User talk:Rossnixon/Archive 2

Archive 1 (May 2005 - Sep 2006)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, care to comment?

Would you care to comment on my suggested mass revision to the Creation Science page? The revision is on the Talk:Creation science/Phantym rewrite proposal page and is discussed on the Talk:Creation science/Phantym rewrite proposal/talk page.

Phantym 21:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing

This is the fifth time you've deleted my comments on your talk page. You can do that all you want on your user page, but not on your talk page.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --brian0918  2 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

Ross: I believe that Brian's use of Template:Test4 on this page is inappropriate. That said, it would do no harm to leave such text on your talk page. In my opinion, it reflects more on him than it does on you. And, while I am here, I think that you should engage in discussion at Talk:Dinosaur before making YEC-related edits. Indeed, it is a good plan to discuss such changes anywhere that you plan to introduce them. Many creationists have engaged in abusive POV-pushing at this encyclopedia and there is a widespread suspension of WP:AGF about the subject. I do not condone this prejudice among other editors, but the way to accommodate is to propose your changes on the talk page and argue the case for them there. It is not possible to hold useful discussions through edit summaries.—Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Ross: Upon further reflection, I feel that I should also say that I think that your characterisation of evolution as pseudoscience was inappropriate and that I think that you should apologise to Brian for that original act and for the subsequent blanking of his (admittedly clumsy) attempts to communicate with you. I think it is important that such an apology should be unconditional if it is to appear genuine.—Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)

Ross: I admire the promptness with which you apologised and the complete absence of self-justification. I wish that more people could apologise so honourably.—Theo (Talk) 3 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Ross: Your page here, as well as your earlier attempt at allowing the YEC "position" interpreting the NYT+ articles concerning the T.Rex "soft tissues" I believe allowed me to assume you to be a YEC. If not (on re-reading your post to me, I afraid I've noted that you actually don't deny the fact), I'll take you at your word. I will be leaving the article as it stands until I feel up to doing the big work (who knows when or if?), since your link so far checks out as legit.

 I still have, shall I say, suspicions about the value of your contributions to the "dinosaur" article. The new "Nature" link is clearly about an unusually detailed case of fossilization, and therefore a completely different (and undebated) matter from the TRex article at question; an article which many, many creationists have, frankly, used as fodder for lies (sometimes merely wishful but often enough wanton.) I have not reverted your change since the fact of "soft tissue" fossils is fairly old hat, and without controversy, UNTIL some idiot (no reference to yourself, as I've not read you claimimg this at all) starts interpreting "soft" to mean "fresh," or at least "unfossilized."
 
 I began work on Wiki with this article in looking up basics with my son, who shares with me a great fascination with fossils and dinsaurs, and found that what may possibly be an interesting discovery was being used to, no way to mince words here, lie by those with no interest in science or dinosaurs at all.  
 Please follow the real intention of Wiki rules in NPOV, rather than tossing them at my feet.  If I re-worked your articles in similar ways, I feel sure your umbrage would be impressive in its bombasticism.  TheCryingofLot49 23:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Creation science

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I'd say that was slightly iffy, but certainly in no way truly vandalism. What is far more worrying is why didn't you sign your name? Although I'll assume you were the person who "reverted" it. Hmm.. taken a look now at the "revert", that is very.... sneaky. Something I'd say is undoubtedly far worse what you did. As such I think I should consider reverting it myself. Better check some stuff first. Mathmo 17:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You better check, Mathmo. That edit was from July last year! And I always sign. ^ross ^nixon 22:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Death

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Listen, I get it. You have opinions and you like sticking them into articles. The problem is that at Wikipedia, POV is not allowed. Read WP:NPOV and stop injecting crap into articles. Shouldn't you be out protesting at abortion clinics? What good is your work here? You're wasting everyone's time, especially your own. --brian0918  13:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Creationist cosmologies

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Stop purposely adding content that is not only contrary to discussion (discussion that you have not participated in) but factually incorrect. -- BRIAN0918 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop leaving misleading edit summaries. You called your change of "pseudoscientific" to "scientific" a "typo fix", twice. -- BRIAN0918 23:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! You are partly correct Brian. I removed a misspelt word "psuedoscientific; then changed the remaining weasel word.RossNixon 23:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

(removed personal attack -- BRIAN0918 23:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC))

Thankyou Ross for all that you are doing. God bless you. Andycjp 14th August 2005

Your anti-intellectual assualt on reality is not welcome here. Aaarrrggh 19:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You wrote, in execrable English (it's for its) and apparently saying the opposite of what you meant (by having omitted "discussion" before "page"): "Cause of death in the United States - how about intentional instead of deliberate. Further discussion of Abortion should kept for it's page." OK - I agree to "intentional" but you are lumping knitting-needle quickies and medically sanctioned or performed acts where full term would have led to a healthy child and a live mother together with cases - subject to possible error, of course, where the baby obviously would not have survived, or would have survived as a creature unable to function as a human, but confined to life support systems, and cases where the mother was likely to die. These issues are complex and understanding them is not assisted by assuming that all or most abortions are "intentional deaths" with the implication, still, despite the change from "deliberate" to "intentional" that the abortions occurred because a mother or mother to be, wed or unwed, simply did not want a child or one more child. Pdn 05:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi Rossnixon, could you please stick to descriptive edit summaries, especially when editing contentious articles? Your link to [1] had nothing to do with your edit (and, by the way, the article is nonsense and the author is a total kook who misunderstands even high school science). Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 13:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In support of the fact that the cited article [2] is nonsense (or gibberish) I might counter just one little misunderstanding there - the author says: "A looked-for diffraction pattern did not appear. " which is incorrect. The pattern appeared but did not shift as the Earth rotated - a significant result, even if a null one. See: [3] for example. I am afraid that Eric Weisstein's "World of Physics" gets this one wrong, too, but I have never got him to fix anything. It just shows that there is a lot of nonsense out there, and apparently Stephan Schulz and I have identified a chap who is good at locating but failing to identify pseudoscientific nonsense. (guess who) Pdn 00:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If you only look at the article itself, you are missing most of the goodies. Check the home page and then Energy Misdefined, where he gives undeniable, mathematical proof that kinetic energy is not (1/2)mv², but rather what we know as impulse. --Stephan Schulz 00:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To see just one side of the absurdity of Mr. Novak's idea about energy, note that momentum is a vector - it has a direction - that of the velocity, while energy is a scalar - a simple quantity without direction. He confuses the two - so his "energy" has a direction to it - what do you do if it is thermal energy, or stored energy in a battery? Pdn 05:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Mr. Novak is about as cranky as the come. You might check out [4] for more gems to share with us, Mr. Nixon. Yes, pseudoscience isn't confined to creationists. No one ever said that it was. Joshuaschroeder 04:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism at New Zealand

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.-gadfium 09:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

External links

I am grateful for you being involved in the Jesus article but I have one note about external links. It was suggested that 15 links was prime for a FA in the peer review, now I don't think I'm going to get it there becasue no one wants to change the article but I would like to improve the article. I was wondering if you had any suggestions on which links to remove, its difficult, but only so many are not duplicate information to whats in the article(which is the point of external links other wise they should be referenced). If you have time could you provide some suggestions, no one has commented on which links to remove yet, on the peer reveiw or the talk page. Thanks and sorry for rambling. Newbie222 01:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[5] Newbie222 01:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

It looks like you've stirred up quite a fuss here on Wikipedia. Your cause is all but illegitimate, but I encourage you to use a lot more tact, especially if you plan on sticking around for awhile longer. I would encourage you to read The Art of War before you continue any further. It's good to know there's others out there who share one's convictions, but if we are to be listened to, we must do so in a much more strategic manner. MedCorpman 17:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Ross --JimWae 09:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Love your edit summary!

Your edit summary here [6] is priceless. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - although I assume you thought I was being facetious. RossNixon 09:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I thought you were being serious, were you being facetious? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Best Wishes

Oh, that was brilliantly witty! Thanks, I needed a dose of humor. And I appreciate the core message also - Best Wishes to you as well! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fact/theory and Charles Darwin

Hi Rossnixon, if you haven't done so yet please read:

It is impossible to directly observe natural selection (how could this happen??), what we observe is organisms adapting to their environment (which is evolution, not natural selection). Regards, Mikkerpikker 12:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have read those links. But most people understand the normal dictionary meaning of the word fact, meaning that the statement is a proven truth - not Gould's twisted definition. RossNixon 00:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure Gould's definition is "twisted", it reflects scientific and philosophical usage. The (technically) correct term for the sense in which you're using 'fact' is "doubtful proposition" but be that as it may, evolution in the descriptive sense is a "proven fact". Not proven "beyond all doubt" certainly (but, then, nothing except Descartes' 'cogito ergo sum' is beyond ALL doubt) but we're about as certain about evolution in the descriptive sense as we are about the earth being (approximately) spherical or the sky being blue. (we're not absolutely certain about those either...) Mikkerpikker 21:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I can put you right on one thing. The sky is a mixture of blue and violet. It's just that our eyes see the blue better. RossNixon 06:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Baumgardner for example

Looks like you found one (1) "geophysicist" to proffer, but he has no publications I can find other than in the house organ "International Conferences on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA, July 18-23, 1994:" and even that is a conference proceeding that is probably not refereed. But the passage (which I shall revert again) referred to "geologists" in the plural. I am looking for two geologists that you seem to think exist who have published in places like Journal of Geophysical Research, Geology, or Geosphere (both publ by Geological Society of America), one of the journals listed on [7] , Journal of Petroleum Geology, Tellus, the Journal of Metamorphic Geology, Journal of Paleontology, Journal of Petrology, Geophysical Journal International or similar. Carrionluggage 07:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of animals trying to excape the flood. Brand, L.R. and Tang, T., 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin. Geology, vol. 19,pp. 1201–1204. (mentioned here tinyurl.com/d8q22)

RossNixon 11:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

...a little bit disappointed...

Hi Ross. Say, I saw your edit at Murder where you had added Abortion to the "See also" section. I was kind of disappointed to see that you had done that. Listen, I wish there was a better way to say this, but all other considerations aside, to you realize how just-plain-old annoying that is? I kind of have to take it as "I'm bored, so I guess I'll just waste a tiny bit of someone's time". Well, that someone was me, and I was less than pleased. Herostratus 20:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ross, please stop wasting peoples' time with a reversion war. If you read through the Talk page for Murder you will see ample discussion and general agreement that abortion, government sanctioned execution and homicide in the context of warfare are not to be included within the definition of murder for the purposes of the encyclopedia article. The reasoning behind this is explained fairly well. Wikipedia is not the place to post propaganda or polemics and is not even suitable for insinuating subtle messages intended to sway people's convictions. There are ample communication channels available for all of that. It's not a question of whether your views on abortion are right or wrong; rather that Wikipedia is the wrong place to keep pushing them. Myron 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Limitation might be a better word; if you want, you should start a discussion in the talk page. I must warn you though, that from the few days I've hung around the ID page, it seems like ID is more of a battle ground than an actual place of discourse and editing.--Rousseau 03:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the line break might look a little messy in death

But, I feel a bit of a longer discussion about the fetus debate stuff is needed on that page. We could go back to the footnote thing I had set-up before if the look really bothers you. Cheers, Citizen Premier 03:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To be in keeping with the rest of the list, it needs to be a one liner. If we can't get a suitable summary in one line, then make it shorter still and have a footnote. ^ross ^nixon 09:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this real wikipedia policy or just your own aesthetic sensibilities? Because I don't think wikipedia has a prettiness criteria... Citizen Premier 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

legacy

I responded to your comment on the Jesus Talk page. I just want to add two specific comments. First, whether those Christians who were anti-Semitic were true Christians or Christians in name only is a matter for Christians to debate. I think anything done in Christ's name is part of Christ's legacy. The way to achieve NPOV is not to delete negative parts of his legacy, but to add. For example, you can add that some Christians have disavowed anti-Semitic Christians - i.e. add informative content, rather than delete (it would help if you could name a few. I say this not at all because I doubt you, but only because it would add even more informative content). You are concerned about proportion. Well, for Jews Christian anti-Semitism is a very serious and major issue. Yes, this is one point of view. But I think the way to achieve NPOV is not to delete it, but again, to add balancing content. I actually tried to do this myself, stating that many Christians have sought to reconcile with Jews and foster mutual respect. If you want to add to this, for example with specific details, I think that would be great! In short, rather than delete, add. I think the ultimate affect would result in the balance both of us are committed to. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Second Paragraph of Jesus Article

Dear Rossnixon,

I reverted the recent changes you made to the second paragraph. A lot of work and much discussion have gone into this and I'd appreciate the courtesy of a discussion before you erase hours of work and threaten to unleash venom from some editors.

First of all, "tiny" and "fringe" are not very neutral terms, no matter how much you and I might think of it as so.

Second, far more than three people hold these views. Hundreds of works over two hundred years hold this untenable position. It is a small cottage industry on the internet. We need to acknowledge this view, while pointing out that the position is rejected by nearly everyone in the field. By indicating that they are mostly not scholars in this field, we achieve that. If we do not, we will have this fight all over again, even if the current crop go away.

Third, by forcing me to fight a battle with people I agree, you take the time I can invest in helping to make the rest of the article balanced. Since I work in a theological library, that time can be well spent, if you will examine the footnotes on this paragraph alone.

If you disagree with this, please come to the talk page and discuss it. --CTSWyneken 02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ross: We're up to at least five academics, most not historians, who maintain this view. (see the bios on the Jesus talk page) While we're within our rights not to mention it (only one of seven encyclopia articles I've read even talks about the minority view) we're going to see it over and over again, due to its popularity on the web. We blunt some of the edit enthusiasm if we acknowledge it and its status as a minority view. We also can all then set guard over it and not allow changes without any fear of serious grief for our actions. --CTSWyneken 12:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section to the talk page to see if we can get a consensus on what the paragraph should say. If enough of us then are satisfied, we can avoid endless debates with proponents of one view or another, revert with a polite reference to the discussion and be done with it. Everyone is invited to come. --CTSWyneken 14:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I proposed a slightly different last sentence than the one currently proposed. Would you change back your vote if that sentence were used instead (removed the lack of contemporary BS phrasing).Gator (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

bad link removed

Yes, sorry - I was fixing some typos on your talk page (probably not your bad spelling - do not remember - but it is distracting to read misspellings - and they could cause confusion). But even after many tries saving, Wikipedia kept saying that little link was a bad one and I could not save. I tried putting it inside nowiki braces etc but the page was locked until I deleted it. Maybe you might complain to the Wiki authorities if you like the link there - it sure messes up editing the page. And maybe somebody, even I, will have a more material comment to make in a reply to you. I assume others were blocked as well. Carrionluggage 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I've begun a discussion on he Jesus page and have asked if anyone else believes the tag should be removed. Feel free to comment.Gator (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark featured article candidate

Ross

I'd like to put up Noah's Ark as a candidate for featured article. Since you've taken a recent interest in it, I thought you might like to have another look to see if there are any further tweaks you'd like to make to that end. Cheers PiCo 12:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

When Rob is Back

Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we can do this, nothing will come of it except frustration for Rob. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fast One being pulled on Jesus talk

Quorum call. Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Vote (again)

We're approaching a consensus that I think can stick. Please come and vote. --CTSWyneken 14:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please recognize that options 1 & 3 have nearly the same number of votes. While I understand your conviction, and personally agree, I think a vote for option 3 would help us acheive consensus and avoid the use of option 1--which you probably agree violates WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. —Aiden 01:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but haven't decided what to do. Consensus should be 80% but it might be hard to get. (P.S. No need to remind me when new voting is required - I check at least once per day.) ^ross ^nixon 09:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizm :)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User:WAvegetarian. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 14:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love your help.

Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. [8] is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever.

It may be dificult to do a Christian POV without specifying which Christian POV. The Roman Catholics and Mormons probably call themselves Christians and will argue with born-again Christians over the content. ^ross ^nixon 01:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We mean to be interdenominational, but yeah, we're having trouble defining CPOV. So far the only real tension is between fundamentalist Protestant User:Homestarmy and Jehovah's Witness User:Inkybutton. (People tend to use their Wikipedia neames over there). Everyone else seems to get along okay...so far, anyway. Arch O. La ^Grigrory ^Deepdelver 23:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Substantial versus overwhelming

Substantial is not strong enough, nearly all would do. KimvdLinde 02:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

your revert remains unclear to me

"Marcion's influence on Christianity cannot be underestimated." Is there some theological argument that I am missing there - with another editor having also changed (someone else's correction) of understimated to overestimated?

It doesn't seem too complicated a bit of English - which is the only angle I have on that - that in the context of that paragraph it would be very easy to underestimate his importance. Perhaps he should simply be described as "important" (in the limited context of the subject) which would leave out the question of which way is up.

As to the case of god, there is an obvious oddity in having both God and god used in a single article. I favour the lower case, for various general and specific reasons, but I wonder if you'd like to look at it again and see whether it seems consistent in the state you set it to. As for the edit summary - "regularise case" is intended to describe making the case the same throughout, by all means suggest an alternative explanation, but "unexplained" is not a good description. Midgley 04:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, did not mean to revert the Marcion thing, which I have no idea about. As for "god", I just assumed you were being provocative. I will have another look to see if "god" was used correctly anywhere in the article. ^ross ^nixon 10:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

DH

Thanks for sharing that critique of the DH myth... Yes, I call the DH a myth, because it is entirely fabricated from very weak premises, it is unattested, unprovable, entirely conjectural, and based on personal reconstructions that are all guesswork, but after repeating the same lines long enough over and over again without any shred proof, they begin to think they it is suddenly convincing enough to be indisputable... Have you seen the section I put at the top of my talk page where I explain another reason for doubting it? Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I did look at the article briefly once, but decided not to get involved, as I was satisfied that it at least had a paragraph explaining that there was some disagreement... (buried way down deep in there, but at least it was there!)ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof

You recently requested permission to use VP, but after looking over your talk page and contributions I'd like to express a few reservations that I have in adding you to the allowed list. First of all, VP is intended to be used to revert obvious vandalism, and while I do see several reversions in your contribs, the vast majority of them were content disputes rather than vandalism. I also see that you have been involved in several serious content disputes, have participated in edit warring (though not much recently), and have been legitimately accused of vandalism and POV-pushing in the past. While I do appreciate that you've taken it upon yourself to contribute to some very controversial articles (something I wish I had more time to do myself), I fear that your only interest in this tool is the ability to make a point by monitoring your watchlist and immediately reverting any edit you don't like, which clearly is not what VP should be used for. As your edit wars and vandalism were some time ago, I'm certainly not saying that you cannot use the tool, but rather that I would like for you to post a comment on my talk page explaining your intentions with the tool and answering my concerns here, so that I can reach a decision. Thanks. (Feel free to delete this comment after you've read it.) AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I do believe you to be sincere in your intentions, and as such I will add you to the safe list. I just wanted to make clear that the tool is to be used for removing vandalism, and not for edit-warring or any other destructive purpose, which I do believe, based upon the comment you left on my talk page, you understand. As you remarked that you use Firefox, I'd just like to add that the app is dependent upon IE components, and as such you'll need to have Internet Explorer installed (which, thanks to MS fascism, is standard on all Windows machines). Nonetheless, I know that AWB (which uses many of the same components my tool does) had problems with Firefox, and as such Firefox testers are definitely needed. By the way, I'll likely be making a download available within the next couple of hours, and I'll do my best to notify you. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A Download Is Now Available

I just wanted to let you know that a download of VandalProof has recently been made available. AmiDaniel (Talk) 09:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with the update button? AmiDaniel (Talk) 10:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I click it in. Listbox does not fill. I imported the admin Userlist Ok though. I will reset computer and try again (can be flakey at times). I am also logged in both thu Firefox and VandalProof - is that OK? Maybe I'll move my entry on your page up to Installation problems, although it's not the install that has failed, just some aspects of the UI. ^ross ^nixon 10:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing other peoples comment's

You should be aware that many people dislike having other people edit comments from other individuals even when one is correcting minor spelling errors. In any event, talk pages do not need to be polished and so it is a waste of time to correct other individual's trivial spelling errors. JoshuaZ 20:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit of a pedant when it comes to spelling. ^ross ^nixon 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

John Cleese Dump

If I understand your edit comment correctly, this is a suggestion and not yet fact, so I've removed it from the article. If you re-add it, please add a source. It also makes little sense without the derogatory comments by Cleese, so you should add some background material as well.-gadfium 09:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, relative!

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I presume you are the Hillcrest Drive resident with whom I had email correspondence in 2000. My daughter Annabel now lives in that city and is the "voice" of Arena Manawatu. Kia ora! Robin Patterson 22:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken^Talk

Auckland meetup

Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[9]

I am not sure if this was bad faith vandalism or a good-natured joke, but please do not indulge in either. Especially on little-watched pages like 5th millennium BC, such edits are hard to catch, and all you do is create additional strain on the already overworked RCP. In view of the warnings you received above I think it is necessary to remind you that you can and will be blocked from editing for repeated vandalism. dab (ᛏ) 15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my capacity to AGF didn't stretch quite far enough in this case; I agree of course that the Ussher reference is completely at home in the article. regards, dab (ᛏ) 07:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect template

Adding the template doesn't actually semi-protect pages, only Administrators can do that, the template just serves to alert people after somebody has semi-protected :/. Homestarmy 02:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it. :-) Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Historicity of Jesus

I noticed I accidentally removed the whole paragraph (I wrote all this on the talk page too, but wanted to continue dialogue with you so we can reach agreement), which I left untouched, and I apologize for removing this part unnecessarily. I rewrote the passage to leave it without weasel language. I wrote: "Nonetheless, according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, the passage that refers to James "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ" is enough for many scholars to consider Josephus's account authentic." Is that acceptable to you? I'm sorry to be so verbose in my comments, but my editing articles such as this makes me worried about hurting feelings or misrepresenting my intentions or attitude. Harmony is so much better than dischord, yes? Also, please excuse the little edits to my comments here. I tend to be a bit pedantic at times, and the way I write things initially doesn't always sound as I'd like it to sound! :) Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 04:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene as an apostle?

You are incorrect, read variuos versions in various bibles and none stated what you say. Which version are you using?

John 20:8 says Then the other disciple, who went to the tomb first, also went inside,and then he saw and believed.

Other does not translate into "beloved" does it?--Tomtom9041 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC) I used KJV, NKJV and NAB. et al --Tomtom9041 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Italics NKJV--Tomtom9041 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC) AND

John 20:1 state: Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early.

and also

John 20:2 states:Then she ran away and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved...

does this not imply two seperate people?--Tomtom9041 14:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) seems to be open to interpretation doesn't it--Tomtom9041 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Or do they contradict each other?--Tomtom9041 15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Read John 20:2 again. The "other disciple whom Jesus loved" is the "beloved Disciple". I read elsewhere that this disciple is "grammatically male". See also http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/?p=15 which offers James as another possibility. ^ross ^nixon 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Ross, regarding Death, I suggest you read WP:3RR. JoshuaZ 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Polygamists

I am curious why you deleted the category Polygamists from Abraham. Did he not have more than one wife? Is the category inappropriate? Someone has recently created this category and has been very proficient in labeling every LDS possible with the category. I assuem that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)