Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

There are no atheists

2009-07-15T19:10:06Z

BrightMan:

{{argument-stub}} Some apologists apparently believe that everyone really believes in [[God]], and anyone who claims not to believe is simply lying, or [[angry at God]]. They may claim that [[atheism]] is a form of rebellion, or that God is so indelibly written on everyone's heart that no one can deny belief. God can't be indelibly written because people who have never heard the [[Gospel]] do not automatically become Christians unless they are taught.

The argument is frequently supported by the claim that it is impossible to know definitively that there is no God, therefore an atheist must be an [[agnostic]]. This argument is fallacious as it incorrectly assumes that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. It is also ironic, since it is just as impossible to know definitively that there ''is'' a God. Therefore, theists also must be [[agnostic]].
But this isn't the only problem with this criticism.

== A Lack of Evidence ==

This claim has a lack of evidence, and seems to be based on pure speculative assumption.
How do we know that theists and religious people aren't really just atheistic nonreligious people who are just lying and merely angry at reality?
The reason it is known they really do believe this stuff is because of how far they are willing to go to defend it. From Muslims who blow themselves up, to Christians, Hindus, and other such people who donate their life savings to clergy in the hopes of reaching eternal life, Nirvana, etc.
By contrast, most atheists don't even care to even call themselves atheists.
According to the Pew forum Survey, even though about 1.6% US Americans self identify as Atheists (http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations). However, 5% of the USA population in 2007 didn't believe there was a god, while 3%, weren't sure (http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#)
Both are qualifications for being atheist--lack of a belief in a deity, or deities. This implies that as many as 8% of US Americans are technically atheists, yet don't even know, or care enough to call themselves atheists.
They could also be afraid of persecution from the Christian Majority, However.
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

There are no atheists

2009-07-15T19:08:43Z

BrightMan:

{{argument-stub}} Some apologists apparently believe that everyone really believes in [[God]], and anyone who claims not to believe is simply lying, or [[angry at God]]. They may claim that [[atheism]] is a form of rebellion, or that God is so indelibly written on everyone's heart that no one can deny belief. God can't be indelibly written because people who have never heard the [[Gospel]] do not automatially become Christians unless they are taught.

The argument is frequently supported by the claim that it is impossible to know definitively that there is no God, therefore an atheist must be an [[agnostic]]. This argument is fallacious as it incorrectly assumes that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. It is also ironic, since it is just as impossible to know definitively that there ''is'' a God. Therefore, theists also must be [[agnostic]].
But this isn't the only problem with this criticism.

== A Lack of Evidence ==

This claim has a lack of evidence, and seems to be based on pure speculative assumption.
How do we know that theists and religious people aren't really just atheistic nonreligious people who are just lying and merely angry at reality?
The reason it is known they really do believe this stuff is because of how far they are willing to go to defend it. From Muslims who blow themselves up, to Christians, Hindus, and other such people who donate their life savings to clergy in the hopes of reaching eternal life, Nirvana, etc.
By contrast, most atheists don't even care to even call themselves atheists.
According to the Pew forum Survey, even though about 1.6% US Americans self identify as Atheists (http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations). However, 5% of the USA population in 2007 didn't believe there was a god, while 3%, weren't sure (http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#)
Both are qualifications for being atheist--lack of a belief in a deity, or deities. This implies that as many as 8% of US Americans are technically atheists, yet don't even know, or care enough to call themselves atheists.
They could also be afraid of persecution from the Christian Majority, However.
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Pode Deus criar uma rocha tÃ£o pesada que ele nÃ£o pode levantÃ¡-la?

2009-05-22T00:50:32Z

BrightMan: translation finished

A questão paradoxal, "'''Pode Deus criar uma rocha tão pesada que ele não pode levantá-la?'''" é um enigma bobo criado para mostrar que o termo ''[[onipotente]]'' é, de fato, sem sentido.

Onipotente significa "todo-poderoso", que é tipicamente entendido como "capaz de fazer qualquer coisa". Se [[Deus]] pode fazer qualquer coisa, então ele deveria ser capaz de criar tal pedra. Mas uma vez que a pedra foi criada, ele deveria também ser capaz de levantá-la, o que contradiz a primeira afirmação.

Isto é remanescente de uma história sober um vendedor de armas mediaval cuja espada era tão afiada que poderia penetrar qualquer armadura, e cujo escudo era tão forte que poderia barrar qualquer ataque. Um membro da mutidão falou, "O que acontece quando você lança a sua espada contra o seu escudo?", o vendedor ficou confuso.

A resposta é que o vendedor estava mentindo sobre um dos seus produtos. Ou, colocando em outra forma, uma espada perfeita e um escudo perfeito não podem existir simultaneamente. Se existir alguma espada que possa penetrar em todos os escudos, então, por definição, não existe nenhum escudo que possa suportar a todos os ataques.

Similarmente, não pode existir uma pedra que não possa ser levantada num universo que também contém um Deus que pode levantar qualquer coisa. Isto também prova que há algo que Deus não pode criar.

Como nós saimos deste paradoxo? Um [[ateu]] responderia que a idéia de "todo-poderoso" é sem sentido e não merece consideração no mundo real. Entretanto, [[apologistas]] geralmente respondem que "todo-poderoso" significa "Deus pode fazer tudo... que é ''logicamente possível''."

Como [[C.S. Lewis]] afirma em ''[[Cristianismo Puro e Simples]]'':
:"''Sua onipotência inclui poder de fazer tudo o que é intrínsecamente possível, não fazer o intrínsicamente impossível. Você pode atribuir milagres a ele, mas não contra-senso.''"
Isto levanta a questão do que é exatamente um [[milagre, se não fazer o impossível. É óbvio, o qualificador ''intrínsecamente'' é importante. Ainda, isto parece pintar uma figura de Deus como simplesmente o ser ''mais'' poderoso no universo, ao invés de um ''todo-'poderoso.

== Veja Também ==
* [[User:BrightMan/Omnipotence paradox]]

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Deductive arguments]]

Pode Deus criar uma rocha tÃ£o pesada que ele nÃ£o pode levantÃ¡-la?

2009-05-01T13:36:30Z

BrightMan:

A questão paradoxal, "'''Pode Deus criar uma rocha tão pesada que ele não pode levantá-la?'''" é um enigma bobo criado para mostrar que o termo ''[[onipotente]]'' é, de fato, sem sentido.

Onipotente significa "todo-poderoso", que é tipicamente entendido como "capaz de fazer qualquer coisa". Se [[Deus]] pode fazer qualquer coisa, então ele deveria ser capaz de criar tal pedra. Mas uma vez que a pedra foi criada, ele deveria também ser capaz de levantá-la, o que contradiz a primeira afirmação.

Isto é remanescente de uma história sober um vendedor de armas mediaval cuja espada era tão afiada que poderia penetrar qualquer armadura, e cujo escudo era tão forte que poderia barrar qualquer ataque. Um membro da mutidão falou, "O que acontece quando você lança a sua espada contra o seu escudo?", o vendedor ficou confuso.

A resposta é que o vendedor estava mentindo sobre um dos seus produtos. Ou, colocando em outra forma, uma espada perfeita e um escudo perfeito não podem existir simultaneamente. Se existir alguma espada que possa penetrar em todos os escudos, então, por definição, não existe nenhum escudo que possa suportar a todos os ataques.

Similarmente, não pode existir uma pedra que não possa ser levantada num universo que também contém um Deus que pode levantar qualquer coisa. Isto também prova que há algo que Deus não pode criar.

Como nós saimos deste paradoxo? Um [[ateu]]responderia que a idéia de "todo-poderoso" é sem sentido e não merece consideração no mundo real. Entretanto, [[apologistas]] geralmente respondem que "todo-poderoso" significa "Deus pode fazer tudo... que é ''logicamente possível''."

As [[C.S. Lewis]] states in ''[[Mere Christianity]]'':
:"''His omnipotence includes power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.''"
This raises the question of what exactly a [[miracle]] is, if not doing the impossible. Of course, the qualifier ''intrinsically'' is an important one. Still, this seems to paint a picture of God as simply the ''most'' powerful being in the universe, instead of an ''all-''powerful one.

== Veja Também ==
* [[User:BrightMan/Omnipotence paradox]]

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Deductive arguments]]

Pode Deus criar uma rocha tÃ£o pesada que ele nÃ£o pode levantÃ¡-la?

2009-04-26T12:54:50Z

BrightMan: translating another paragraph

A questão paradoxal, "'''Pode Deus criar uma rocha tão pesada que ele não pode levantá-la?'''" é um enigma bobo criado para mostrar que o termo ''[[onipotente]]'' é, de fato, sem sentido.

Onipotente significa "todo-poderoso", que é tipicamente entendido como "capaz de fazer qualquer coisa". Se [[Deus]] pode fazer qualquer coisa, então ele deveria ser capaz de criar tal pedra. Mas uma vez que a pedra foi criada, ele deveria também ser capaz de levantá-la, o que contradiz a primeira afirmação.

Isto é remanescente de uma história sober um vendedor de armas mediaval cuja espada era tão afiada que poderia penetrar qualquer armadura, e cujo escudo era tão forte que poderia barrar qualquer ataque. Um membro da mutidão falou, "O que acontece quando você lança a sua espada contra o seu escudo?", o vendedor ficou confuso.

A resposta é que o vendedor estava mentindo sobre um dos seus produtos. Ou, colocando em outra forma, uma espada perfeita e um escudo perfeito não podem existir simultaneamente. Se existir alguma espada que possa penetrar em todos os escudos, então, por definição, não existe nenhum escudo que possa suportar a todos os ataques.

Similarmente, não pode existir uma pedra que não possa ser levantada num universo que também contém um Deus que pode levantar qualquer coisa. Isto também prova que há algo que Deus não pode criar.

How do we get out of the paradox? An [[atheist]] would answer that the very idea of being "all-powerful" is meaningless and not worthy of consideration in the real world. However, [[apologists]] often respond that "all-powerful" means "God can do everything... that is ''logically possible''."

As [[C.S. Lewis]] states in ''[[Mere Christianity]]'':
:"''His omnipotence includes power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.''"
This raises the question of what exactly a [[miracle]] is, if not doing the impossible. Of course, the qualifier ''intrinsically'' is an important one. Still, this seems to paint a picture of God as simply the ''most'' powerful being in the universe, instead of an ''all-''powerful one.

== Veja Também ==
* [[User:BrightMan/Omnipotence paradox]]

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Deductive arguments]]

User:BrightMan/Omnipotence paradox

2009-04-26T12:48:55Z

BrightMan: Translating Omnipotence paradox to portuguese

Paradoxo da onipotência

Pode Deus criar uma rocha tÃ£o pesada que ele nÃ£o pode levantÃ¡-la?

2009-04-26T12:48:24Z

BrightMan: /* See Also */

A questão paradoxal, "'''Pode Deus criar uma rocha tão pesada que ele não pode levantá-la?'''" é um enigma bobo criado para mostrar que o termo ''[[onipotente]]'' é, de fato, sem sentido.

Onipotente significa "todo-poderoso", que é tipicamente entendido como "capaz de fazer qualquer coisa". Se [[Deus]] pode fazer qualquer coisa, então ele deveria ser capaz de criar tal pedra. Mas uma vez que a pedra foi criada, ele deveria também ser capaz de levantá-la, o que contradiz a primeira afirmação.

Isto é remanescente de uma história sober um vendedor de armas mediaval cuja espada era tão afiada que poderia penetrar qualquer armadura, e cujo escudo era tão forte que poderia barrar qualquer ataque. Um membro da mutidão falou, "O que acontece quando você lança a sua espada contra o seu escudo?", o vendedor ficou confuso.

A resposta é que o vendedor estava mentindo sobre um dos seus produtos. Ou, colocando em outra forma, uma espada perfeita e um escudo perfeito não podem existir simultaneamente. Se existir alguma espada que possa penetrar em todos os escudos, então, por definição, não existe nenhum escudo que possa suportar a todos os ataques.

Similarly, there cannot exist a rock that cannot be lifted in a universe that also contains a God who can lift anything. Yet this proves that there is something that God cannot create.

How do we get out of the paradox? An [[atheist]] would answer that the very idea of being "all-powerful" is meaningless and not worthy of consideration in the real world. However, [[apologists]] often respond that "all-powerful" means "God can do everything... that is ''logically possible''."

As [[C.S. Lewis]] states in ''[[Mere Christianity]]'':
:"''His omnipotence includes power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.''"
This raises the question of what exactly a [[miracle]] is, if not doing the impossible. Of course, the qualifier ''intrinsically'' is an important one. Still, this seems to paint a picture of God as simply the ''most'' powerful being in the universe, instead of an ''all-''powerful one.

== Veja Também ==
* [[User:BrightMan/Omnipotence paradox]]

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Deductive arguments]]

Pode Deus criar uma rocha tÃ£o pesada que ele nÃ£o pode levantÃ¡-la?

2009-04-25T21:13:35Z

BrightMan:

A questão paradoxal, "'''Pode Deus criar uma rocha tão pesada que ele não pode levantá-la?'''" é um enigma bobo criado para mostrar que o termo ''[[onipotente]]'' é, de fato, sem sentido.

Onipotente significa "todo-poderoso", que é tipicamente entendido como "capaz de fazer qualquer coisa". Se [[Deus]] pode fazer qualquer coisa, então ele deveria ser capaz de criar tal pedra. Mas uma vez que a pedra foi criada, ele deveria também ser capaz de levantá-la, o que contradiz a primeira afirmação.

Isto é remanescente de uma história sober um vendedor de armas mediaval cuja espada era tão afiada que poderia penetrar qualquer armadura, e cujo escudo era tão forte que poderia barrar qualquer ataque. Um membro da mutidão falou, "O que acontece quando você lança a sua espada contra o seu escudo?", o vendedor ficou confuso.

A resposta é que o vendedor estava mentindo sobre um dos seus produtos. Ou, colocando em outra forma, uma espada perfeita e um escudo perfeito não podem existir simultaneamente. Se existir alguma espada que possa penetrar em todos os escudos, então, por definição, não existe nenhum escudo que possa suportar a todos os ataques.

Similarly, there cannot exist a rock that cannot be lifted in a universe that also contains a God who can lift anything. Yet this proves that there is something that God cannot create.

How do we get out of the paradox? An [[atheist]] would answer that the very idea of being "all-powerful" is meaningless and not worthy of consideration in the real world. However, [[apologists]] often respond that "all-powerful" means "God can do everything... that is ''logically possible''."

As [[C.S. Lewis]] states in ''[[Mere Christianity]]'':
:"''His omnipotence includes power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.''"
This raises the question of what exactly a [[miracle]] is, if not doing the impossible. Of course, the qualifier ''intrinsically'' is an important one. Still, this seems to paint a picture of God as simply the ''most'' powerful being in the universe, instead of an ''all-''powerful one.

== See Also ==
* [[Omnipotence paradox]]

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Deductive arguments]]

Pode Deus criar uma rocha tÃ£o pesada que ele nÃ£o pode levantÃ¡-la?

2009-04-24T01:02:00Z

BrightMan: translating another paragraph

A questão paradoxal, "'''Pode Deus criar uma rocha tão pesada que ele não pode levantá-la?'''" é um enigma bobo criado para mostrar que o termo ''[[onipotente]]'' é, de fato, sem sentido.

Onipotente significa "todo-poderoso", que é tipicamente entendido como "capaz de fazer qualquer coisa". Se [[Deus]] pode fazer qualquer coisa, então ele deveria ser capaz de criar tal pedra. Mas uma vez que a pedra foi criada, ele deveria também ser capaz de levantá-la, o que contradiz a primeira afirmação.

Isto é remanescente de uma história sober um vendedor de armas mediaval cuja espada era tão afiada que poderia penetrar qualquer armadura, e cujo escudo era tão forte que poderia barrar qualquer ataque. Um membro da mutidão falou, "O que acontece quando você lança a sua espada contra o seu escudo?", o vendedor ficou confuso.

The answer is that the salesman was lying about one of his products. Or to put it another way, a perfect sword and a perfect shield cannot exist simultaneously. If there exists any sword that can penetrate all shields, then by definition there does not exist any shield that can withstand all attacks.

Similarly, there cannot exist a rock that cannot be lifted in a universe that also contains a God who can lift anything. Yet this proves that there is something that God cannot create.

How do we get out of the paradox? An [[atheist]] would answer that the very idea of being "all-powerful" is meaningless and not worthy of consideration in the real world. However, [[apologists]] often respond that "all-powerful" means "God can do everything... that is ''logically possible''."

As [[C.S. Lewis]] states in ''[[Mere Christianity]]'':
:"''His omnipotence includes power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.''"
This raises the question of what exactly a [[miracle]] is, if not doing the impossible. Of course, the qualifier ''intrinsically'' is an important one. Still, this seems to paint a picture of God as simply the ''most'' powerful being in the universe, instead of an ''all-''powerful one.

== See Also ==
* [[Omnipotence paradox]]

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Deductive arguments]]

User talk:Sans Deity

2009-04-22T20:26:03Z

BrightMan: Translating to portuguese

== Comments/Requests ==
Is there a way to fix the dates when looking at the recent changes/history of things? The server seems to be several days off (close to two weeks). I suspect the server that this wiki is on might have the date and time wrong. Im not sure who hosts the server or whos in charge of stuff like that. [[User:gizmoiscariot|gizmoiscariot]] 13:15, 10 September 2008 (PDT)

== Image/text alignment problem ==

As noted in the edit summary, I took the liberty of [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User:Sans_Deity&diff=4878&oldid=2319 inserting a newline] in your user page to fix an image/text alignment problem. When a right-aligned <nowiki>[[Image]]</nowiki> link is followed on the same line by text, some browsers (I.E. 5.0, at least) align the ''text'' to the right, too. Besides looking wrong, this makes the text easy to miss, especially when it's at the very top of the page. I think I've seen this problem in some articles, as well. Something to keep in mind.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:24, 13 February 2007 (CST)

== Cite.php for ref's ==

In Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis, the [[WikimediaMeta:Cite.php|Cite.php]] extension allows for easy creation and maintenance of footnotes in articles using [[WikimediaMeta:Help:Footnotes|<tt><ref></ref></tt> and <tt><reference/></tt>]] tags. I've encountered a few cases were this would be really helpful to have here. According to documentation at the first link above, the extension requires at least MediaWiki 1.6x, so [[Special:Version|it should work for us]]. I would suggest we upgrade to a newer MediaWiki version anyway, but moving to 1.7x would also [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Important_Release_Notes require an upgrade to PhP 5]. Maybe a task for this summer? <g> - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 19:59, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

: I'd like to second this.
: Also, I'm a Unix sysadmin in Real Life™. If I can help, let me know.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 21:17, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

:: When I last looked, it wasn't possible to add these due to limitations of my hosting service. I'll try to dig into this issue again, but (as I'm sure everyone has noticed) I really haven't had the time to focus on the wiki. I'll need to set aside a block of time to do this, but I'm not only spread to thin, I now have to start looking for a new job (Sept. 1 is my last day). I'll try to make time before then. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
::: "''limitations of my hosting service''" — Because of their version of PHP? I'd say, if that's the reason, you need to start complaining to your hosting service. (The current stable release of MediaWiki doesn't even ''support'' PHP4 anymore.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:10, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

== Sandbox ==

I noticed someone created [[Project:Sandbox]] back in Feb. Since we probably ''should'' have such a page, I've gone ahead and created a template-header for it, [[Template:Sandbox header]], explaining what the Sandbox is for, along with a "testing" template called [[Template:Sandbox]] (not "Template:Testing" or similar) for use on the Sandbox page to test template behavior. Then, of course, the template itself needed a template-header, [[Template:Sandbox template header]], to explain ''it''.... Anyway, I hope everything is basically self-explanatory on the pages [[Project:Sandbox]] and [[Template:Sandbox]]. Just figured I'd give you a heads-up so you can "watch" the two "header" templates, if you want. (I would suggest protecting them, but that probably would be overkill. Sufficient to "watch" them for now.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:52, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

== Utility templates? ==

I've been going through [[:Category:Templates|categorizing]] and [[Project:Templates|describing]] our various templates (with mixed results). Since you created [[:Category:Utility templates]], I guess I should ask you what your definition of a "utility template" is. Based on the single template that was in the category at the time I came across it ([[Template:If]]), I guessed it was for templates that are primarily for use in ''other'' templates, to make their "code" simpler (like subroutines in computer programming). But now I don't know what to do with templates like [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]]. Do you think either of those should be called "Utility templates" and the definition expanded? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:53, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

: I'm not [[User:Sans Deity]], but I think you're right, that utility templates are ones used for building or simplifying other templates; infrastructure, not content.
: Since [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]] are directly used in various pages, I wouldn't call them utility templates. I think if there were a template that said, "This <topic>-related article is a stub", that could be included in other templates that specified a topic, then that generic template would be a utility template. But that's just my opinion. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:09, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

:: I created the [[:Category:Utility templates]] category to hold templates used in other templates. Arensb's assessment is pretty much on the money. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:35, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

== In progress ==

It seems you've tagged a couple of articles as [[:Category:works in progress|works in progress]] and not found the time to return to them for further expansion. Understandable... but maybe we should have a policy about that template staying on articles for too long. For example, if there's no edits by the original "tagging" author in a month, say, editors are free to remove the template or replace it with another (e.g., stub) template, as appropriate. In particular, we should try to avoid situations where the template [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mormonism&action=history stays on an article for many months with no edits] or [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Jesus_fulfilled_prophecy&oldid=5433 is placed on a stubby article where "progress" hasn't really even begun]. Not meaning to be overly critical, but these two cases seemed somewhat "suboptimal"... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:Good catch. The mormon page was someone else's work...I just tagged it for them as an example of what they should do until they were done. The prophecy page was one I wanted to do, but never got to. They're both cleared. I think a month is probably more than enough. Any work in progress that's seen no activity for a month should be fair game to anyone - regardless of who tagged it. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 23:08, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:: Will note this guideline on relevant pages. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:52, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

== Wiki spam galore ==

Obviously you've noticed how this spam is getting ridiculously out of hand. Have you seen [http://chongqed.org/prevent_spam.html this page]? It's full of useful suggestions for keeping the spam under control.

Do we currently prevent the page histories from showing up in search engines? If not, we definitely should, as the spammers may be benefiting from product placement even after we roll back their crap.

Also, how many people currently have the authority to block accounts? I wouldn't mind giving that permission to a few others. However, since they keep autogenerating random IDs, I'm not sure if there's even a point to blocking the accounts. Perhaps we should do something to prevent the types of accounts they're making, something like this:
:if ((username has six letters)
::and (username has at least one lowercase letter)
::and (username has an uppercase letter not in the first character)
::then deny account creation

Is that possible to do? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 09:37, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I was looking into solutions earlier. I think, considering the small community here, that I may either disable account creation (and let sysops manually add new editors) or try to create some custom user groups (bureaucrats, sysops, editors, n00b) so that no one can edit until their account has been flagged for it.

Unfortunately, this hasn't been easy. Most of the solutions are very slap-dash, as the software was originally designed to be open to edits from everyone. I'm hoping to have this solved by the end of the week. I should have some time this afternoon to investigate solutions. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:32, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

== Killing the vandals ==

I've made it a bit more difficult on the vandals. I've added a new requirement for any new users - they must verify an e-mail address.

It's an extra hoop that may kill the vandals, especially if they are bots. If it doesn't work, I'll take additional steps. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 12:26, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

That seems to have done the trick for now. Good job, Matt! --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:13, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

: I've also tried to start using the "[[WikimediaMeta:Help:Patrolled edit|Mark as patrolled]]" feature a bit more. When you select a "diff" from the [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent changes]] page (not from a page's history, though), you can mark the edit as "patrolled" (if it hasn't already been done), meaning it was a legitimate edit. Unpatrolled edits are marked with a red exclamation point (<span class="unpatrolled">!</span>) on the Recent changes page. Only admins can mark edits as patrolled. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:01, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
:: Interestingly, admins can even patrol their own edits. I guess if you're an admin you can be trusted not to abuse this feature.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 16:49, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

== Another extension ==

In addition to the '''Cite.php''' extension I requested [[#Cite.php for ref's|above]], I've come across another extension it would be nice to have: '''[[WikimediaMeta:Help:ParserFunctions|ParserFunctions]]''' (which requires >= MediaWiki 1.6.8). This would make it possible to simply copy over any Wikipedia (for example) templates that use '''#if''' and the like, without needing to translate them to use our [[Template:If]]. For example, [[Template:Cite journal|this one]], which a user has already [[Talk:Hares chew their cud|tried to use]] in an article here. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 13:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

== Interwiki requests ==

Please see [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Interwiki map (requests)]] — the request list is getting kind of long (full disclosure: most are my requests :). - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 05:05, 26 March 2009 (CDT)

== Translating to portuguese ==

Hello,

[[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] has adviced me to talk to you about allowing this wiki to be translated to (brazilian) portuguese. I don't know exactly how to do this and think the admins have to enable the translated wikis here. As [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] suggested me, I started to translation some topics at my user page and am sure I can bring more people to help.

Regards,

[[User:BrightMan|BrightMan]] 15:26, 22 April 2009 (CDT)

Pode Deus criar uma rocha tÃ£o pesada que ele nÃ£o pode levantÃ¡-la?

2009-04-22T20:22:35Z

BrightMan:

A questão paradóxica, "'''Pode Deus criar uma rocha tão pesada que ele não pode levantá-la?'''" é um enigma bobo criado para mostrar que o termo ''[[onipotente]]'' é, de fato, sem sentido.

Onipotente significa "todo-poderoso", que é tipicamente entendido como "capaz de fazer qualquer coisa". Se [[Deus]] pode fazer qualquer coisa, então ele deveria ser capaz de criar tal pedra. Mas uma vez que a pedra foi criada, ele deveria também ser capaz de levantá-la, o que contradiz a primeira afirmação.

This is reminiscent of a story about a medieval arms salesman who boasted that his sword was so sharp that it could penetrate any armor, and his shield was so tough that it could withstand any attack. A member of the crowd called out, "What happens when you strike your sword against your own shield?" The salesman was stumped.

The answer is that the salesman was lying about one of his products. Or to put it another way, a perfect sword and a perfect shield cannot exist simultaneously. If there exists any sword that can penetrate all shields, then by definition there does not exist any shield that can withstand all attacks.

Similarly, there cannot exist a rock that cannot be lifted in a universe that also contains a God who can lift anything. Yet this proves that there is something that God cannot create.

How do we get out of the paradox? An [[atheist]] would answer that the very idea of being "all-powerful" is meaningless and not worthy of consideration in the real world. However, [[apologists]] often respond that "all-powerful" means "God can do everything... that is ''logically possible''."

As [[C.S. Lewis]] states in ''[[Mere Christianity]]'':
:"''His omnipotence includes power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.''"
This raises the question of what exactly a [[miracle]] is, if not doing the impossible. Of course, the qualifier ''intrinsically'' is an important one. Still, this seems to paint a picture of God as simply the ''most'' powerful being in the universe, instead of an ''all-''powerful one.

== See Also ==
* [[Omnipotence paradox]]

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Deductive arguments]]

User:BrightMan

2009-04-22T20:17:12Z

BrightMan: /* Currently working on */

'''BrightMan''' is a software engineer (and [[atheist]]) in [[Wikipedia:Salvador, Brazil|Salvador, Brazil]].
{{Site news box}}
==Contact information==
Leave any comments or questions for me on [[User talk:BrightMan|my talk page]]. You can [[Special:Emailuser/BrightMan|e-mail me]] if you'd like, but it would be better to leave a message on my talk page — especially if I'm in the process of [[Special:Contributions/BrightMan|editing this wiki]] — since that way I'll get a notice the next time I visit a page or preview an edit.

==Wiki experience==
I have almost no prior experience with MediaWiki. I have used TWiki (now FosWiki) since 2002, and have contributed with code. I just copied [[User:Dcljr|Dcljr's user page source]] as a starting point here.

==Other interests and abilities==
I have a [[Wikipedia:Bachelor of Science|B.S.]] in [[Wikipedia:Computer Science|Computer Science]] at [[Wikipedia:UFBA|UFBA]] and [[Wikipedia:Master of Science|M.S.]] in [[Wikipedia:Computer Science|Computer Science]] at [[Wikipedia:UFRN|UFRN]] (actually, an [[Wikipedia:All But Dissertation|ABD]] in the latter).

I'd like to start a translation of Iron Chariots wiki to portuguese.

==Contributions==
Consistent with Iron Chariot's [[Project:Copyrights|copyright policy]], I agree to license all of my text and image contributions to this wiki under the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license].

In case this information is ever relevant: most of my contributions will be made from home using [[Wikipedia:Mozilla Firefox|Firefox 2.0]] in [[Wikipedia:Debian GNU Linux|Debian GNU Linux]].

==Currently working on==
* [[User:BrightMan/Main Page/pt]]
* [[User:BrightMan/Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?/pt]]

User:BrightMan/Main Page/pt

2009-04-22T20:06:47Z

BrightMan:

{{Main Page navigation links}}
{{Main Page quote}}
{|style="margin-top: 1em;"
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|colspan="2" style="background-color: #ffe; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #fdd017;"|
<h2 style="text-align: center; border-color: #fdd017;"><div style="font-size:2em; padding-bottom: 0.3em;">Bem vindo ao Bigas de Ferro,</div>
''o wiki contra-apolotética.''</h2>
[[Image:Ironchariotslogo.png|200px|right]]
'''[[Iron Chariots Wiki:Introduction|Iron Chariots]]''' is intended to provide information on [[apologetics]] and [[counter-apologetics]]. We'll be collecting common [[argument]]s and providing responses, information and resources to help counter the glut of misinformation and poor arguments which masquerade as "[[evidence]]" for [[religious]] claims.

A complexidade de questões que envolvem religião garantem que qualquer avaliação correte nos requer um mergulho numa série de tópicos filosóficos, históricos e sociológicos. Nosso objetivo maior é prover um recurso robusto e definitivo para:
* [[ateus]]s buscando respostas para argumentos apologéticos comuns
* [[theist]]s who are questioning the efficacy of their beliefs
* [[apologist]]s who feel that their "pet" argument is above reproach
* individuals of any philosophical ideal who have an interest in religious studies

|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|width="50%" style="background-color: #fee; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #f77;"|
<h2 style="text-align: center; border-color: #f77;">Starting points</h2>
Feel free to make use of the [[Special:Search|Search]] feature if you're looking for a particular article.

For those who prefer to browse, we've divided articles into a number of categories to provide convenient starting points:
* [[:Category:Arguments|Arguments]]
* [[:Category:Christian apologists|Christian apologists]]
* [[:Category:Atheists|Atheists]]

You can also browse the entire category structure [[:Category:Browse categories|starting at the top]].
|style="background-color: #eef; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #77f;"|
<h2 style="text-align: center; border-color: #77f;">Featured articles</h2>
In addition to focusing on specific arguments, we feel that it's also important to address popular apologetics in detail, even when they're nothing more than a collection of previously addressed arguments. The following articles feature detailed rebuttals to common apologetics in various media:
* Currently, there is a group project to respond to the email titled "[[50 reasons to believe in god]]." The point of the exercise is to revise and expand any relevant articles so that each one provides a coherent rebuttal to a clearly stated theistic argument.
* ''[[The Way of the Master]]'' — apologist TV series featuring [[Ray Comfort]] and [[Kirk Cameron]])
** "[[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)|The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism]]" — a ''Way of the Master'' episode on atheism
** "[[Evolution (Way of the Master)|Evolution]]" — a ''Way of the Master'' episode on evolution
* [[Chick tract]]s — comic-book style series of evangelical pamphlets by Jack Chick
** "[[Big Daddy? (Chick tract)|Big Daddy?]]" — a Chick tract focusing on evolution.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"

|colspan="2" style="background-color: #efe; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #7f7;"|
<h2 style="text-align: center; border-color: #7f7;">Get involved — edit this site!</h2>
If you're interested in contributing to the site (in the non-monetary sense), you must [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup register] first to get a username. You might also want to register at our [http://forum.IronChariots.org IronChariots.org Forums] so you can post over there.

If you want to contribute in the ''monetary'' sense, please see [[Project:Site support|Site support]].

For more information, please take a look at these pages:
* [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Introduction|Introduction]]
* [[Project:Editing guidelines|Editing guidelines]]
* [[Project:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]

If you're looking for some new or incomplete articles that need writing, please consider taking some suggestions from [[Project:Requested pages|Requested pages]].
|}

__NOTOC__
__NOEDITSECTION__

User:BrightMan

2009-04-22T20:01:02Z

BrightMan: /* Currently working on */

User talk:BrightMan

2009-04-21T16:21:14Z

BrightMan: starting the comments page

Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). [[User:BrightMan|BrightMan]] 11:21, 21 April 2009 (CDT)

User talk:Dcljr

2009-04-21T14:45:12Z

BrightMan: Translating to portuguese

Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:47, 26 August 2006 (MST)

==Welcome==
Welcome! I'll be busy with the NP show today, but I wanted to get a quick response in. I looked over the issues in your sandbox and it's nice to have someone who knows about wikis, I've been learning as we go along. With regard to the redlinks issues: some of them I wasn't aware of, and some I intentionally avoided editing (like help) until I knew exactly what I wanted to include. Feel free to edit those pages as you like and, as time permits, I'll focus on them too.

Some answers to questions in your "Other Issues" section:
* Is there an [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map interwiki map] here?
** <s>No. I had actually just started reading about this the other day. It's definitely on the "to do" list, though there are only a handful of wikis that I'd bother including here.</s>
** Evidently, it's always been enabled and there were 174 links in the default list. I've added them to the discussion page and will find a way to modify those pages to have a "most used" list, "full list" and "suggested" list. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 18:15, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
* <s>Why are sig timestamps in MST when server time is UTC according to [[Special:Preferences|Preferences]]?</s>
** <s>I have no clue. I'll dig around a bit.</s>
** This should be corrected now. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
* Why using <nowiki>[[internal links]]</nowiki> to bolden title words in first sentences of articles (see, e.g., [[Counter-apologetics]]) instead of <nowiki>'''triple-apostrophes'''</nowiki>?
** Because we saw it done that way...and didn't check the manual of style. :) This should be probably be changed, though I'm curious whether or not it's a better solution.
* [[Special:Search/fubar|Search for "fubar"]] results in following statement (provided by [[MediaWiki:Nogomatch]]): ''There is no page titled ":fubar".'' (note placement of colon)
** I'll look into this one too, I'm pretty sure that it's due to changes we attempted to make when setting up the wiki. Essentially, I wanted the URL to display as '''wiki.ironchariots.org/pagename'''. Shawn ran into some problems with, I think, the Apache rewrite...I just haven't focused on changing it.
** Still investigating this, it's an odd one. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
As for the other items, feel free to change them, and anything else you find wrong. If the reason for the change is unclear or if you feel there's a gross conceptual error that should be avoided, perhaps you could add them to a list in the Help section, or something. In any case, I'm off to get things ready for the show, thanks for contributing! - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:06, 26 August 2006 (MST)

== Wow ==

Dcljr, I'm blown away by all that you're doing to bring this wiki up to speed with a professional look. Thank you thank you thank you for all the work that you've done this weekend. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 04:20, 28 August 2006 (MST)

Hey, I just remembered something that we wanted to put in a while ago. We were going to have a template that linked Bible verses. I was just messing with it again and it currently looks like this: <nowiki>{{Bible|John|3:16}}</nowiki> -> {{Bible|John|3:16}}

The problem is that when you use a book with spaces in it, such as <nowiki>{{Bible|1 Kings|1:1}}</nowiki> it looks like this: {{Bible|1 Kings|1:1}}. The extra space messes up the intended link. Is there a way to replace spaces in the second field with "%20"?

--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 08:19, 28 August 2006 (MST)

: Hmm. I don't know, I'd have to just look around Wikipedia to find out (which, unfortunately, I'm not going to do right now — I need to get to sleep at some point). I know it'd be a lot easier if you were linking to a wiki (with interwiki linking enabled — Matt's apparently looking into that), since then you wouldn't be constructing the URL "from scratch" but just using a wiki-link, where spaces don't matter. (Even "blind searches" can be done this way, using <nowiki>[[Special:Search/</nowiki>''Search term(s)'']]. BTW, this would fix the problem you've had with {{[[Template talk:WP-name|WP-name]]}}.) Might have more to say about this in a few days... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:11, 29 August 2006 (MST)

:: Well it turns out that there is another wiki called "[http://www.wikibible.com/ wikibible]" -- which appears to just provide a search function for Bible Gateway, but it might work. I've heard you talk about interwiki links but I have no knowledge of how to set them up.

::: I've been researching this and it's going to take some work. There is no easy, automated process, you have to actually jump into the database and modify tables in order to setup the links. The nice thing is that it doesn't matter whether the link is a wiki or not, you could setup an interwiki link to Bible Gateway or Dictionary.com. I'll probably do this, but let's put together a list of what we want/need first. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:20, 29 August 2006 (MST)

:::: I've set up a page at [[Project:Interwiki map]] to start hammering out the details. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:28, 29 August 2006 (MST)

== Admin page ==
The entries there are fine. Indefual hasn't been around, but I think his primary interest was in getting this up and running for us. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:05, 28 August 2006 (MST)

Speaking of the admin page, you'll need to update it again - I've added you as a sysop. I have a new project at work which is keeping me busy and preventing me from doing much work on the wiki, at least for the next week or so. Considering your knowledge and contributions, it just made sense that you shouldn't have to wait around for me if something needs to be done. Hopefully this status change, is acceptable, I probably should have asked first - but it's easy to change. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 08:42, 30 August 2006 (MST)
:No, that's fine. Thanks. On larger wikis (especially the large Wikimedia ones) I tend to resist becoming an admin (in fact, I'm only an admin on one other, low-traffic, non-Wikimedia wiki) because I don't really want the additional responsibility that comes with the additional power(s). But this wiki is still pretty low-key (i.e., no disputes, vandalism, etc., to speak of), so it should be okay.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:31, 30 August 2006 (MST)

==Interwiki comments==
You wrote, on my [[User_talk:Sans_Deity|talk]] page (sorry for the cross-page discussion, this was just the quickest way to get a response out before I head to work):
{{quote|Please compare these links to the default links listed on the talk page and modify/remove from this list." I'd like to respectfully object for the following reasons: Each wiki is free to use their own list of interwiki links and I've never liked some of the choices made by other sites (/ MediaWiki maintainers), especially metawikipedia — a perfectly horrible choice, if you ask me. In the list I started I was trying to use "logical", "obvious" prefixes. Maybe I misunderstood your note, but it sounds like you're preferring to stick to the default choices listed on the talk page.}}
For clarification (and I'll try to get some work done on this later today), the list that appears there is the default list which exists in the database when the wiki is installed. As it turns out, the interwiki function has always been enabled for each of the sites in that list. I'll probably delete some of the ones on that list, but here's what I think needs to be done, at a minimum:
<div style="text-decoration:line-through">
* The main [[Project:Interwiki map]] page should:
** Describe the interwiki function and include a table of available/most common/recommended shortcuts
** Include a link to the "full map" [[Project:Interwiki map (full)]] (which may be smaller than the current list, as some defaults should be removed)
* A new page, perhaps [[Project:Interwiki map (requests)]] should be created and, essentially, take the purpose and content of the current [[Project:Interwiki map]] page (a place to request new links - and a place to note those that should be removed)
* For each of the current recommended/suggested sites:
** If it already exists on the default table, that needs to be noted and:
*** We need to decide whether or not it's "ok as is" or whether it needs to have a different shortcut
** If it doesn't exist, it should live on the [[Project:Interwiki map (requests)]] page until added
</div>
::: All of this has been set up, though changes may need to be made - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 11:24, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
That's what I was thinking, in a nutshell. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:30, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

== Latin or English nomenclature ==

A while back, there was [[Talk:Argumentum ad baculum]] a bit of a discussion, and it was decided that logical fallacies should be kept under their formal (usually Latin) name, and that English synonyms should be redirects to the Latin page.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to changing the rule, but I'd like for there to be consistency.
--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 14:08, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:Consistency was the goal. In some cases, it may be argued that the formal name is the more popular version. In some sense, it doesn't make any difference where the article lives as the redirects essentially make them equivalent. The only place where this becomes truly problematic is when we're looking at a page on logical fallacies that links to all of them, or the appropriate category page. On an article page, I think I'd actually prefer a list that links to the formal name and includes the common name in parentheses, for clarity. The category page seems to be the only sticking point. I'm wondering if a redirect page could also have the category link - so that the category page has a link to both articles, even though one simply redirects to the other? -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:: Putting redirects in categories seems like the best solution, IMHO, if it works. Kind of like an index that lists synonyms of a concept. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:: Yup, it works. I guess I should start categorizing redirects, unless someone can whip up a bot to do that. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:32, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

::: I think we can go with manual categorizing, since there should only be a small number of cases where it's necessary. Follow-ups on this topic should perhaps be dealt with on [[Project talk:Categorization]]? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 20:36, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:::: I'm a big fan of automation. Perhaps in an ideal world there'd be a magic template for redirects, call it <nowiki>{{Synonym}}</nowiki>, that means, "fix the categories for this redirect to be the same as whatever it points to". But you're correct that at least for now, there are few enough cases that they can be maintained manually.
:::: This is slightly nontrivial in that we don't want all redirects to appear in the category listings: as discussed above, it'd be good for both "[[Petitio principii]]" and "[[Begging the question]]" to appear in a category listing, but we don't want to do that with, say, "[[God]]", "[[Deity]]", and "[[Deities]]". (I guess this is a lot of words to say that we're basically in agreement.) --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:44, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

== Question about categories ==

I noticed that you put [[Religion]] in <nowiki>[[Category:Religion|*]]</nowiki>.
As I understand it,adding a pipe and a sort string tells MediaWiki to alphabetize according to the sort string. So adding <tt>|*</tt> tells it to put [[Religion]] in the "*" tab of the index.
Is that what you intended to do? If so, why put it under "*" instead of leaving it under "R"?
--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 15:40, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

== Hares Chew Cud ==

Should i just manualy format the referances? or just wait for a <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag to be implimented? {{unsigned|Narmical}}
: Replied on [[User talk:Narmical|your talk page]]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:11, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
::Well i have a version saved on my computer that doesnt use the template, so no biggie [[User:Narmical|Narmical]] 08:20, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

== Denis's introduction ==

Thanks for adding the latest [[The Non-Prophets]] introduction. Ironically enough, though, this was the first one that Denis mailed me. I was going to copy and paste it in, when I saw that you'd already transcribed it. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 22:08, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

== Failed template ==

Yeah, it was a pretty lame attempt. I was trying to get a template merge, finally I just grabbed the template for wikify from this wiki and called it a day. No real need to be fancy, just wanted something to say that [[Jesus fulfilled prophecy]] is pretty much a dupe of [[Messianic prophecy]], and was feeling adventurous in the realm of cargo cult programming. If you notice when I trashed the template for ambox I used 'fail' as the summary. Although, actually the wikify and merge templates probably share like 95% of the same info and could be rereferenced to an box template (which would help if those templates needed a change). [[User:Tatarize|Tatarize]] 04:19, 20 November 2007 (CST)

== Section header. ==

Okay, I'll work on that. Just seems a shame to have a big fancy header to quickly not something of interests to apologetics or the like. I'll stick with the format better. [[User:Tatarize|Tatarize]] 15:38, 28 November 2007 (CST)

== Oops Sorry ==

Thanks Dcljr, in my rush to contribute I didn't read all the help guides (sorry). --[[User:TheRedFerret|TheRedFerret]] 12:28, 4 September 2008 (CDT)

== Signing Comments ==

I'll try to remember, thanks! [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 13:13, 2 December 2008 (CST)

== Translating to portuguese ==

Hi. I don't know the correct way to ask it. I would like to start the translation of this wiki to my mother tongue: portuguese. I noticed that there's no translations to any languages here. What should I do to start? Can you help me with this?

[[User:BrightMan|BrightMan]] 09:45, 21 April 2009 (CDT)

User:BrightMan

2009-04-21T14:31:18Z

BrightMan: based on User:Dcljr