User talk:ReaverFlash

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Exodus

Hi Reaver. If you're interested in this article, would you like to help me with it? I'm just adding material as I see necessary, but a second mind is always a help. Your pov is also likely to be a useful corrective to my own - left on our own we're each likely to head off into a narrow viewpoint, but together we can balance each other out. (Actually I'm spending far too much time on wiki - I'm supposed to be writing my own stuff, but the excuse tyo fiddle with this is forever leading me astray). PiCo (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't feel I'm trying to exclude you from that article. Everyone has an equal right to edit. I simply felt that the edits were taking the passage further and further away from the reference, so that we were starting to load views onto the author that she never wrote. If you want to change it, if you're not happy, we should discuss. PiCo (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't feel you're excluding me at all. My main concern is that the wording suggests one viewpoint is fringe when it is not. I don't think that the article should take a dictionary excerpt and present it as fact. Flash 15:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but not soon. I think the section on critical views, or whatever it's called, spends far too much time talking about what's wrong with a literal Exodus and far too little lining up various scholarly/religious views. Room for some work there. PiCo (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re

Hi Reaver. If you're interested in this article, would you like to help me with it? I'm just adding material as I see necessary, but a second mind is always a help. Your pov is also likely to be a useful corrective to my own - left on our own we're each likely to head off into a narrow viewpoint, but together we can balance each other out. (Actually I'm spending far too much time on wiki - I'm supposed to be writing my own stuff, but the excuse tyo fiddle with this is forever leading me astray). PiCo (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much time to edit either. What are you writing on? Your writing skills are really good. Flash 02:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing a novel. The agent showed it to a dozen publishers and they all rejected it, so I'm re-writing. It's like playing chess - have to keep a dozen characters in mind at the same time, who knows what when, what they're likely or not likely to do. I can only work in bursts of 15-20 minutes at a time, and being a lazy procrastinator I take any excuse to avoid work. PiCo (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can relate. I could never concentrate on the same work for a long period of time either. Best of luck with your novel. Flash 04:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :). What are you up to yourself? PiCo (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I write 40 page business proposals. Not exactly the best job in the world. I have to stare at a computer most of the day. Flash 04:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, computer-staring is not good for the eyes. I work in the mornings, then go for a walk in the afternoons. Walking clears the mind, and anyway, no decent creative work can be done after 2pm, it's a scientific fact. PiCo (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello. It appears that your signature [1] doesn't meet the requirements outlined in the signature guideline. In part, it specifically states that "signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page." Please update your signature accordingly. Thanks, Huon (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't realize my signature didn't have a link to it. Flash 13:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, ReaverFlash! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Blue Rasberry 14:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Talkback

Hello, ReaverFlash. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jesus.
Message added 14:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Of course you are correct. In the future, be bold and change these things when you see them. Blue Rasberry 14:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Blue Rasberry 14:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

deleting informative content is vandalism. That citation provided infomration relevant to the entire sentence, not just one work you happen to care about. Do not delete it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting massive amounts of content without explanation is vandalism. I provided an explanation in the edit summary: the source does not mention "Messianic prophecies". It doesn't even mention any part of that sentence. Flash 14:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is vandalism. So what? What you did was vandalism too. And so what you provided an explanation - your explanation in no way justified your deletion. The sentence says Jews reject Jesus as Messiah. The citation is a book filled with all sorts of reasons why Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah. Why on earth would anyone delete it? It is a useful source, and directly relevant to the proposition that Jews know that Jesus is not the Messiah. There are manhy reasons why Jews do not believe Jesus is Messiah. This thing about "messianic prophesies" is only one small part of it. That said, of course the book mentions "messianic prophesies." Did you read the book? If you did, you would know this; if you did not, maybe you should read it but you should not delete the citation and thus prevent others from knowing about the book. But even if the book did not mention messianic prophesies, the main point of the sentence is that Jews reject Jesus as messiah, and the main point of the book is that Jews reject Jesus as messiah. So it is perfectly appropriate. You can put anything you want in the "edit summary." You can explain it anyway you want to. But to delete a valid citation of a relevant book is vandalism. Say what you want, the explanation is, you are a vandal. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your mass deletions

Do not mass delete relevant and referenced material as you did here [2]. If you feel it is in the wrong place, that would be a reason to move, not delete. It would also be a reason to discuss, not delete. Noloop (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is on the historical Jesus, not historicity of Jesus.

The more pressing issue is, reverting multiple articles repeatedly without concensus, and characterizing edits you disagree with as vandalism when an edit summary was clearly given, is disruptive. Flash 03:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, which is why relevant referenced opinions by researchers and critical thinkers on the historical Jesus belong in the article. The edit was vandalism because it mass deleted relevant referenced text. The edit summary is irrelevant. If I mass deleted some text that you liked--and gave an edit summary--would you be happy? You are a single-purpose account promoting Christianity. Please show some respect and tolerance for neutrality and other views. Noloop (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)