User talk:Mennonot

Older discussions are achived in talk archive

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting

No problem, if my photo had been better, the article could have had both images anyway. jimfbleak 12:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation already exist in the discussion page. But I added extra one from Greenpeace.

I think rule of citation is flexible depending on what it is refered to. Would you agree that reference regarding loss of observer status require no citation? it has multiple reference even by googling On the other hand, on "terrorist" accusation, I will look for the original citation which is appearently not in english.Yoji Hajime

Hi Mennonot, I'm messaging you because I see that you are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Community, and so might have interest and expertise to lend to this small project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fast OrgDev Advisory on Userpages, which will write advisory document in support of the new Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. Herostratus 07:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement Drive (by me

Tim, i edited the Excommunication article, tried to preserve some of User:Anacapa's factual stuff while rolling back emotionally laden content. (it is still obvious to me that she's got some axe to grind.) anyway, i really think it should be pruned, but am hesitant to do more myself because any more pruning by me would be exclusively of Anacapa's influence and not mine and she might perceive that as unfair. anyway, might you look at it and do to it what you think keeps it objective without having more detail/content than is appropriate for 1/10 % of Christendom that are Anabaptists. BTW, thanks for welcoming me "back". Rbj 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Its good to see your back editing. I share your concern about cleaning up the Excommunication article. I think its especially helpful to add the umbrella Anabaptist section. However, I think its important to recognise that this is a sensitive section of the article on which there has been quite a number of reverts in the past two months. Although I haven't been involved in this, I see that there appears to be an open discussion on this section here:

Mennonite

article, I found that discussing revisions before hand can save a lot of frustration and edit wars afterwards.

One other concern is the use of the edit summary field. I'm not sure how helpful it is to use these summaries to accuse another user by name. I think it might be more helpful to simply say something like "NPOVing" and explain what and why you're doing it on the talk page. Whereas if accusations are made in the edit summary the accused may feel they need to revert to save face and defend themselves in the edit summaries.

That said, thanks for your ongoing efforts to clean up articles and make them more NPOV. I think its important to have a variety of perspectives contributing. So let's do it in a way that invites everyone into the process. mennonot 22:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, i think we can discuss here. no need to bring this back to my talk pages - i'll watch this one. it is similar to the Mennonite article, and because of the same reason. i know this sounds so un-nonresistant of me, but i simply don't trust Anacapa about this. it is simply obvious that she has an axe to grind (i wonder which mennonite church did what to her for her to have such a chip on her shoulder?). clearly some churches have done some crappy things to some members or new persons desiring membership. it's a mutually voluntary group with freedom to associate which means that sometimes such association will be declined by one party or the other. it's like getting fired (excommunication) or not getting hired (if membership is declined) after such application is made. or like being told "no" after making a marriage proposal. that can hurt, but it is not a violation of anyone. one moves on to other associates who do accept that person.

she's trying to create a false impression of the whole denomination, based on her own narrow (and evidently sad) experience. it's like some hospital screws up and kills someone i loved and i try to paint the entire institution as though it makes the same mistake routinely.

BTW, i found a small logo for the old MC denomination (i think it is a really cool and creative logo, i was so sorry to see it replaced by the wimpy dove in the present MC-USA and MC-Canada denominations). i put it along side of where there was mention of the GCMC and its logo. do you know where to find a bigger GIF for that logo? Rbj 03:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the foundations of wikipedia (and coincidentally, the Mennonite church) is that we have to find ways to work with people we disagree with. I understand that you have concerns about Ancapa's perspective, but we're unlikely to move forward as long as we focus on attacking each other's motivations for contributing to the article and claiming that the other person is unreasonable. I've been involved in a number of discussions with Anacapa in the last few months and have gotten a thorough response when I've taken the time to lay out my sources and reasons for an opinion. On the other hand, I've noticed that when other users get frustrated and simply revert Anacapa's edits it just escalates frustrations on both sides. What may seem like an easier solution in the short term often causes more problems for all of us in the longterm.

The logo looks good. Given that its now a historic logo our best bet is probably to scan an old MC publication to get it. mennonot 09:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is true that we have to work with people we disagree with. that's just a fact of life. it's interesting that you identify that as a foundation of the Mennonite church since there are extremist Anabaptists that would rather seclude themselves from people they have disagreements with and prefer a more sheltered surroundings. my only caveat is that while we need to love and even work with persons that somehow disturb or annoy or oppose us, we do not need to accomodate falsehoods and we should not.

i simply do not trust Anacapa and am familiar with her editing agenda from the time before the creation of her WP account - when she was editing with anonymous IPs. she is using WP as a soapbox and is deliberately trying to create a false impression of Mennonites as a group. i do not contend that she doesn't believe what she types when she's typing it, but she does not have the intellectual honesty to re-examine her position when confronted by anyone informing her that she is over-generalizing, injecting POV, and insisting that her particular experience is endemic to the group. she's not reporting, she is advocating.

i have responded to her directly for the first time since coming back at Talk:Excommunication. Rbj 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a purely practical standpoint, what do you hope to accomplish using your current strategy of confrontation? On Talk:Excommunication you point out that you've already "been around the maypole so many times". How are you planning to avoid going around again and wrapping the streamers even tighter?

I understand and sympathise with your concerns for getting the truth about Mennonites across. I too have watched this pattern of edits since before Anacapa had a user name. And I've also watched a number of different editors use different tactics in approaching the issue. I've noticed that the more confrontational the tactics, the more they reinforce Anacapa's greivances and her perception of Mennonites as stifling and heavy handed and her own self-image as a persecuted voice for justice and truth. Escalation in this situation is not an effective tactic for change.

Why not give another strategy a try? You've repeatedly said that you don't trust Anacapa, but if that is the case, wouldn't a good approach be to work to build trust on both sides? I see some possibilities for positive steps from the discussion on the Excommunicaiton talk page. Anacapa has said she would be "glad to work with you" if you "contain your hate, discuss your disputes and be somewhat professiona". While this is admittedly loaded language, could you possible see it as an opportunity? mennonot 23:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admittedly, Tim, i have no "strategy". i am only reacting. i am simply trying to correct overt misleading impressions (besides factual errors). last February, i did have some back-and-forth with the anonymous IP that became Anacapa, but i don't think it changed anyone's intent or purpose. whether i like it or not, i recognize that Anacapa is not going away, but that does not mean that she gets to crap up the article or that we have to play her game of

argumentum verbosum. i'm starting to go back to editing science/engineering articles and i don't have time for it. but i still will not stand by (as i did for 6 weeks) and let Anacapa crap up articles about Mennonites/Anabaptists to serve her own theraputic purposes. Rbj 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

this is Jonny from i58 etc. just thought I'd pop in and say hey. rah. :-) --Black Butterfly 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing my attempts to bring some clarity and balance and real representation to the

I appreciate your offer to assist with Anapabaptists/Mennonite facts/data. Could we begin with just getting the Population section complete and somewhat representative of the data? What would help me is a figure for the 2003 total US Mennonites. Also do you have a breakdown on how many US Mennonites belong to what conferences (versus automonous churches) so we can eliminate opinion based arguments here? I am going to try to discuss these issues on the relevant talk pages so no one feels blindsided...so please source these there or on a link. Also I welcome your sourced edits to clean up statements that may be false so long as we keep moving toward a more specific and complete picture there. Maybe with more facts we will be able to associate specific practices with specific groups so no ONE group feels unfairly steoreotyped through association with other groups. Anacapa 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing to dig here, for your sources and for editing/correcting mistakes/misperceptions with data. I hope we can somehow show ALL Mennonites fairly and accurately in this section with data that everyone can agree with. That said, it looks like quite a job and I am glad you are here to point us in the right direction(s) and I hope to add content that fleshes out the whole picture too. I am not sure 'autonomous' is my word because I seem to remember finding it there before I began. However, I do want to see which Mennonites are under Church or Conference control and which are automonous or independent. I tend to use the dictionary to define words because I have found that it cuts confusion and pointless debates over meaning. Here is what I found for 'autonomous':

• 1. Not controlled by others or by outside forces; INDEPENDENT: an automomous division of a corporate conglomerate.
  2. Independent in mind or judgment; self-directed
  3. Self-governing with respect to local or internal affairs
  4. Autonomous: responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole.

Hope that helps. I have no idea how to make this distinction now. Do Mennonites make this distinction and if so how? How do you suggest we break this data down?

Also do you know how to move content like the above to the main pages discussions so that other editors can see this too. I am concerned about back channel discussions between us that might exclude others. Could you comment on wiki protocol here and suggest ways we can continue this so that everyone benefits from our discussions and no one feels excluded? Anacapa 05:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving all this content to the discussion page. I also found the African conference data interesting and surprising. It's this kind of digging that gets us to a basis for deciding things with data rather than opinions which is always nice. Anacapa 08:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mennonot Yeah, I take your point re: "liberal". I should have pointed to

Mennonot, would you be willing to do some focused back channel discussions to with me to finish up the Organization section on Mennonite...(we could start with North America the easiest bit and then tackle the worldwide breakdown later)? I have a lot of questions about data, dates, and sources that become quite confusing in the open discussion page. I thought maybe the two of us could establish some standards (with discussions here on your talk page) and then share our data/discussions with the others? Is that possible now? Please let me know when you can. Thanks Anacapa 00:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mennonot, I wonder if you might be able to help - I'm writing an article for openDemocracy about the Wikiproject:countering systemic bias. I'd like to get some quotes from Wikipedians about why they're involved, what they're working on and some other general issues. I wonder if you'd be willing to talk to me over email? Mine is [email protected]

Thanks,

David

86.133.23.227 18:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mennonot, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on

I already warned User Talk:71.197.198.162 on the article Full House. You need to change your warning to test-2 not test-1. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mennonot, I put a link to the

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features

AmiDaniel (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Mennonot I am contacting you about St Athanasius' article page. The criticism of Athanasius' sources either are incorrect (meaning they are addressing someone else say St Cyril) or they are flat out wrong. This section was added by an IP vandal. I have contacted the Coptic church and this is part of there response.

"Thanks for pointing out this article. I just looked at. I am assuming you are referring to section about criticism. I noticed that he is quoting from three sources. The first one (Barnes) seems to be mixing his facts with the accusations that were leveled at St. Cyril the Great during his early papacy. The second (Rubenstein) which has the worst accusations seems to be more anti-Christian than the rest. In any case I believe these are not true."

Could you explain who Rubenstein and Barnes are? Since you reverted back the criticism I am unable to confirm who these people are. Thank you again for your time. Thanks LoveMonkey 15:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! LoveMonkey 18:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mennonot, I noticed that Barnes was Criticised for not having a biblograghy for the work you noted. So where in works of Eusebius does Eusebius criticize Athanasius? Also the quote you posted on my talk page is hearsay on the Athanasius article the charges are VERY specific. I will continue this on the Athanasius talkpage. Thanks LoveMonkey 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I was wanting to know what you thought of Barnes' follow up book Athanasius and Constantius to the one you used Constantine and Eusebius? I mean since the article we are discussing is about Athanasius I was wondering what you thought of Barnes' work that was obviously more pertinent then work of Barnes that you quote. No disrespect but I think it also puts in context the critiq Barnes made which you have not done. LoveMonkey 13:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. LoveMonkey 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. There is a Barnstar for stub-sorting up for proposal here. If you'd like to participate in the discussion, we'd much appreciate it. Thanks, and have a great days. :) SynergeticMaggot 18:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. 172 | Talk 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. mennonot 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the status . Hope you can help.

_→AzaToth 00:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the status . Hope you can help.

AzaBot 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you contributed to the Nonviolent Communication article at some time. A friend just recommended NVC to me because I am trying to mediate for Sri Lanka related articles. I really love it - I'm just devouring the eponymous book, but I am still very inexperienced. Moreover, applying the techniques to Wikipedia-style communication has its own challenges. Therefore, I could use some help from people who have more experience with NVC. You could help Wikipedia, Sri Lanka, the nonviolence movement and me greatly by looking at some of my edits and giving me honest feedback on User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC. — Sebastian 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're a member of WikiProject Blogging. Help us by assessing blog-related articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging/Assessment for more information. Computerjoe's talk 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been marked as an inactive member of

Nice try with the wording. That was TOTALLY NPOV editing there... Way to improve Unreliablepedia, fella. 68.157.21.233 (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private security guards sounds fair, because after all, that's what they are. When you say mercenary in the modern context it brings up images of untrained, Soldier of Fortune-reading, have gun will travel, neo-colonial wars. Specifically white guys in Africa transporting drug and diamond shipments. But these guys at the embassy aren't mercenaries in that sense. They aren't paid to fight, they're paid to guard. Specifically, stand around at the gates with a weapon and look threatening. Kinda like mall cops...they aren't there to do any fighting. I can guarantee the Marines and DSS agents assigned to the compound wouldn't want these guys within a mile of them if someone was attacking the embassy. Sounds cold, but I'm almost 100% sure that the State Department hired these guys knowing full well that they're cannon fodder in case of a real attack. And, IMO, should be shot for pulling the crap they did. Because now people are going to assume they were US Marines and DSS agents and tarnish their image, and not some foreign jerkwater militia that they are. People aren't going to read the story fully and learn it was hired help, they'll have knee jerk reactions upon hearing "US embassy" and "guards" to reinforce whatever negative stereotypes they have. 68.157.21.233 (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only discovered your comment on Saint Athanasius' talk page just now and responded there. I hope that is OK.

I also wish to thank you for challenging me and making me study afresh and research afresh.

Incidentally, Timothy Barnes has retired and living in England and sometimes at Oxford, I think, talks on Ancient Greek.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Dictionary of The Christian Church 2nd 1974, also affirms my stand.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be beneficial if you chimed in asap at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4#Category:Members_of_the_Family_also_known_as_the_Fellowship, which discusses the possible deletion of the valid (IMO) category Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mennonot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

UOJComm (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check
  applications page
  to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of

Hello, Mennonot. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mennonot. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 4 to July 18 2017: Wikipedia for Peace Berlin

You are invited to join us for Wikipedia for Peace Berlin, a Wikipedia workcamp in which we will write articles on the topic of persecution and refuge and also experience Berlin. The goal is to teach newcomers how to edit Wikipedia and write as many articles as possible on the subject. We will also visit different refugee projects in Berlin and have workshops on the topic of persecution and refuge. Wikipedia for Peace is a movement that has been active since 2015. We want to publish articles on issues related to peace and also help to create a more welcoming community. July 4th to July 18th sign up at: Wikipedia for Peace - Participants or apply on the workcamp database. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

Hello, Mennonot. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mennonot. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]