User talk:Fire Star

User talk:Fire Star Arch-archive 1 Feb. 2004 - Feb. 2005

The Covenant with the Anointed but not the Great Crowd (aka Jonadabs)

QUESTION-- Why do the Great Crowd refuse the Lord's Supper? Melissa

ANSWER It is not a refusal so much as the fact that they are not entitled. The bread and the wine represent the Covenant with the Anointed. The great crowd is not part of this particular covenant- CobaltBlueTony 14:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

REQUEST--List the benefits and duties of the Covenant with the Anointed compared with the Great Crowd. Then we will have an honest article. --Melissa

The Jehovah's Witnesses

See template

The Great Crowd (Arc. The Jonadab Slave Class) and The Little Flock (Annointed Ones)

Don't get me wrong. There is much in JW theology that I respect and admire. However my greatest concern is the development of upper and lower class Christians.

The Watchtower Society has defined a two-class system of believers: the Annointed Class (144,000) and the Great Crowd (originally called the Jonadab slave class). Their job after Armageddon to pick up dead and decaying could be unsettling to some.

The Watchtower states that only the Anointed are "born again," and that, technically, Jesus is the mediator for thise Little Flock alone. The Great Crowd cannot look to Jesus as their mediator (Watchtower, 1 April 1979, p. 31).Therefore must face great hardship.

The Great Crowd have often been left out of upper-level leadership and decision making because the Watchtower teaches that they have spiritual handicaps. They are not anointed with the Holy Spirit and they are eternally separeted from Jehovah god..

What Happens to Us When We Die? p. 26-28

The Great Crowd will be tested, living for 1000 years on earth. They are not born again and have no hope of heaven, but hope to survive Armageddon to live on paradise earth (Jehovah's Witnesses In The Divine Purpose, p. 140). 1935

Many Jonadabs do not know the full impact of belonging to the Jonadab Slave Class (It has not been Repealed) It means eternal separation from Jehovah God. The JW handbook states that flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of Jehovah. Until this article fully speaks of the full list of things being denied the Great Crowd this article is factually untrue and is very biased. Therefore I am placing the Template

New messages

A JOB FOR FIRE STAR!

There's a good article called The Secret Gospel of Mark which is getting bogged down and needs some serious Wikification. I have noted some of the good work that you have done on other articles and maybe you can rework this one. - a fan

More like sycophant <ggg> any way Secret_Gospel_of_Mark is the node in question LoopZilla 10:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And, to tell the truth, I don't see what I could do for it besides eliminating one redundant section and cleaning up a few adjectival endings. Anyone could do those things. It isn't the best article we have, but it isn't the worst, either. Fire Star 15:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Are you "Starfire" in real life? LoopZilla 11:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just that I know a tai chi player called.... Starfire (West Coast as I recall).... LoopZilla 11:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Martialism

Hello! Don't worry, I assumed that you had 'Elmore' in your sights. I've replied to your comment, though, hoping that 'good cop/bad cop' might bring him to heel. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VANdal

Hi, thanks for the note. I'll clean up the pages. Duk 15:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I re-read Wikipedia:Blocking policy and see that VANdal should have blocked for a maximum of one month (unless identified as a sockpuppet of a Banned user). Feel free to remove my indefinite block and replace it with a shorter one. (I assumed he was a returning troublemaker with a new account based on the efficiency of vandalism). We could also replace the block with an indefinite {{UsernameBlock}}. Duk 15:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Double Edit

Hi. I was editing The Mother at the same time you were, so I hope I didnt overwrite any changes you made. (I tried not to, except for paragraphs that I had radically revised).

I think that Wiki needs some sort of failsafe to stop someone editing a page at the same time someone else is working on it. M Alan Kazlev 03:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, but, no but..... there is! If you checked out and locked a file, then if you cancelled, another user would not be able to start their edits and the lock could stay here for a fixed period of time! LoopZilla 06:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Sounds good to me. Thanks for taking the trouble.

See you around.--Kaonashi 02:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Our Chat

This article and the talk page have the mediawiki no article text template in them and are protected to keep them from being constantly recreated. Please do not delete them. This has had to be done in many other cases because of spam bots and other instances of recreation of deleted articles. CryptoDerk 03:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Cheers. CryptoDerk 03:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion

I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicit photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 04:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

another thanks

for supporting my recent RFA. I'll do my best in the new job. Best wishes and happy editing, Antandrus 03:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lost page

I am doing it, don't worry. Cleaning up after the anon is fun. Burgundavia 04:46, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

In response

I think I have made my intention clear that I am interested in promoting honest and unbiased Wikipedia articles. I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea that I'm pro-FalunGong. If you think it's from my edits then I think that someone could easily say that you're anti-Falun Gong. I'm sorry. User:Mas5353 16:26 24 APR 2005 (EST)

Proto-Germanic

Hi Firestar, I saw that you edited away culture. I don't know what is the best way to describe it. When I studied Scandinavian archaeology, I was surprised that agriculture did not arrive with any immigration. It appears that it was the hunter and gatherer population which started to cultivate the land, and later actually returned to hunting. I don't know whether it was an accurate description of the situation since the migration/diffusion theories seem to depend on political correctness and fashion.--Wiglaf 12:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and you're right. Agriculture is culture in a very basic and concrete way. With my latest change, I think it is better than before. I hope you agree :).--Wiglaf 14:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hey, I strongly suggest you take a look at [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Bullshido), since you previously voted on it and I know you're active on the article. It seems someone has taken a vested interest in the outcome of the vote and is using blatant sockpuppetry to subvert the process. --MikeJ9919 17:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the VfD page. I do think there is some worthwhile information, but I was only a borderline Keep as is...my ideal wolution would be to strip out all the cruft and merge whatever's left to McDojo. However, I've found sockpuppetry to be a common tool of POV-pushers, and it really pisses me off. Maybe User:thefurman is right and I should be voting purely on content, but I really don't like people who fight dirty. --MikeJ9919 22:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I need help

Hello I found your name among the names of administrators. i don't know why I intend to share the problem but I feel you can give a a hand to me. A few days ago I joined wikipedia and started to make some scientific pages about the field I am expert it, which is loop quantum gravity. I made a few pages but after a few days I saw that some people have placed a VfD above it to vote about one of my articles. I was fine at all. there where some positive votes and some negative one. But after a while I realized that three users/admisn started to delet some positive votes, attacked to the point of others by calling them ignorant. I did not know what to do so I found vandalism in progress page and complained there. At that they they threated me to delet the page if I place another report about it in there and placed a vandal protection above the article and VfD, it which was directing people to the discussion page of the article and the sentence was something like this: the content of the pages is protected until the discussion in here (the link to the discussion page of the page -and not to the vote page) is in progree. people were discussion in there about the article but after 8 hours, the article by one of their friends was deleted. I complained in adalism and they again deleted the complain and finally blocked me for 1 day. i don't know what was wrong me. I do not have enough encouragement to write another article for wikipedia. Please read the discussion in here [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hamidifar) and the vote page and tell me how can i overcome the networking?

Many thanks [User:hamidifar]

Recent changes

I don't know who to ask, so I ask you. What happened to Recent changes? Is it only in my computer the page is stuck at May 10, and pretty weird-looking too? /Habj 09:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Right. That very page must be stuck in my cache, for some reason. Thx. /Habj 18:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

page protection

Heya, please keep in mind you shouldn't protect pages you're involved in an edit dispute about. --W(t) 04:00, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Hi. I got involved with the article because of a contradiction I noticed on the page when I was casually reading through it a few hours ago. At one point the page said he wasn't married and another indicated he had been. The page has been undergoing a fan-girl war for a while, apparently, the talk page is an unreadable mess. I asked for a moratorium on the talk page and still the reversions and blankings continued. I didn't really consider that I was involved in the dispute itself, just in trying to clean up the mess and if after reading the article edit history you think I'm too involved I'd be happy to withdraw. Fire Star 04:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It's up to you of course, but as I see it you're involved with the situation now (not that that's a bad thing, glad you're keeping things neat), so I'd unprotect the page and request page protection for it, just to avoid any appearance of impropriety. --W(t) 04:34, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

I appreciate your support, cause it does mean a lot to me (especially right now as I'm feeling down about it all)... maybe I'll have another go in a few months :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best way to send a message. --or any other way.

Regarding the "Kronos" excerpt in the Bakwuazhang article, and more generally strategy in writing historical articles, I think it's more important to provide cited sources than the article flow and be organized well. I'm readily willing to compromise the structure somewhat to accomodate fidelity to the information sources. It doesn't get more true than an exact quote. If there is a minor point of disagreement, such as whether chuan means palm or fist, I'd rather see that as a note to the quote than unquoting and rephrasing the text. There are so many stories in martial arts with different schools having their own versions and agendas that it is important to credibility and enabling the author to research that sources be cited. I wouldn't think it were a bad thing to wipe out the whole article and disallow anything but cited material. Historical, contentious articles would benefit, even at the expense of less information presented.

Adminship

Dear Fire Star, and thanks for supporting my nomination. Do you know what? I have always thought of you as reasonable and pleasant, and I was surprised to see you use exactly the same words about me :).--Wiglaf 22:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words, and vote in support of my admin nomination. Paul August ☎ 17:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Gracie articles NPOV

Thank you for your edit of the Royce Gracie article. Recently I've been complaining about the poor quality of the articles surrounding the Gracie family and Gracie jiu-jitsu, most of which read like infomercials, but I haven't had the time or energy to compete with what I perceive to be Gracie fanboyism on Wikipedia. I'd like to call your attention in particular to the Rickson Gracie article as a poorly written whitewash, although User:Tufflaw has been fixing it up some. --Malathion 12:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA: Thanks

Thank you for your support on my RFA. Now that I have been promoted, I promise to be as hardworking and fair with the admin tools as I have been with the other areas here on Wikipedia. See you around and happy editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support

I would like to say that I support your work on the Falun Gong page, I do not think you have broken the NPOV so if Mas5353 has indeed reported you and there is any follow up please cite me as in your support if it helps. Solar 20:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read most of the revisions by you and Mas5353 and I am also alarmed at his accusations of you breaking NPOV. I am new to Wikipedia and thus I don't know how what mechanisms he may be employing to report you, but I would also like to give my support for you. RampagingCarrot 01:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a personal agenda here with regards to Falun Gong which has nothing to do with NPOV or the greater benefit of the Wikipedia community. Solar 10:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Li Family Style

I'd be most honoured to write an article for you on Li style T'ai Chi Chuan, I'll talk to my instructor and possibly write to our Technical Director for some more in depth information. This *is* Wikipedia after all :D. (They probably won't recognise the prestige involved, alas).

Your t'ai chi resume is most impressive, gj :). --Kyle Dantarin 05:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Kalaripayattu article

Hello, I placed the NPOV warning because of the previous articles that Bijee and VManoj wrote. The articles describe the history of kalaripayattu that is not based in any historical textbooks but gleened off of the web and kalaripayattu websites stating that it is the "mother" of all martial arts and that Bodhidharma, a semilengendary figure in the history of the Shaolin temple went from north to south india learning kalaripayattu then passed it to the Shaolin monks and from there it spread to the rest of the world. This is unlikely as most Shaolin monks agree that their stories are legend and most chinese historians agree that wushu predates the Shaolin style of martial arts.

-Kenneth Tennyson, Ph.D

I am not the author of Kalaripayattu, I only reverted some change done by 68.14.62.73, which I thought was incorrect. And also did fixes in Malayalam word. Kenneth should have talked me at my talk page, but he never did. Instead he continued to change many India related pages triggering edit wars. He also put my name at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. I would appreciate if somebody advice him to do edits in cooperative manner.

-Bijee 04:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the letter Firefox. If you actually visit all of the other sites that Bijee has been to... Tea, the Sino-Indian war, kalaripayattu, buddhism, and chinese chess, he has consistently edited the articles to represent his POV, which peculiarly is a pro-Indian POV. Unfortunately I guess for him, I happen to have a Ph.D with an interest in Chinese and Indian history, practice martial arts, drink tea, am a practicing Buddhist, and have read up on these matters. I've been trying to revert these sights to a NPOV. The current version of kalaripayattu and the tea articles have a POV that is shared by almost all historians. After editing and re-editing these articles and trying to place comments in discussion with no response, I got fed up with him and decided to put him in Vandalism in progress. kennethtennyson

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Fire_Star"