Here he adds the Christ myth theory into the top (second paragraph, 4th full sentence) of the lead of Historical Jesus. I think this is pretty clear. My point is that pushing this POV as aggressively as he's been doing is disruptive to the encyclopedia. It is a recognized fringe POV. Griswaldo ( talk) 11:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 8 will be on Saturday 24 July. As you may have seen. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews ( talk) 20:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I happened to notice that you took on my problem child, Infinite-loop motif. Good of you to do that, and I completely understand your motivation. In fact, I have been contemplating writing an academic paper on the subject which would provide at least one reference for it, which would be, paper and WP article, an excellent example of the concept itself. In any case, I am somewhat troubled by its deletion by moving to your user space. The problem is this: that article was intertwined into at least a dozen other articles in such a way that the references cannot easily be redone, and more, it has references all over the WWW. The proper deletion of the article is actually a monumental task, and I do not know how to estimate the effect of its precipitous deletion. Not sure what to do about this.-- Jarhed ( talk) 09:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Cyclopia, thank you very much for your comments and input, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. You make a very good point that the "region" includes millions of persons, and the subject matter has been significantly covered in WP:RS sources. It is indeed confusing and seems poking at double-standards that some other users seem to be splitting hairs here in an attempt to get this article removed from Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 03:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Discuss. [1] Noloop ( talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Because of a recent unblock request posted on AN/I I noticed this User talk:Eugeneacurry. He has addressed the source concern directly. Hope that helps. I do think it was Bill who provided the other more extensive list. Griswaldo ( talk) 22:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
[3] Noloop ( talk) 18:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
We simply disagree on the definition of "fringe theory." You equate it with being in the minority. I believe the concept of being discredited is essential. We don't agree. That's why we need a mediator. Noloop ( talk) 19:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You recently reverted one of my edits. Could you go to the talkpage and state your reason for disagreeing(or just state it hear). My point being that the interpretation of the scientific method by biblical scholars is irrelevant and that it should be removed until the interpretation by scientists can replace it. Wikiposter0123 ( talk) 21:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by
MediationBot, an automated bot account
operated by the
Mediation Committee to perform case management.)
Yes, Cyclopia, I studied Politics and Philosophy at undergraduate level (focusing on philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, and predicate calculus) receiving a BA at one of the top British universities, was a social worker for a while, then studied Economics and and Business Studies as a post-grad, worked in business for a few years, then lived in a Religious Order as a novice for two years (where I studies theology & scripture), left and studied for an MSc in Information Technology, and worked as an IT professional for over a decade. I have been working on a research PhD in social science (LGBT studies, queer theory, social anthropology and gender studies) for the past seven years (currently working on post-viva revisions). I no longer adhere to any organised religion, as I have lost faith in the church and am not prepared to surrender reason to dogma; if there is a deity, I would expect him/her to be more rational than human beings, not less; much of what passes as religion relies on a suspension of reason. - MishMich - Talk - 22:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Cyclopia, I would like to apologize for my attitude during some of our discussions. We clearly don't agree about several things, which isn't going to change, but in retrospect I wish I had comported myself in a calmer more measured way at times. I am going to make a concerted effort to take a different attitude into my discussions about these and other topics from now on. I just wanted to let you know. I also appreciate your recent comments on the Historicity of Jesus page, even though again I know we don't agree on the details. I appreciate the comments because they show to me that you are actively engaging new materials instead of simply entrenching yourself in a position. That is admirable. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 17:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Rushing to switch off, storms overhead and no time to copy and paste the draft. Cheers Nishidani ( talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You really need to cure yourself of the habit of reverting edits with the comment "don't edit war." Figure it out. Noloop ( talk) 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo doesn't like it when I contradict him on his talk page, so I'll just point out to you here when he said to you "Are Wikipedians "Khmer rouge in nappies", I'd claim he took out of context what's clearly intended as sardonic characterization of certain common Wikipedian attitudes. The full context of the basic point seems correct: "For most web surfers, the Wikipedia is simply an occasionally useful online resource that needs to be taken with a huge sackful of salt. For others, it's a poor excuse for a real encylopedia. But for its proponents, it's nothing short of revolutionary! It's Emergent[*], you see.". He (and others) might not like that hyperbolic derision - but it's funny because it's (at heart) true. Oh, the "Do we have black helicopters circling in Utah" charge is similarly distorting a very long article about what was not Wikipedia's finest moment. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 22:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
On 12 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Metadynamics, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Courcelles 18:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, wondering if you would like to help fix a rather grave misrepresentation in it:Sex crimes and the Vatican. Fr Doyle is cited as having written "benché abbia lavorato come consulente per i produttori del documentario, temo proprio che alcune distinzioni che ho fatto a proposito del documento del 1962 siano andate perdute. Non credo né ho mai creduto che quel documento sia la prova di un complotto esplicito, nel senso convenzionale, orchestrato dai più alti responsabili del Vaticano per tenere nascosti casi di abusi sessuali perpetrati dal clero".
That is only half of the truth - the half that fits the cover up artists in the catholic church very well.
What he really wrote is here and in the sake of a more balanced representation I think it would be good to quote a bit more from his letter such as "The secrecy and cover-up was very much a part of the Catholic institutional culture and was, in fact, a policy. I have studied the files of hundreds of clergy sex abuse cases throughout the U.S., in Canada, Ireland and the British Isles....files produced by dioceses and religious orders.....and I can assure you that the common thread was an intentional cover-up enshrouded in secrecy. That is the way it was."
My Italian is not quite good enough that I would do it myself. Thanks Richiez ( talk) 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you tell me if i interpreted this [4] correctly on the page Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors? Worromp Warg ( talk) 10:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
on the new job. We've had our disagreements in the past, but now you're a spokesman I shall treat you with the proper deference! pablo 21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
well i was tryng to put it in archive 65 and guess what! i did it! =P -- Sistemx ( talk) 17:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear User,
You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at Talk:The_Mousetrap. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Proposal.
Many Thanks
Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I have listed List of years in politics, the PROD tag of which you had recently removed, in articles for deletion. You may find the deletion debate page here. FYI. Geeteshgadkari ( talk) 14:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Please permit me to explain my edits to WP:No Moral Code. First, it cannot be both a failed proposal and an information page, because the two are contradictory. The page does not have consensus, so it's not an information page. Second, pages are not added manually to the category for Wikipedia essays. Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 14:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.
The operative page is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus ( talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Please do not move my comments around from where I have put them in the context of where they belong. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI: Interesting (ongoing) AfD debate about the article " Archimedes, Inc." (article’s lead supporter was permanently blocked mid-debate with charges of paid editing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.70.111 ( talk) 18:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Manifesto benedict xvi.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke h2231 en.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke Omrid.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke h6866-h7289.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke moonlanding prediction LARGE.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)