone's time. It's time for everyone to set down their sticks.--Isotope23 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tendancer -- That has its origin here[13](barn star "For these trying times"), in which I am referred to as a Bus tard and a Mad hatter, a clear reference to the Jewish male practice of wearing head coverings, often yarmulkes. Bus stop 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is telling that the individual prefers to construe a relatively benign comment about his mental faculty as a religious insult. Always willing to stretch, it seems. A lot of bullshit flies around on this page, and I'm refraining from commenting for the most part, because I do believe that no good can come out of any discussion here. However, the above is a ridiculous reaction to John Carters message to me, and is a very low attempt to vilify what John Carter actually said- or rather, an innocent exhibition of Bus stop's distorted POV in the matter. Take your pick, but I'm a little more convinced that the above is a manner of crying "witch". Preferably, we can interact on a more productive field; namely, the articles in question.--C.Logan 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I already knew what the "bastards" part was in reference too, and I'll be fair: I do think that was an unfortunate choice of words by John Carter that can be used against him, which both yourself Bus Stop and Cleo have quoted many times as an example of possible WP:CIVIL violation. Let's say that was uncivil, how does that excuse Freshacconci of using that term (in fact that makes it worse, as it can be deemed as a taunt towards John Carter and C. Logan by taking stuff from their talk page and trying to use it against them; maybe he thought that was clever, but that's also construable as taunting which's a serious violation of WP:CIVIL). I remember folks have already explained to you the very well-known origins of Mad Hatter elsewhere, if you choose to twist it into an anti-semitic version that is your own choice. In the meantime, as this is a tangent from the points I was trying to make, I'll reiterate as I'm hoping to see my points addressed:

• I see Modernist referring to editors as "trolls" for responding to your innumerous posts, and Freshacconci calling others "bastards" and "born-agains" using "ganging up tactics" and then ask others not to contribute. That is unfortunate: unless they are saying folks should be able make these WP:NPA violating accusations or make incendiary comments/non sequiturs like "I agree that compromise when [Bus Stop is right] is a drag" or "[Bus Stop] profoundly made [his] point" without the targets of these edits being allowed to defend themselves. In the spirit of WP:AGF, I tend to think they arrived here to provide diffs and explain how exactly you've been productive in the past/haven't been disruptive and hence should be unblocked--though I've not seen any arguments on that basis--I mean literally not one diff or any explanation how your actions weren't disruptive, but just a few accusations and implications that you are the victim of some vast Christian cabal/conspiracy, usually attached with incendiary comments in the vein of "bus stop is right", or subtle personal attacks. In other words, your supporters' arguments so far consist of "but Bus Stop is right, he was just a victim of an anti-semitic Cabal/trolls/bastards", all come attached with no evidence, and then demand those editors they accused as part of an anti-semitic cabal/called trolls/bastard to stay quiet against these accusations.
• WP:USER states: Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc do not belong on user pages. All these Bob Dylan and Christianity-related discussions really belong on their respective talk pages (or one can just read the archives, after 4 months of discussion and different editors taking turns replying to Bus Stop, truly nothing here is new) and not here.

Thanks. Tendancer 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• (Hear the sound of footsteps? That's me moving on: the sun is shining in my part of the world, I'm going outside to breathe in the Toronto smog and maybe have a beer. Anyone in the area can join me at Ronnie's in Kensington Market). Bus stop: best of luck. Hope it all works out. See you in the visual art pages. Happy editing to everyone: life is too short for this. Freshacconci 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are other references to religion on C.Logan's Talk page that are off-color. Here [14] we have reference to Orthodox, presumably Jewish Orthodox, judging by context. Here [15] we have reference to "some" Orthodox Jews of a not flattering nature. Bus stop 16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at these two links and thought not only were there no examples of off-color remarks, they go against your case as they provide ample examples of good-faith discussion and well-cited sources for Dylan's conversion. I have to say your POV often baffles me, needless to say our ways of looking at things differ. In any case, if you think those remarks are off-color, you should report those edits to e.g. ANI and let the community/admins decide if it's true or just an isolated opinion that those edits were somehow off-color. Tendancer 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the second comment, had I made a comment about some born-again Christians, no one would be complaining. Pointing out common logic in some isn't anti-semitic -- its just that I'm more than aware that these are issues in the Jewish community. The disclaimer was placed there because I had a feeling you'd bring it up (as you, predictably, did). And the "orthodox" comment in the first refers to "orthodox" according to Wikipedia rules and ethics.

Keep looking for straws. Drumpler 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about any of it, Drumpler. I don't go running to file complaints against other users to get them blocked. And I certainly don't do so as a gang consisting of a horde of editors, who by the way were stirred up to do this by Isotope23's constant "protecting" of the article, which provided the pretext for the complaints against Bus stop. Bus stop 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but you sure as hell have a tendency to rip editor's remarks out of context. Especially in the entry time-stamped "17:18, 5 July 2007" below and the yarmulke comment above. I've already explained both of these to you. Drumpler 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here [16] we see Drumpler expressing disbelief that Isotope23 is protecting the article in the absence of any edit warring. Note that this takes place twice in the little vignette linked to. I had not done any editing to the article in about 2 days. But Isotope23 succeeded in creating the atmosphere in which the horde's complaints could seem valid. Bus stop 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a keen sense of deja vu here; like we have gone over this exact same thing before... Regardless, as I said above, rehashing this doesn't do anyone good. If you want to blame your woes on me Bus, have at it. I for one have no interest in endlessly justifying or explaining my actions here, especially when based on selective and out-of-context quotations. Unblock B where you blamed your block on me didn't get you unblocked so I'm at a loss figuring out what you hope to accomplish with this argument. Good luck Bus.--Isotope23 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about it. And you haven't the foggiest idea what my religion might be, if any religion at all. Bus stop 17:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, every time you "contest" the decision not to block you, and tell administrators that they need to do something in a way pleasing to you, you can be reasonably seen as once again demonstrating your belief in your own absolute correctness, and appear to be blaming others for your present condition. If you were to look over the comments which led to your current block at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive10#User:Bus stop it is the fact that the comments there were accepted, and documented, which led to your current position. If I were you, I might look over the comments which led to your being blocked, and try to avoid similar conduct in the future. Continuing to argue against your block and declare your own innocence, though, is almost certainly going to be counterproductive, and cause anyone reviewing your next request to be unblocked to perhaps think that the behavior which was, rightly or wrongly, identified as problematic earlier is continuing. That would almost certainly be seen as reason to continue, rather than rescind, the block. Just a thought. John Carter 20:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Offer

{{Adoptoffer}} Accepted by email, I have unblocked Bus stop. Fred Bauder 14:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

high five and stay cool Modernist 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you again at contemporary art.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck to you and here's hope for your future success.--T. Anthony 04:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck--Sefringle^Talk 05:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

References for Contemporary art

I see you've removed all the references from the Contemporary art article [17]. These were specific references for how the term contemporary art is used. I'm not sure what your objections are to the references. Any explanation would be appreciated. Thanks, --Ethicoaestheticist 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

the Frick

Thanks for the message, the Frick is a great collection of amazingly fine works, Chardin to Rembrandt, one of my favorite paintings there has always been the Giovanni Bellini painting of St. Francis in Ecstasy. Modernist 04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Frick has some really interesting things, I'm very partial to the Rembrandt self portrait, and the Polish Rider, which maybe isn't a Rembrandt, the Turners, the Whistlers - who I usually don't like but I like him at the Frick, and the Fragonards that seem to be pictures right out of Les Liasons Dangereaux. I'm trying to remember the Chardin you mentioned, I think I know the one. Dark fruit, table, modest size. Modernist 18:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please...

My friend, the minor edits were correct, but were minor not to get in to an endless debate. According to Damião de Góis in «Chronica do Felicissimo Rey D. Emanuel da Gloriosa Memória» also took part in the massacre people from other countries and he also refers to sailors from New Zealand and Netherlands (not counting with the slaves that made the big bonfires). He also writes that on the third day there was no more Jews to kill because good people (portuguese) saved them. There are many wrong things or partial information in the article. And according to a study made by the Brazilian geneticist Sérgio Danilo Pena, 60% of Brazilian population has an Indian ancestor, the Portuguese men married Indian women, he proved that what was written in the history books was right. According to him many extinct tribes' DNA can be found in the Brazilian population. Regards 89.180.4.179 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I stand corrected. You seem to know more about this than me. I apologize. Bus stop 22:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Tyrenius

Please don't edit-war, especially on another user's talk page. I'm going to have to block the two of you if you can't stop. --John 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

His issue was that you were removing his comments. Anyway, it was the edit-warring I warned you for, not the removal. --John 22:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand by the warning but I'm sorry for the immediate threat to block, that was heavy handed. --John 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic

Deciding that "ethnic" is "almost meaningless" as applied to Jews is a fine, but you are advancing a personal position, in opposition to significant opposing opinion. Fred Bauder 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder -- I misspoke. Ethnic is not "almost meaningless" as applied to Jews. But ethnicity in general is not what is applicable to the various answers arrived at in answer to the question, "Who is a Jew?" In point of fact it is only one component of ethnicity on which hinges the various responses to that question -- and that factor is religion. If we are to say what we mean, concisely, we refer to the various lenses through which we examine this question to come up with our various answers. But, the important point is that they are all religious lenses. They are not lenses of language, culture, or any other component of the broad term ethnicity. So, why are some insisting on using the general term when the specific component within that general term is known to us? Just read through the article, and you will see, that each time a distinction is made, it is made due to religious considerations. By religious, I mean non-religious as well. When one decides to reach a conclusion that overrides Jewish law in the several matters addressed, that is a consideration made in relation to religion. Is it a decision made in relation to any other component of ethnicity? No, it is not. So, why can't we just say what we mean? Is it taboo to say that there are non-religious Jews? It is a plain fact that there are Jews who do not in any way at all practice the Jewish religion. No one is saying they are not Jews. I certainly have never intimated anything like that. I am simply arguing for precise language. Why are we draping "religion" in the concealing term "ethnicity?" I fail to understand why we can't say what we mean. The article is hiding what it of necessity has to say, behind the WP:WEASEL word "ethnicity," when the accurate word "religion" is available to it. Bus stop 14:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if this is butting in. But I think that the Who Is a Jew? page was written when the one and only extant WikiProject dealing with "Jewishness" was Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, and at the time that project made no distinction between "cultural" and "ethnic" Judaism and "religious" Judaism, as they sought to cover all issues related to "Jewishness". As there is now a Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture, which seems to be more or less putting more "focused" attention on the "ethnic" or "cultural" side of Judaism, it might be the best place to go to try to get help in dealing with the content of that page. John Carter 15:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Under what interpretation of WP:WEASEL does "ethnicity" become a weasel word? Tendancer 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to lay off the Who Is a Jew? page for awhile, based on User talk:Durova#Bus stop.. Just thought you'd like to know. John Carter 19:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN

You may wish to comment at a thread I started: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Impartial_evaluation_requested. I cite your two deletion comments and summarize the history, then ask for the community's input. Durova^Charge! 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting, using Talk page, incremental editing

Please use Talk page to make changes to the article Jew. Don't just revert. That is the first blow of edit warring. Please don't initiate edit warring. Furthermore, making incremental changes communicates what you are trying to say; reverting in totality does not. Communication also happens to be what the Talk page is for. Reverting is the least useful thing one can do, in my opinion. Thank you. Bus stop 12:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, true. I messed up a little here, I do that. I though I was reverting vandalism of a sort, and was wrong, I'm a bit hasty when I see changes that seem to detract from encyclopedic content, as yours kinda does. And... I do disagree. I'm Jewish, and I'm an atheist. Religion isn't all of Jewish identity, and it seems to me you did just make that change without any consensus. There was a discussion, which you seem to have gotten fed up with, and changed it anyway. But, I'm gonna leave it alone... sorry for almost starting an edit war. Gscshoyru 12:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No one said religion is "all of Jewish identity". I didn't say that. Where are you getting that from?

Please try to make incremental edits. From incremental edits one can deduce what another person disagrees with and what position they hold on the issue at hand. This can productively spill over into discussions on the Talk page. Reverting engenders bad feelings. Would you like your efforts shot down in totality? The atmosphere is sullied and no communication transpires -- those are the virtues of reverting. Bus stop 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I said "all" when you said "primarily" [18]. Fine. It still isn't primarily about religion. It's a combination of the two, but whatever. I thought I was reverting vandalism, and I wasn't, that's why it was reverted in totality. You're welcome to put it back and I won't touch it, though I'd suggest coming to consensus on the talk page first... Gscshoyru 16:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But that is why incremental edits are called for. You could have modified my implication of "primarily." Bus stop 16:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was vandalism so I reverted. I was wrong. So sorry, I know make mistakes when vandal-fighting. No need to continue on about this. I was reverting what I thought were POV'd changes. That's why I reverted. Not anything against you. Gscshoyru 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Not a problem. Just responding to your resonse to somebody else on that article's Talk page. In your response to him you seem to be in agreement that I am some kind of a pest to the article which I do not think I am. Bus stop 17:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSN

Bus stop, I've started a discussion where you may wish to comment. Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Full_Judaism_community_topic_ban_for_Bus_stop

You make positive contributions to visual arts articles and I'd like to have you with us as an editor, but sometimes individuals just can't be collaborative on some hot button topic. A similar hot button exists for me at World Trade Center. One of my relatives was among the last people to escape that disaster alive. I realized very quickly when I joined Wikipedia that I was better off leaving that subject alone.

No insult of you is intended here. The alternatives before me were to propose this or apply a full siteban; consensus already existed for the latter. But two articles are protected from editing right now in whole or in part because of your actions. That isn't fair to the rest of the editing community. Best wishes and shalom. Durova^Charge! 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The first step in getting out of a hole...

is to stop digging. What precisely do you think this is going to accomplish? You cannot simply accuse people of anti-Semitism without proof of intent, which you haven't produced. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to participate in University of Washington survey on tool to quickly understand Wikipedians’ reputations

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington. In April, we met with some local Wikipedians to learn what they would like to know about other editors’ history and activities (within Wikipedia) when interacting with them on talk pages. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you. Your quick contribution would be very valuable to our research group and ultimately to Wikipedia. (When finished, the code for this application will be given over to the Wikipedia community to use and/or adjust as they see fit.)

Willing to spend a few minutes taking our survey? Click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your time! If you have any questions about our research or research group, please visit our user page. Commprac01 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Additional details about our research group are available here.