User talk:P.D.

Hi P.D., and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. Here are a few suggestions you might find useful:

• First, check out the tutorial and learn how to write a great article
• Find out more about what Wikipedia is and how it works
• Check out the manual of style and maybe the picture tutorial if you're interested in adding images to your articles
• Write from a neutral point of view, use wikiquette, and last but not least, be bold!
• Check out the community portal if you're looking for something to do.
• Finally, feel free to contact me at my talk page if you have any questions! Remember to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to reconsider the narrower definition you have indirectly introduced (i.e Dharmic exluded) since I feel it is not representative of how the issue has been treated historically from a western perspective. The following passage is from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1914 edition) :-

"Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. The term is also used as the equivalent of Polytheism.

It is derived from the Latin pagus, whence pagani (i. e. those who live in the country), a name given to the country folk who remained heathen after the cities had become Christian. Various forms of Paganism are described in special articles (e.g. Brahminism, Buddhism, Mithraism); the present article deals only with certain aspects of Paganism in general which will be helpful in studying its details and in judging its value."

The source is scholarly and would reflect how the largest Abrahamic religion has viewed Dharmic religions.

Thanks for your contributions.

"The Catholic Encyclopedia, though scholarly, also reflects a particular sectarian point of view,"

Since we are not discussing the meaning of "gentile" or "mushrik" and that this is an english wiki it seems right to highlight what has been the prime use of the term since the early days of Christianity. I have also used the Catholic Encyclopaedia because it describes what has been the traditional continuous meaning of the term - but if you wish I can provide many refs to show its use with post reformation groups down the centuries. Any attempt to play down this fact would be regarded as historical revisionism - in the perjorative sense.

"and I do not take it as authoritative on the definition of "paganism.""

The article cited is representative of Christianity as a whole, to reject what it says is indirectly rejecting how Christianity has historically treated paganism and that must be by far its most significant context.

"In any event, my point was not to replace one definition with another, but to suggest that there are alternatives."

I take your point, however the alternative definitions that have been used by some people are insignificant compared to how the term has traditionally been used and they should not be given equal weight in my opinion - to do so would be a distortion of history.

"It seems important to put the narrower definition of "paganism" on the table for four reasons: (1) Many scholars explicitly distinguish the Axial faiths (Western and Eastern alike) from their "pagan" predecessors;"

I repeat that compared to the weight of historical usage their relative significance is neglible.

"(2) most modern Hindus, Buddhists, etc., would not describe themselves as "pagan";"

Would you agree the issue is not so much about what Hindus, Buddhist's think of others peoples - primarily Christian - descriptions of their faiths but rather how the word "paganism" has actually been used substantially in the past and present? Good, bad or perceived pc incorrect value judgments are not the issue in my opinion. I would have some input to make if you wished to explore, in another article, why groups in the past have objected to the word paganism.

"(3) most modern self-described pagans are not Hindus, Buddhists, etc.;"

ditto

(4) there are any number of important conceputal ways in which "pagan" traditions, narrowly defined, differ from "Axial" traditions.

May I suggest you consider creating another article that explores these kind of terms (e.g gentile, mushrik, dharmic perspectives) but for the moment leave this introductory article about paganism resting on what has been the prime use of the word down through the ages with its implied western/christian context.

I'm still not sure what your complaint is, since I've only sought to add an alternative definition, not eliminate one that is already featured in the article.

It is a question of balance. The article is an introduction to paganism and your initial contribution, in effect, placed what is a minority definition on a par with how the term has, by far, most commonly been used.

But I would just add a few points: (1) In the course of history, Westerners had relatively little contact with, or knowledge of, Eastern religious traditions, occasonal exceptions such as Clement of Alexandria notwithstanding. When Christians and Jews in the middle ages and earlier referred to paganism, they most clearly and consistently had in mind the polytheistic religions of Greece and Rome, and similar traditions.

But when Christianity did in time come into direct contact with other religions outside its existing framework they were commonly classed as pagan. I am sorry I cannot access your source which you seem to suggest indicates otherwise but if you could perhaps quote relevant parts I will obviously consider again. Once again, though, I feel these should not obscure mainline treatment suitable for an introductory article.

(2) Jewish discussions of paganism, captured somewhat in the concept of "Avodah Zarah," often (though not always) focused on the distinction between true montotheism and something other than true monotheism. Jewish authorities were, therefore, generally agreed that Islam was not pagan, but (as the article itself points out later down) had vigorous debates about Christianity. Had those same Jewish authorities known much about Eastern religions, they might have concluded that Buddhism was certainly not pagan,

The entry for "Paganism" in the Jewish Encyclopedia directs the reader, without any further definition, towards the entry for "Gentile" hence the suggestion in my previous response. By definition this excludes non-Jews and is in opposition to your assertion.

and that Hinduism might or might not be pagan, on criteria not all that different from their discussions of Christianity. In other words, the lines between paganism and non-paganism are necessarily complex and contested,

Only perhaps from a viewpoint of third or fourth level approximation. Whilst I may find these specialist issues and their nuances of great interest I think they are largely irrelevant to the common usage of these terms in popular culture and history and innappropriate for this kind of article were the general reader cannot see the forest from the trees.

and I see no need to suppress that complexity in favor of one, narrow, definition. (

ditto

3) The article, as already written before I got to it, already discussed, not only traditional Christian view of paganism, but also paganism as a modern self-avowed faith. In the light of that, any definition that treats all non-Western faiths as "pagan," without distinguishing between the Axial and non-Axial faith traditions, is misleading and confusing.

ditto

80.195.55.47 14:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I think you may have just been over 3RR. You may want to self-revert. -- Avi 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, changing properly documented sources is not the way to do it. Secondly, Berkley seems to disagree with your understanding--he does not think it is silly. Most importantly, Berkley is an acceptable source, and any attempt to whitewash/censor that source would be the same as someone removing all claims that Messianics think that they are Jewish because THEY thought it was silly to believe in Jesus and think one is Jewish. The rules apply to everyone. -- Avi 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Messianic Judaism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Messianic Judaism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. -- Avi 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to contradict you on this one, PD, but historically the Conservative movement did not exist outside the United States. I cannot identify any other western country with a Conservative movement historically. Make your own choice of words, if you wish, but the present wording is just false.--Redaktor 10:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help keep Wikipwedia a civil and objective source of information. Sacha Baron Cohen's mother is an Israeli of Iranian heritage. This fact was added to the article about him. Time after time, hateful vandals have been removing the word Iranian and replacing it with worthless non-functioning citations. It is not with shame but pride that Mr. Cohen's full ancestry is described on Wikipedia. Please help to stop bigotry on Wikipedia.

Hello P.D.,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling

For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

Thanks for the revert. I've reported Jobas, so he should be blocked shortly. :) -Ebyabe 16:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for removing this while reverting. Mad Jack 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for fixing SeanLegassick 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is once again restoring the apparently faulty information about his mother's background to the article. If you could rejoin the discussion/editing of this article, maybe it can once again be settled. Regards, All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to Henry Bauer. I disagree, however, with your suggestion to "let Bauer speak for himself". Wikipedia is not a blog, and WP:RS places emphasis on secondary over primary sources. Since aids-truth is a secondary source, its coverage of Bauer's statements should receive pride of place. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to interpret statements made on internet blogs, but we may report what reliable sources have said about them. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a courtroom and is not a forum for determining "truth". Wikipedia places relative emphasis on secondary sources over primary sources. If you disagree with this policy, you can try to change it through the appropriate channels. Until then, it will be applied at Henry Bauer as it is elsewhere.

Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. A novel, a speech transcript, and a personal blog are primary sources, not secondary sources. If you have problems with Wikipedia guidelines, take it up on the talk pages of those guidelines. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The date and time of this meetup has been changed to accommodate other regional activities.

The purpose of this meeting is to finalize our plans for the Wiki Takes Philadelphia event. We'll discuss logistics, establish jobs, and coordinate with participating groups.

The floor will also be open to discussing other projects relating to the Wiki and Free Culture movement.

Afterward at around 5pm, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, October 4, 2009, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

Register your team here

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, April 11, 2010, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy (Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Philadelphia's Great American Wiknic at Penn Park
	You are invited to the Philadelphia edition of the Great American Wiknic taking place in Penn Park, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there!--User:Ocaasi (talk)|}}

Wikipedians are invited to the GLAM Café at the Chemical Heritage Foundation to meet, talk, and edit. We provide the space, the coffee, and the snacks: you provide ideas and enthusiasm! On the second Tuesday of each month, starting November 12, 2013.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Join us this Saturday (July 30) at the Philadelphia Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit". This is an opportunity to meet other local Wikipedians, have fun, and discuss potential projects.

The event is this Saturday, between 1pm-5pm at the Picnic Grove in Penn Park.

(To unsubscribe from future messages, remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list.)

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P.D. I noticed that you recently used thefamouspeople.com as a source in A. J. Liebling. Please note that there is general consensus that thefamouspeople.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for such information. (Discussions here and here). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

....to please sign your posts. Thanks - wolf 10:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And use the preview button! - wolf 10:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]