User talk:Dzzl/archive911000

SPUI leaving

I agree that it sucks ass that he's going to leave. We do need people around here to push the envelope, just to keep these guys honest if for no other reason. I'm trying to convince him to stay. We shall see. --Analogdemon (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

crack

Assocation of Anarchist Wikipedians

I was just trying to keep it clean and to the point. A lot of people apparently confused anarchism with nihilism and thought it was an Association of People Who Want Their Association Vandalized. I don't care if people joke around on there (especially if they do it on the talk page), but it helps if they do so in anarchist fashion rather than a chaotic one. Sarge Baldy 04:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

omg (and I never use omg, seriously) what an idea. m:Association of People Who Want Their Association Vandalized. skizzno^logic3.1 05:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. It'll have to last longer than my new Best of Wikipedia vandalism. Sarge Baldy 06:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool head

Your edits to several pages linking this phrase to a nonexistent article violate WP:POINT. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia in this way. Persistent violations can lead to administrative intervention. Durova 23:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also on user talk:Durova:

ok, one assumes that disruption itself is not helpful, generally

you'r illustrating a point if you insist on reversion of such a narrow swath of edits. is it when you found out that my edits could be promotional in nature (if people bother to look at the backlinkz), that you figured that my behavior consisted in illustrating some point? look- I don't imagine there's a justification for my edits (the ones in question here) but I don't know if you have quite articulated how or what some policy has been violated. of course, I don't necessarily assume that you need a policy to back you up on such reversions but it couldn't hurt your case. regardz, skizzno^logic3.1 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

skizzno^logic3.1 23:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use the fork, Luke.

I'm just curious... the article on this painting states that the diciple to the right is considered to be Luke. I can't seem to track the source of that assumption?

The diciple is wearing a scallop on his cape, which is usually an attribute of Saint James the Great, or Santiago as he is called in Spain. Pilgrims on their way to Santiago de Compostela and Saint James' relics wear a scallop as a religious symbol of their pilgrimage. Which is why I'd have guessed it was Saint James, rather than Luke. I did a little research reading of the actual Bible passage, and the second diciple is never named as far as I could trace - only Cleophas is.

Anyway, this made me really curious, so I'd much appreciate it if anyone could point out to me what precisely it is that makes him Luke - or alternatively refer me to the source where this assumption came from. ;) ---Ennaj 04:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]