User talk:PiCo/Archive 3

This 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Please be aware you have violated 3RR on the Jericho page.

If you don't revert your changes, I may report you.

ReaverFlash (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your helpful comments on my talk page.

I think you may be misinterpreting Exodus 6. God says that ""I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them." The last part of that sentence clearly indicates that God is talking about revelaing His name to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc. in the Book of Genesis, and clearly does not mean that God has not previously told Moses His name (since this obviously happened just three chapters previously!) At no point does the Bible say that both Exodus 3 and Exodus 6 are the first time God has revealed His name.

The summary on the Exodus page I took issue with read as follows:

"Moses returns to Egypt, where Yahweh reveals his name to him. ^ There are two separate incidents where Yahweh reveals his name, both described as being for the first time, although characters in Genesis clearly know Yahweh by name"

The first sentence could be changed to read "Moses returns to Egypt, where God again says that His name is Yahweh." The reference is clearly misleading, since there are not two incidents described as being the first time God has revealed His name, and the mention that characters in Genesis knew 'Yahweh' by name is also misleading, since the characters in Genesis knew God but did not know the name 'Yahweh'.

Given all of this, and the lack of impact it adds to the story of Exodus, I suggest deleting the sentence and reference. They are misleading and make it sound like there is a clear contradiction, when there is none.

Please reply on the talk page you used previously, or on my account talk page: ajbrown141 (I have now signed in properly).

Thanks again, AJ Brown

ajbrown141 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2009

My explanation of why I think you are incorrect to remove the material that you removed from the article titled "Comma Johanneum" is on the | Discussion Page. 7Jim7 (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote a paragraph, as you suggested, and it's displayed on the | Discussion Page (click) for the Comma Johanneum article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Jim7 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's (click) the explanation that you requested. It's larger than the original paragraph. 7Jim7 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here (click) I've expressed my suggestions regarding your rewrite in the "Grammar" section of the discussion page for the "Comma Johanneum" article. If during the last 20 minutes you were adding something to that section, I may have interfered with that; I don't know. If I did, sorry. 7Jim7 (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, I know that you write very well and are a journalist. There's a huge "flap" over the article title, "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover." An outside journalist whom I also respect has suggested these titles:

• The Historic Battle for the Southern Baptist Convention
• The Corporate Battle that Redefined the Southern Baptist Convention
• The Southern Baptist Convention Under New Ownership: How a Church Was Won and Lost.
• The 20-Years War For the Southern Baptist Convention

I would appreciate your eval of the above suggestions, and also other thoughts that you may have as to what is both descriptive and stands a chance of acceptance. Quite a few other suggestions have come in to "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" Talk Page. Thanks. I am AFAProf01@AOL.com and Afaprof01 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC).

I changed my "four points" in the "Grammar" section on the discussion page for the "Comma Johanneum" article to the "five things" to make my comments less wordy and easier to understand. Sorry about those "four points." 7Jim7 (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I changed my revision of your paragraph to make it more similar to your original words. 7Jim7 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that you've decided to keep the refutation (the fact that grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns never occurs in the New Testament) of the first explanation (Nolan's and Dabney's and Dr. Hill's) in the "Grammar argument" in the "Comma Johanneum" article. If we're going to go down that road, then what about the refutation (the fact that John uses the neuter phrase "the thing bearing witness" with the neuter noun "Spirit" in verse 5:7, making no effort to acknowledge the personality of the "Spirit" in verse 5:7, which makes illogical the conclusion that John uses the masculine phrase "the ones bearing witness" with the neuter nouns "Spirit" and "water" and "Blood" in verse 5:8 to acknowledge the personality of the "Spirit" in verse 5:8) of the second explanation (Dr. Marshall's)? The "Grammar argument" paragraph already says that Dr. Hill's "irregularity" is not an irregularity at all, given that grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns never occurs in the New Testament. Should this paragraph also mention that there is really no reason to think that John uses the masculine gender in verse 5:8 to acknowledge the personality of the Spirit, given that John does not use the masculine gender to acknowledget the personality of the Spirit in verse 5:7, leaving the third explanation (Dr. Wallace's) as the only reasonable explanation for the masculine gender in verse 5:8? 7Jim7 (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I changed the wording of the narrative in the article so it fits more with what the Bible says. I hope you don't mind.

ReaverFlash (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Decidedly not a word. I think you mean "syncretism". Either way, not applicable to Messianic Judaism. JosiahHenderson (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, no offense was taken at your comment. If you were looking for fun, I'll give you some: find a dictionary that accepts "syncretalism" as a word. JosiahHenderson (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Any clue as to what this editor is trying to do? Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Way too young to die, I'm sorry about your friend, younger than my Mom. No, this guy would have been way older, writing the constitution back in the 1950s or late 1940s. I've started a stub on him, thanks to you. There is an article on Uncle Monty, it could use your expertise. Thanks, Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know how to construe your talk page comment on the subject of idioms? Would you consider expanding your contribution somewhat? --Tenmei (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

You deleted a large amount of text and references from Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus with no discussion and upon their restoration by me reverted me again. Based on Wikipedia policies huge text and reference deletions require prior discussion since the sudden deletions may amount to the loss of valuable content contributed by other editors. I have no choice but to restore the material you deleted.

Furthermore, please do not perform continued reverts, in order to avoid an edit war for that may result in your being blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Grammar Argument section of the Comma Johanneum article, I added some references for Nolan [24] [25] and Dabney [26], but in the process, the references for Marshall [27] and Wallace [28] were duplicated in the reference section, so that the reference section now shows references 24 and 25 for Nolan and reference 26 for Dabney and reference 27 for Marshall and reference 28 for Wallace, but then also (duplicates) reference 29 for Marshall and reference 30 for Wallace. I don’t know how to delete the duplicate references (29 and 30) from the reference section. 7Jim7 (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, I am happy to give you a week's block if that's what you are aiming for, but, as I said on Doug's talkpage, if you're really addicted, what's the point of getting your account banned? You'll just edit anonymously, or create a number of new accounts. If you really need to be banned from editing Wikipedia, you'll need to find a solution on your end: you will need to get a network administrator to either point wikipedia.org to 127.0.0.1, or if you still need to read the wiki, install a net-nanny software that blocks all of *wikipedia.org*action=edit* for you and then password-protect it so you cannot change it back. --dab (𒁳) 12:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

These are just some thoughts, so I'm not sure the article talk page is the best place to put my comments. I hope you don't mind me placing them here.

"Beethoven regarded him as the greatest of his contemporaries, but today he's very obscure. What happened? Some explanation is needed"

First, and most obviously, many, many composers have had their music drop out of circulation after their deaths and have to have their reputations restored by later generations (even Bach is an example of this process). Cherubini is famous for writing operas in the French tradition and French audiences have been more fickle than most. The operas of major figures such as Lully and Rameau had disappeared from the stage by the late 18th century and were only revived in the 20th. In fact, the full revival only really got under way in the 1960s or 70s. Lully and Rameau were revived as part of the early music movement. Cherubini, being Classical rather than Baroque, didn't benefit much from this. Classical opera on the modern stage is almost wholly dominated by the works of Mozart (Gluck's Orfeo and Beethoven's Fidelio are really the only other Classical regulars in opera houses nowadays). So that's another disadvantage. Callas revived Medea but it takes someone of the stature of Callas to sing that role and they aren't ten a penny.

Cherubini stopped writing operas in the early 19th century and became a music professor. In this capacity, thanks to the Memoirs of Berlioz, he has acquired a reputation as a crusty pedant, the enemy of all musical progress, the guy who chased a young Berlioz round a music reading-room screaming at him in a crazy Italian accent because he had come in through the wrong door. What is forgotten is that Berlioz admired much of Cherubini's music.

Other factors: Cherubini's music isn't as immediately appealing as that of some other composers of the time. Much of it can seem quirky, jagged, even awkward on first acquaintance.

Well, those are just a few thoughts. --Folantin (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been reported here at WP:AN3. There could be longer block in your future. If you will accept a voluntary one-month ban from this article, you may be able to avoid consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Per your request on my Talk page, I am willing to block you for one month. If you change your mind, use {{unblock|Your reason here}} to get the attention of administrators. I'll wait for you to confirm here that this is what you want. If you choose to accept this plan, I will then close the 3RR case with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My reason for asking for a block is simply to help me control my Wiki-addiction problem - it's taking up too much time. So yes, please block me for a month. Thanks :) PiCo (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, you have a semi-voluntary block for one month. I am closing the 3RR complaint. When you return, we should probably discuss a topic ban so that problems don't recur. You may use {{unblock|Your reason here}} to ask for unblock. I notice that User:Dbachmann also gave you a voluntary one-week block previously. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Gordon Bennett (artist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JDOG555 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading previous comments of your on the issue of the use of 'myth' based terminologies I was wondering whether you might be interested in the current debate on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_myth#Neutral_point_of_view.3F .

I'd also appreciate thoughts on some facebook groups that I have created on the issue (as listed on my talk page) as I am looking for constructive ways forward.
cheers Gregkaye (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 

Hi PiCo, just thought it might be appropriate to pass my thanks to your son for his valued contribution to the discussion on the usage of "myth".
regards Gregkaye (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I gave my reasons for the edits on Creation according to Genesis. Both in the edit summaries and on the talk page. The only response on the talk page so far has been positive. For you to revert and say "Discuss it on the talk page" when I did and you ignored it borders on dishonest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't look at the talk page to see if I'd discussed it there, but I suggest you be more careful in the future. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time you've reverted my edits without explaining why on the talk page. And the second time you've admonished me for doing so. I gave my reasons on the talk page, and they were accepted by other editors. If you have something to say about it, do it there. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, you asked why this timeline template wasn't in use at List of Classical era composers‎. Whilst I'm not exactly sure of the reason, I guess some editors may object because it's a partial list which could be seen as promoting a particular (non-neutral) point of view. Personally I like it too - and references can be added and other improvements could be made. One of the other composer timelines Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous is being proposed for deletion at the moment as it has raised some objections. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 15‎ if you're interested. Regards, --(RT) (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, I noticed that you were the one who created the Niels Peter article. A while back, both Dr. Jim West and NPL had issues with the article and I was wondering if you were aware of NPL's issues with it. If not, would you like a copy of the email where NPL outlines his issues (he gives 10 points) to look over? It's fairly long to post here, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeriki al-Shimoni (talk • contribs) 04:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just read your reply on my talk page. No worries on your delay, understandable, and I myself, don't always get around to checking Wiki. I forwarded you 3 emails (via wikipedia's email user link) sent by JW and NPL discussing their views on the NPL article. The first two gives you an vague idea of their view of Wikipedia in general and the NPL article (their view of Wiki isn't very positive, so at least you know part of what you are dealing with — JW has gone much deeper in detail about his dislike of Wikipedia, I'm sure he has discussed this somewhere on his blog, too). In the third, NPL outlines several of his objections to the NPL article. Hope this is helpful. — al-Shimoni (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have the time or the inclination for a less religiously (and certainly less confrontational/frustrational) inclined than some you've been frequenting recently, I would like to lure you back to the crabby lady. I'm finally finishing up a section of her literature etc, and plan to request a peer review and if that goes well, try for FA. What do you think? Any help gratefully received? --Slp1 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say that Olivia wouldn't be too keen on what you suggest, but on second thoughts I'm not sure! I can totally relate on the "why do I edit it?" question. I have been sucked into men's, fathers', alimony rights etc in which I have zero (0) personal, family or professional interest. For me, I think it is part of a core need for fairness and for both sides of a story to be told. And of course some of the editors in these areas are more focussed on getting word of "The Truth" out there.

I'm feeling somewhat discouraged since last night I reread the further improvements at the Good Article review [1], and I see that the literary summing up section still needs a lot of work. If you have any suggestions about how best to organize things I would love it, since I am a bit stuck with this. I've asked User:Cailil too. There's a bit more material on this subpage, and I'm sure I can find some more info about the short stories, if that is the way we decide to go, though not sure there's much about the poetry, but I can look.--Slp1 (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am being urged to put Little Len up for FA again. .... and what is this "housewife" bit? I have never been a housewife in my life..... it is something I am hopeless at. Amandajm (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You recently changed the indents toward the bottom of Talk:Creation according to Genesis‎, but I feel that your change was incorrect because it makes the comments look like they were replies to Ben's comment, which they were not. What are your thoughts?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 23:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I just tried to change it and got caught in an edit conflict. No time for any more, have to work. You might like to change it? PiCo (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will say that I know which comments I was responding to – so I will correct at least the indentation of my own comment.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello PiCo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,223 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Azzan Yadin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, PiCo.

Are you satisfied with the changes Johncoz made? Have the article's problems been corrected?

There's no right or wrong answer (though I somewhat hope for an affirmative one). I feel I gave you my word and would be perfectly happy to keep it. Cheers. SamEV (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

---

OK. I'm about to check my watchlist, and will read Goldingay's article later this evening. SamEV (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Had I known it was just four pages I'd have read it that afternoon (Google Books' table of contents for the book ([2]) mislead me into believing it was 26 pages). It's an interesting essay, indeed. Interesting conclusion. It led me to further hours of research, though unrelated to Abraham, which holds out promise. So thank you for that. I agree that there's no harm in discussing the story's stylistics or literary art. SamEV (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday's rewrite by Michael Courtney (talk · contribs) seems to have removed almost all of the useful historical perspective you had built up. Will you be contesting it? Jheald (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've made a reasoned revert myself, because I hope the article will continue to build on input from all informed quarters, including I hope your continued very valuable contribution, in an ongoing properly collegiate editing process. Jheald (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, you clarified one of your recent edits as "So far as I know no-one disputes these two things." However, for many of those who dispute the "Yahweh" vocalization, the first item is frequently part of the heart of their dispute (they claim that the vowels are not from Adonay or Elohîm). Your edit removes the "it is believed that" out of the text saying "[...] it is believed that Jewish scholars used the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim as the vowels for YHWH [...]". While the previous mainly supports the idea of the vowels indeed being substitutes (which is the current scholarly consensus), it leaves enough room not to totally miff the non-Yahweh groups (I think it is almost safe to say that Seeker is part of that group). :P

As for the second item, Theodoret reported in the 5th c AD that the Samaritans called their God Iαβε (Yabe), however some modern Samaritans dispute that "Yabe" is their pronunciation of YHWH, but rather (inline with Jews saying Adonai or haShem) the word they used to avoid pronouncing the name of God, its meaning being "Beautiful [one]" (יפה — Samaritan pronunciation is a bit different from Hebrew). I think that, the DSS scholar, Nehemia Gordon also advocates this stance.

It is partly on these two things that I made the qualifications to the text that you undid (to allow minor acknowledgment for those who do dispute this issue). — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Slightly confused. :) Looking at the history diff you have commented as 'reverting self' (adding back the "As a result [..]" bit) looked ok to me before-hand (either direction on that one is fine). The part I was pointing at was the edits with the 'So far as I know' edit-comment where you removed the phrase "it is believed" and the word "reported" from the text. Hopefully I'm not being too much of a pain. :P — al-Shimoni (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Similar ones on various other articles. I haven't followed up, have you deal with the verification issue I asked about after I deleted the subscription only blog references? Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page about the verification, too lazy to copy over, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! Don't know if you've looked but I'm about half-way through a complete rewrite of this article. I'm having to take a break for a week or so (work, moving house, etc) but intend to return to it then. But there is still plenty to do, and if some other people had some time .... Regards, John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncoz (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How'd you come up with this stuff!!!? Please post P. R. Octol, "Normative Sexual Customs of the Arabs", Journal of British and Imperial Medical Practise, Vol.12/1, pp.174-186, on Talk:Anal_sex or your edit will be removed and you may be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.252.219 (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are still around, could you see my comment on the talk page about the claim that secular historians date it to (whatever). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Being edits by almost certain socks, Reargun's sock account has been confirmed and blocked, I think these IPs are also socks but the Check user declined to comment on the IP first editing, the two IPs are both from the Israeli Embassy in Ottawa and I'll take this to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pico, thanks for being WP:BOLD with the definition. I know it's being challenged, but what else is new? Hope things are going well for you over "there." ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support your definition of Myth. It should be acceptable to both mainstream theologians and cultural historians. I have sent a vandalism warning to Deadtotruth and I see that his immediate response was to send a similar threat to you. --Tediouspedant (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Source and Text Deletion Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Genesis creation myth, you will be blocked from editing. Deadtotruth (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You stated, "If you have a contrary view on either of these points, the proper place to express it is the article talk page." I suggest you do the same. Today you did not do that but deleted my reffed material wholesale without explanation. Nafarrouski (sp?) and EG Michaels have objected to your removal of the Philo material as did I. What do you think the other editors will do if you continue deleting reffed material without justification like you did with Philo? I wasn't the first to warn you concerning Philo so I issued your second warning and in my opinion since you were warned earlier by another editor and failed to even try to explain your actions it was an act of vandalism. By the way I notice that you have been warned by a third editor concerning the importance of the material and yet you persist. Your latest action toward Philo is a 3RR violation and I suggest that you quickly desist from any further direct editing of the Philo articleDeadtotruth (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reported you for Edit warring on the Genesis creation myth page.Deadtotruth (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pico, you deleted refs that included Philip Schaff on the basis that the refs weren't by biblical scholars. Philip Schaff founded the United Bible Societies and edited/authored/produced dozens and scholarly biblical references including the 30+ volume set on the early church fathers as well as an 8 volume set on the history of the christian church and a four volume set on the creeds. Your deletion of Philip Schaff's refs on the basis that he isn't a biblical scholar is nothing more than vandalism. See 08:51, 22 March 2010 PiCo (talk | contribs) (69,263 bytes) (None of these are reliable sources - please stick to biblical scholars.) Deadtotruth (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pico, you stated, "Philip Schaff's dates are 1819 – 1893 - in other words, he lived and died more than a century ago. Scholarship has moved on considerably since then. Schaff is not a notable source because he does not represent contemporary knowledge and thinking - through no fault of his own, of course. Please try to stick to sources published in the last 15 years, as the field has changed radically even since 1980." The quotes I've supplied are from Augustine. There have been no finds of importance for Augustine for decades and none of them would detract from Schaff's volumes but only possibly add to them. Schaff is still considered one of the most important references and most cited for the works of Augustine - it is also currently the best selling reference work for the writings of the Church fathers. I have supplied the best reference available and in fact my copies were printed in the 1990's making it a contemporary work. This is just a veiled attempt by you to own the page and since you have been cautioned by an administrator I would suggest that you cease removing excellent references.Deadtotruth (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Augustine and Schaff read Genesis 1 as meaning creation ex nihilo is neither here nor there - both of them are pre-modern sources, and cannot be used to determine the original meaning of the text. PiCo (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pico, there have not been any changes in the text of Genesis 1 in either Greek or Hebrew since before the time of Schaff. Furthermore Schaff is still in print and is considered a contemporary reference source. Deadtotruth (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I have a lot of respect for the relation of the ancient texts (Babylonian, Sumerian, Ugaritic, Akkadian, Egyptian) to Genesis. I personally believe that this aspect of the Biblical creation myth is under represented in the article. I also believe that the refs presented for these texts are under weight scholastically and that better material is probably available to one of the editors. If you have more material on this, you should add it to the article. Ben Tillman appears to have some fairly interested material on this but hasn't made much headway so far. Deadtotruth (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

re your deletion of 08:39, 7 March 2010: What does the Sumerian serpent-god have to do with the biblical creation story? no relevant refs given.

PiCo - The picture of the Sumerian serpent-god Ningizzida wrapped around the tree, which you deleted, is obviously a reference to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [Gen 2:9 and Gen 2:17] because in Ancient Near Eastern mythology the Serpent is the guardian of this tree. Surely this is relevant to the Ancient Near East context of the text. Relevant references were provided in the form of a link to the Ningizzida article, accompanying text in the article (which you also deleted) - including an academic reference and link to a Wiki article on the scholar of Sumerian theology who has studied this relationship. This text said:

Ningishzida was a Mesopotamian serpent deity associated with the underworld. He was often depicted protectively wrapped around a tree as a guardian. Thorkild Jacobsen interprets his name in Sumerian to mean "lord of the good tree" ^[1]

Can you please revert these changes? --Tediouspedant (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You are edit warring so furiously that you've forgotten which editor you are in conflict with. I added no Philo material. Please discuss this with the correct editor.EGMichaels (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear oh dear! I am going to have to get involved here soon.

Sorry, I think it's been more than two weeks since I dropped by.

Thanks for your note at my page, PiCo.

It's interesting to see you and EGM clashing a little.

I hope I'm not too late to ensure random outsiders don't get dragged in.

Alastair Haines (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello PiCo. Recently you were reported at the edit war noticeboard for your content removal at the Genesis creation myth article. I declined the request because it wasn't a proper reporting of a 3RR violation, but that doesn't mean that I don't see problematic behavior. I don't agree nor disagree with the information you are periodically removing, but the way you are doing it is causing difficulties for other editors. For a number of days you have removed large portions of texts in numerous edits all at once, on almost a daily basis. There doesn't seem to be any consensus supporting these actions. I see that discussion on the talk page is ongoing, and you are participating, which is good. I'm hoping that you won't rip out large chunks of text again without getting approval from other editors through consensus, doing so makes it look like you are attempting to own the article. Thank you. -- Atama頭 22:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Anal sex. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please don't remove sourced content without consensus in discussion. Thank you. Stillwaterising (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Moses. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your copy-editing on this article. I've been trying to bring it to GA class, aside from you excellent prose corrections, what do you think about the overall state of the article? Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey! PiCo, please discuss your issues with the Diary section of Donald Friend you just deleted. It is fully referenced, I have reinstated it. Please consider if you still have a problem with obsessive internet use. Please don't start another edit war. Please consider mediation on this issue.--Design (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mind taking a look? A new editor wants to add a section which I think is UNDUE weight to a couple of nn YECs; he clearly disagrees. I'm trying to talk to him, but his first comment on my actions was that I made a "mess" and his second included that I'm pushing my POV - his phrasing was I put my "non-neutral stamp on this article". In short, although I'm more than willing to be convinced I'm wrong, he appears to have taken an immediate dislike to me and I don't think we're likely to do very well working towards any kind of consensus without a third party. As you took Noah's Ark, the parent article, to FA, it seems appropriate to ask you to weigh in on this, if you have the time. Thanks so much! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

G'day, Darl! Just back from the Old Country, where I been catching up on me young ones. After the first few cold days, the weather was lovely and spring came in most splendidly. I went mad taking photos of blossoming trees. .... My granddaughter is now three. She and I spent a lovely afternoon looking at the misericords in Westminster Abbey and found the Green Man and four monkeys having a party, and a woman spanking someone's bare botty. Now I am about to go round the traps to see what the vandals have been up to! Amandajm (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you won't discuss the reason for your reversions to this article on the talk page? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I duplicated your search Donald+Friend+controversy except I placed his name in quotation marks, and I got several pages of hits about the publication of the diaries and his self-admitted predilection for young boys. An artist's sexuality is certainly a notable fact, and as such merits inclusion in this article. Since you are the one continually deleting the material, I suggest you ask for an arbitrator. I can see no fault in the actions of your fellow editors, and I know how irritating it is to try to work with someone who simply won't listen. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section in the interests of the simple-minded. Enough artistic and theological clap-trap! What is the place like? What do you see when you go there? Basically, what a lot of first-timers actually do when they get into the building is fall on their knees. Then they wander around aimlessly with spacey expressions as if their brains had turned to chocolate blancmange. I never disturb them when they are in this state. It might be dangerous for their metabolism. Russian physicists who have travelled to St Peter's specifically to ascertain whether there really is a God, and Japanese Bankers who want to be inducted into the mysterious symborism of flying skeletons with hour glasses, gold lambs with crosses and 11-foot-tall winged babies carrying seashells are another matter. Amandajm (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ciao! Thanks for your words. Do you think we could propose for the "Did you know that...?" Good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wotchit Peekipoos! I have also done some work on our little friend Donald.... Amandajm (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC) No, seriously.... every time I go to St Peter's ..... that means about 5 times in total... I am beset by serious-minded people with deep and meaningful questions to be answered ranging from "Is there a God?" to "How, actually, do they make that golden throne thing float like that?" and "When St Peter's big toe has worn away, will it really be the end of Civilization, as we know it?" ... and these are the ones who are not drifting around with blancmange in their heads. One, called Betty, nearly had her nose removed by a Swiss Guard armed with a large halberd, all because she wanted to meet His Holiness in person. Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Calm down! How did you get involved with Attilios and his Neuralgia? Why don't you go and look at the Voynich Manuscript? My POV is not very popular around there! Amandajm (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Don issue seems to have been dealt with. Amandajm (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

JNW put it to me that the apparent sexual orientation of Caravaggio's painting had more to do with his patron at the time than what we know about the man himself. However, the obvious eroticism needs to be discussed as a theme, regardless of whether it is linked to the artist or his patron. Amandajm (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have had some huge arguments over Bouguereau or whatever he called himself. One pure-minded American threatened to get on the next plane from New York if I didn't retract my comments. The erotic symbolism is so blatant, but to the innocent fans of his sweet childhood paintings, all is pure. Amandajm (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC) The look of hatred on the face of one of the girls that he frequently used as a model is extraordinary. As far as I know, no one has ever seriously written about this. Amandajm (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing? I have just written an article on Eugene Boudin and another of Seurat, while we have been chatting, on the Simple English Wikipedia page.tubs, of course. Amandajm (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, I appreciate your attempt to respond to my concerns. To be honest, I do not think you fully got the gist of what I meant, or accurately convey Biblical or contemporary normative Judaism. Using what you wrote as a base, I made some changes, but I want to share them with you on your talk page:

I would propose taking this out of the section on religous doctrin and principles of faith, because I do not think this is really "doctrine" 9and "principles of faith" is a little anachronistic applied to this stuff, since principles of faith are all medieval and what you wrote mostly addresses stuff that really predates, by quite a chunk of time, the Middle ages.

So I would just create a new section and call in Monotheism and put it before the paragraph on doctrine and faith. I also made some changes to your text:

The Hebrew Bible takes God's existence for granted. Unlike other ancient Near Eastern gods, the Hebrew God is portrayed as unitary and solitary; consequently, God's principal relationships are with the world, and more specifically, with the people, He created.^[2] Judaism thus begins with an ethical monotheism: the belief that God is one, and concerned with the actions of mankind.^[3] The Hebrew Bible commands the Jewish nation to love and worship only one God; that is, the Jewish nation is to reciprocate God's concern for the world. The substance of Judaism is the body of law that constitute this covenant.

Judaism has seldom if ever been monolithic in ideology.^[4] For example, monotheism was not always followed in practice. The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) records and repeatedly condemns the widespread worship of other gods in ancient Israel.^[5] In the Greco-Roman era, many different interpretations of monotheism existed in Judaism, including the interpretations that gave rise to Christianity.^[6] In modern times, some liberal Jewish movements maintain that the Bible was written by human authors and do not accept the existence of a personified deity active in history.^[7]

I am not going to change the article, out of respect for the work and thought you put into your change. But I ask you to mull this over and if there are any of my sugestions that make sense to you I would leave it to you to make the changes. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, I just read your comment onmy tak page and am confused. I thought you were the person who wrote the new section now in the article. But also, are you commenting on the rewrite I pasted into your talk page, above? Because I rewrote the first paragraph, yet you wrote on my talk page, "it's shallow and written from a rather uninformed mental viewpoint formed by the concepts inherent in Christianity, particularly the assumption that a religion is a set of beliefs" ... now, I would agree with this complaint if you were talking about the version in the article (which I thought you wrote), but in my rewrite, above, I actually went to great pains NOT to do this in the first paragraph (I only rewrote the first paragraph). Do you honestly feel that the original version in the aricle did not present monotheism as a belief, in a Christian framework, and that my version of the first paragraph does? I am genuinely confused because this was my concern with the original first paragraph and my motive for changing it. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I just made some changes to the article. I kept "solitary" because this is important to scholars who compare the Hebrew Bible to other religions at that time. Too many people interpret the Tanakh in comparison to Christianity or Islam, which is anachronistic since these religions developed after the Torah was written. The authors of Genesis 1 and 2 were not reacting to Christiantiy or islam, they were reacting to Egyptian and Babylonian religions where all the drama of their sacred literature involves love and hate among the gods. The consequence of monotheism is that God is alone - except for his creation. You yourself suggested this in your argument about "ethical monotheism." The pagan gods create the world by accident, and do not care about people, they just use people as pawns in their own struggles. God was alone and created the world deliberately, and cares about it. My point is that these things are connected in Israelite religion (what the seraphim and cheruvim are is another discussion, but in the Torah they definitely are not "companions" of God; unlike any other ancient mythology the Bible tells no stories of love or hate between God and any angels. This kind of drama is really proper to Christianity. During the middle ages, elemsnts of this entered into popular or folk Judaism and there are records of Rabbis debating whetheror not such beliefs have a place in Judaism - but all this is much much later.

I have kept it part of the section you created. If you agree with my thought that Monotheism should be a separate section, before the section on doctrine and creed, then by all means go ahead and make it its own little section. I think between what I did and what you did we have a nice little section; I don't think it needs much more. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestions. As to God's side of the agreement ... well, we are still here. Christianity is the only other religion from the days of the Roman empire still practiced. And Judaism is the only one from the ancient Near East that is still practiced. If you wish to credit this as a Jewish accomplishment, I think most observant Jews would say that they got their strength to do this from God ... Slrubenstein | Talk 13:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Would be good... no-one seems to have looked at it seriously yet. Do I want to be hated? Amandajm (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll be hated only by the Boojeroh Fan Club - admittedly quite a large organisation. But I meant you should do it as a serious paper - have you thought about it? PiCo (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you wish to cut these sections. They currently do not add much to the article. But this is because they are very poorly written, not based on good sources. If one things of each movement as a different form that Judaism takes, this can be a very rich section that contributes a lot to the article. it might be shorter, it might be longer, but it would actually mean something. A core idea of Judaism is that the jewish people have a historical mission. Each movement represents a different interpretation of our historical moment (modernity) and thus a differnt interpretation of the mission of the Jewish nation. Each movement is a different "Judaism" and a proper account of the different movements would provide a collage of what Judaism realy is, today.

I really am begging you not to cut this section but rather to rewrite it in this way. I myself do not have the time, but you seem to have the time, and the interest, and I hope you do not mind my sharing this suggestion. I think you are in a position to radically iporve the articel, not by making it shorter but by making it better.

When I was younger I read a book by Gil Rosenthal called Four paths to One God which provided historical and theological information about each movement. The book is written so as not to favor any one movement, so I think it is a great source. Not hte only, but a good source to provide a framework for this section. I beg you to find a copy of the book and read it, and consider rewriting the section as I suggest. If you are willing to do this I will help you. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, frankly I assumed you knew something about the topic; I pesonally find it hard to edit for brevity or style when I know nothing about the topic. even when I do not plan on adding content, I find I need to know what the mainstream and majority and minority and fringe views are, or I won't know what to cut and what to keep and how to phrase things. I also assume that registered users like to do research, all the more on topics on their watchlist. It's not like I was born an expert on this topic; in the last few weeks I purchased two Jewish history books and have been reading them and using the index to focus on topics we have been arguing over on the talk page - I thought this was how people work on articles. But hey, it is your call. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. A delayed thanks for your congrats, and many thanks again for your help and input at various important stages. Collaboration with total strangers is one of the things I enjoy most about this whole project, and I appreciated yours. BTW, did you see that somebody has translated the whole thing into Spanish? You gotta wonder, but it does make one appreciate the way volunteers are willing to buy into the larger goal of making knowledge available to all, even about grouch Manning who must be very little known in the Hispanophone world! --Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow. Thanks for pointing this out - I misread the first sentence and immediately misunderstood the entire article. I thought it said "greatest granddaughter", which was where Peacock came from. It means words such as "greatest." Also, that's why I thought it had synthesis of material. And the weasel words. Sorry, I will promptly correct the tags. And I don't actually think its libelous.
Quinxorin (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile. I, Quinxorin, hereby award PiCo with this barnstar for vast improvements on previous times, especially on conduct with other Wikipedians. -Quinxorin (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Regretfully we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to have been created by you in 2005 with content copied from Caravaggio by Timothy Wilson-Smith (see also [3]), and therefore to constitute a copyright violation. The copyrighted text will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Penitent Magdalene (Caravaggio) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Penitent Magdalene (Caravaggio), in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Penitent Magdalene (Caravaggio) with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Penitent Magdalene (Caravaggio). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Penitent Magdalene (Caravaggio) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In the article Crossing of the Red Sea you still say that Goshen were in the Wadi Tumilat, but that is not at all the consensus. The academic consensus is that Goshen is the region north of the Wadi Tumilat, around modern Faqus (Pa-Kes = Kessan = Kesem). ≡ CUSH ≡ 10:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

An admin giving a stern warning to an editor is not "incivility". Incivility is "personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." My comment to Cush was certainly blunt, but it is not going to "disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict", and it fits none of the examples in "Identifying incivility". The conflict already exists; my aim is to bring it swiftly to an end. There are two options for Cush now: 1. He can behave, in which case he can continue editing (the ideal outcome); 2. He can continue to be incivil, attack other editors and use talk pages as a soapbox, in which case he will be indefinitely blocked. Either way his disruption of the project will be at an end. Fences&Windows 13:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I would prefer to discuss these changes directly with you, as the edits you've made to the intro were not in dispute among the other editors. Not only that, but POV warriors like to chime in on everything there, regardless of how much they know on the topic.

I'll be honest--I have a problem with your editing of the intro paragraph after the changes I made. To say that the etymology of "Israel" is uncertain is very far off base. The word "Israel" comes from an ancient Hebrew text called the Torah, later merged into the Old Testament. There is no debate on this, it's where the word originates from.

You may come across some original research that states this is in dispute, but it's going to be about 1% of the opinions on this. Not only that, but the intro is low quality and is not up to Wiki standards. A good article on Wiki will teach me something I don't know, even if it's a topic I've researched for many years. Instead, this article starts in a way that tells me it's going to be a bunch of useless, irrelevant information. I'm not saying that's ultimately the case, but that's the way this intro appears to me.

I don't want to start an edit war, but I have to remove the part of the intro that says the root of Israel derives from the combination of Yisra-El is improbable. I guarantee you've got at least a 100-to-1 ratio in support of this. If you were at all familiar with biblical Hebrew you'd see how calling it "improbable" is completely unfounded. Any sources that say otherwise are written by individuals who haven't studied Hebrew. Feel free to write me back on my page. Cheers, Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. We should definitely continue the discussion. Only one problem, and this is why I've avoided a page that I could have made a big contribution to. Every time something is posted to the discussion board of that page, a certain individual jumps in and diverts the conversation to a debate on his racist viewpoints and we never get anywhere. But enough of that, let's forget him/her and make this a nice page.

I think we'd cover the most ground if we could go over things via email, if you don't mind. There's clear answers to your questions but if we want to be thorough this would be helpful. My wikipedia email is adamovita (at) gmail (dot) com. Please drop me a line there, and let me know when you've done so. If you're not comfortable with this, we can tackle it here, but I hope you are because it will save us both a lot of time. Cheers, Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I saw your last post to my discussion page and I'll look into that book. I'm very busy right now so this may take a few weeks, but I'm glad we have a dialogue going and I'm looking forward to helping you improve the page. Cheers, Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We have an editor adding OR to this and other articles, maybe also using an IP address. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I kind of burned out on that article over a year ago, partly because I got tired of dealing with people with great enthusiasm for strange ideas, but little real knowledge of Hebrew. I may take a look at it again... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on that. I restored the old summary and put your bit under the heading "Synopsis" Griswaldo would get a little annoyed if I'd left it as was (and he'd probably blame me). Wondering if you could throw in a little about Babel, Sodom and Joseph. Cheers.Where is WikiOpinions? (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do more, Darling, but I am working on my massive cathedrals article and it takes so long to find pics that look reasonable together. I have been doing a lot of cropping of images. I renamed the article Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. I'm trying to include the world, but keep getting stuck at Rome.

Even with Gothic, when I hunt for a good representative exterior from somewhere outside France there are problems. In Spain the buildings are so crowded you never see the whole building. In Germany they have all got 19th century towers, sometimes where they knocked down a perfectly beautiful Baroque tower in order to replace it. One church had Romanesque towers of uneven height and with different spires- they were made to conform! (thank God no-one did that at Chartres or we would have lost one or other of two very architecturally significant spires.) Prague's huge tower is 19th century. Actually that left-hand tower at Canterbury wasn't completed until about 1880 either. It's a clone of the right-hand one. Amandajm (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Armidale. Are you from Armidale, Pico? OK! I suppose I'd better drop the word Anglican in there somewheer. I can't even remember where it is. I spose it's the Anglican Cathedral I have mentioned. It's the more architecturally significant one. That is generally the case, though William Wardell is really not to be sniffed at! I wonder what Blacket would have done, if he had a large block of land and lots of money to build St Andrew's Cathedral. Oh, well! must keep at this! Amandajm (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please keep your opinions off articles. An experienced editor like yourself shouldn't be making flipant remarks like you did to Albus Dumbledore. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What other roles do you believe is not included? Even if the list is incomplete, I don't see how deleting it improves the article. Flash 11:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have previously vandalized pages.. Big deal. But this guy CharlesMartel is misspelling seraph in Hebrew and it's intolerable.. First he spells it with an extra samekh and then he spells it with an extra sin.... how can this be rectified... please help... this is for real and it's really wrong and bothering me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.233.110 (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK have commented on talk page... But I get warned re: personal attacks because I called him a vandal. Which is what he is if you look at all the negative comments about past entries of his. But once you get a login...you are all good... the wikieditors hold you in high esteem...

but...

what if he is a vandal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.233.110 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong tag, you added the one for someone seconding it, you wanted {{subst:proposed deletion|concern= reason for proposed deletion}} - I suspect though it will be de-prodded and have to go to AfD again, but 5 years is a long time so don't assume it will end up with a keep again although it might. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sensible, well-balanced edits. As always. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I decided to take the Exodus discussion straight to your talk page instead of cluttering that section. One of the problems we'll have with all these articles is that there are a lot of interpretations of the data, and most of them have at least some rational basis. (In any academic setting you are bound to find disagreement; alas, strong personalities in our ivory-towered institutions frequently try to marginalize those who don't agree with them.) You quoted Carol Meyers as saying, "This obsession with bible-as-history gets us heading in the wrong direction." Unfortunately, some seem obsessed with bible-as-fantasy. While the strict conservative interpretation of Mosaic authorship of an unaltered Torah may not be correct, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it wasn't made up out of whole cloth around the time of Josiah, either. As I mentioned before, and I hope you'll agree: the concensus opinions of archaeologists and scholars should be the primary ones listed here, but Wikipedia is supposed to be point-of-view neutral. That is not to say that every wacky theory some nutter conceives of should have a place at the table, but when a sizeable minority (in this case, maximalists responding to the minimalists) offer valid viewpoints, they should be represented in a fair, open forum like this. DoctorEric (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice you restored the following phrase to the John Henry Newman article: "Newman was probably a sublimated homosexual.[15] The Oxford Movement contained a significant stream of homoeroticism,[15] and Newman's contemporaries noted his lack of virility and "characteristically feminine nature".[16]"

Although referenced, these statements are opinions. It is not good practice to reference opinions in order to state them as fact, just think of what this would allow if it were: "George Bush is mentally retarded." "Black people are lazy." etc. Nonsense in those cases, but it would not be hard to find external references that say as much. Look over the edit history of this paragraph, and you will see many alternative wordings proposed that are more appropriate. --92.147.30.244 (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added a section to the talk page on this. Also, for the record, I was reverting a previous edit, I am not the same person that deleted the phrases originally (though I do find them problematic, as I explain there). --194.98.58.121 (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to clean up some of his mess, but it doesn't look like it's going to make any difference. Good luck with him; I guess Wikipedia's doomed to have an anti-Catholic, anti-modern bias to its biblical articles. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind coming to a consensus on the bible articles, but the prior state of these articles is unacceptable. Besides having few citations, the citations that do exist come from sources that can hardly be said to represent a "neutral" viewpoint, like Bart Ehrman or Jesus seminar members. The sources I cite are well known and mainstream, and certainly do represent a conservative viewpoint. I strongly disagree that they are a 'fringe' viewpoint, and the prior comments I have seen on the Authors of the Bible page would seem to agree. But then Ehrman/Jesus Seminar/ect views represent a more liberal viewpoint. All I am trying to do is show that there is more widespread opinion than what Ehrman and others with a similar viewpoint hold to.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a good friend who I respect but nonetheless cannot find much common ground with on religious or political matters. According to her, Obama is conservative and Bush is, in her words, a fascist. I suspect that this is because she's so far left(ist) that everyone looks right(ist) to her. In your case, I see the opposite pattern. You claim that an agnostic is atheistic, that fringe beliefs are conservative, that conservative ones are mainstream, and that liberal ones are fringe. In short, I don't think we can trust your ability to find the center. But finding the center is precisely what Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires of us. I find it hard to edit neutrally on topics such as abortion, which I feel so strongly about, but I try to keep my own personal beliefs to myself, or at least calibrate for them. I wish you would do the same. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well-put, with relation to Joshua as well. Jesus Seminar insists on public disclosure of their self-styled "fictive" Jesus anyway, not on verifiable facts about Jesus – like WP does. JJB 20:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you meant on my talk page by "I'll look at the Bible Authors list with you" given that you do nothing but revert the changes that I make. I keep trying to talk to you only to have my views dismissed.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of the books of the Christian Bible has been renominated for deletion. Please go over there and vote for deletion when you get a chance.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"If I can't win, I'm taking the ball home!" Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice. RomanHistorian (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Note the quotes. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, PiCo. I noticed a comment you left somewhere else (long and irrelevant story), and thought you might be interested in this policy. I don't have a strong feeling about this either way, but had been surprised to discover this was a formal policy. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that, although we don't always agree, I do appreciate the level of scholarship and integrity you bring to Biblical studies. Please keep up the good work. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Without bothering to let either of us know, RomanHistorian created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-09-20/Authors_of_the_Bible. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've closed this discussion as "keep" but in the future, please do not remove AFD tags from articles up for deletion until the AFDs are closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well my friend there are different types of people around. Some are artists who paint/sculpt/compose/sing and "do" things. Then there are art critics who do not (and usually can not) paint or sing, but they comment. So asking the art critics to "do" something beyond providing opinions is not going to work, and if they do decide to sing, it is time to run, run run... History2007 (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The other way to look at this is that it takes less training to detect errors and bias than to correct it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shabbat. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JJB 03:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor has complained about your edits on several articles: WP:AN3#User:PiCo reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: ). Though you are well-intentioned, you seem to be getting out ahead of the consensus. Some kind of admin action will be needed if the people involved won't propose a solution. I was going to ask Dougweller to create an RfC on the outstanding issues, but he says he will be busy in real life for a while. I have a few ideas:

1. You could take a voluntary one-month break from this topic area
2. You could agree to open a Request for comment on whatever issue is the most important to you. You would stop editing this group of articles under the RfC reaches a conclusion, OR
3. You would accept a voluntary one-month block, as you did above at #Your_edit_war_at_Chronology_of_the_Bible

Please let me know your answer. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore the above suggestions. If the parties will follow WP:Dispute resolution everything should come out OK. I was getting concerned about the large changes from more than one party. Large changes exceed what can be easily discussed. It is good that there is an RfC now. If wide-scale editing resumes before there is enough discussion, I am afraid the matter may come back to AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to your new question at User talk:EdJohnston#RfC JohnJBulten. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, I realize that I am only on the periphery of these issues, but I feel strongly that you've done a great deal to improve these articles by moving them into the academic mainstream as opposed to reflecting the conservative Protestant view on inerrantism. This is not about religion vs. secularism, but good scholarship vs. bad, so while we've had our disagreements, I can only support you on this issue. What I can't seem to do is follow the ins and outs of this dispute resolution process - to be frank, I'm completely lost - so please let me know where and when I can help. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My statement of support was ironically misdirected; they came after me, instead. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help where and when I can. JBB certainly seems to be a bone picker. Regards John D. Croft (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic History of ancient Israel and Judah. Thank you. JJB 08:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Would you be interested in joining this WikiProject? We are short on editors and it would be nice to have another guy onboard...--Novus Orator 06:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment may amuse you.Apparently, that means you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite has agreed to mediate Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-12/History of ancient Israel and Judah. As a listed party, please indicate whether or not you will join this mediation as an active party at that page. I am informing each of you that if you do not reply there within 48 hours of your next edit, I will interpret that as disinterest in taking an active position in Biblical-authorship articles. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 17:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, I thought that mediation case drifted off into oblivion some time ago, but it seems to have returned. If you're interested in participating, I will follow along and do my part. If not, then not. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, isn't it nice to be appreciated? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, I appreciate your discussing matters more openly this past week, but there are still unaddressed problems from the past, possibly many of them. Since you declined to rebut my presumption of disinterest in these articles above by agreeing to mediation, yet continued to edit them heavily, I have laid down my latest terms at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Closure, at which you might wish to respond. As I say, I will continue to decide my responses, if any, based on what your behavior warrants. JJB 08:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Darling! Why don't you just check out the talk page of Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci? Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder why someone with a bit of credibilty doesn't buy into it! Amandajm (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Terah; Jasonasosa (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The shark still swims! Dylan Flaherty 17:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edits contained some good points, but I've reverted for now, because they also seemed to contain some major problems. For example, what in heaven's name is supposed to be the difference between HWY and HWY, and why couldn't you have included Hebrew letters so that people wouldn't be left guessing? AnonMoos (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but in Semitological transliteration practices, a letter with a dot under it, like ḥ, is really not equivalent to a bolded letter (it's also not equivalent to an underlined letter, which is yet another thing). Don't want to be gratuitously insulting, but while your source may be impeccably reliable (I don't know anything about it), it seems that you don't really have the background to be able to present material from it in a form that will be directly and immediately useful for Wikipedia. I can add a cite to Brown-Driver-Briggs (an old standby, though not up to date; beyond BDB I would have to go in to consult the University library). AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LMAO - how in the hell did you catch that? that was funnier than crap to see persian on the Abraham page!Jasonasosa (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The article Associates for Biblical Research has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication that topic meets WP:ORG. Article is cited solely to topic's website. {{find}} yields no depth of coverage on the topic.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

On the talk:Abraham page... concerning Abraham's birthday, your retort was was good-form my friend! Very good-form. I was pleased to see your assertation on this matter and I agree with you. Jasonasosa (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OMG... you have to come to Talk:Harran! PLEASE! I would love your input!! LMAO Jasonasosa (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you explain this edit (from 2007)? Why did you remove only part of the paragraph, and without an edit summary? Shreevatsa (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's weird! That isn't a subject I know or care about, and I don't remember ever editing (or seeing) that article. Also it looks like an addition of information, not a removal - whoever did it seems to know the subject, which I certainly don't. You might like to show that to Doug Weller, an admin that I have a bit to do with - he might be able to find out what it's about. (If you have the patience to look through my edit history, you'll see that my interests are almost entirely confined to the Old Testament, with a bit of art history and few more exotic items, but not that one). PiCo (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Little later: Now I remember what happened! Yes, I did do that edit. It came up because someone quoted the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the context of some Old Testament article - I think they were saying that a certain passage in some book or other had to be a unity, not composite, because of SW. I had no idea what SW was, so I looked it up, and I think I saw that little passage as in need of some editing - I must have done some on-line research and turned into an instant expert, as is the Wiki-way. All ancient history now - I shall pass that way but once. PiCo (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Little later still: Yes, I did indeed take some material out - I deleted something about how the Indians got there first. In terms of what Sapir and Whorf were doing, the German scholar was the man their work can be traced to - they never read the Indians. PiCo (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. But the article didn't claim anything about Sapir and Whorf tracing their work to the Indian tradition; it only said that the same idea had been discussed in the Indian tradition. For example, in the article on Pythagoras theorem, we mention the Babylonians, Indians and Chinese, even though it's not known that the Greeks got it from any of those sources. So (assuming the original statement in the article was true; I haven't read the works in detail), I don't understand why you think such a removal was justified. (PS: Please leave further replies here so that the conversation can be in one place; I'll notice.) Shreevatsa (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I didn't mean to bother you; I was just asking you in case you knew more on the topic. :-) Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiCo,

I'm glad that you're doing editing work on this article. But one specific set of deletions does concern me. Not because we have any major disagreement on the information, but because I think critical need-to-know info is now missing.

The latest edits to Documentary Hypothesis remove the summary of reasons that scholars believe that the Torah is a composite document. I am concerned, because a few years ago, some Orthodox Jewish, and traditional Chrisitians, made these same types of edits (but for a different reason, i.e. to make it look like the documentary hypothesis is less likely to be correct.)

As of this moment, all that is left of this article are various ideas that the Torah is composite...but without a good summary of the logical reasons why. I think that it is important for us to summarize the logic and textual evidence. If we do not have this, then I can assure that this article will be (mis)used to "prove" that there isn't a serious case to accept that the Torah is composite. Rather, it will (as it has been before) be used to "prove" that the Torah is unitary and (mostly) unchanged since the time of Moses,

The majority of Wikipedia readers have little to no knowledge about this subject. Your averge person really believes that the Torah is, more or less, a unitary document, and many are willing to accept that it was probably written by Moses himself, plus or minus textual errors tha have accumulated over the milennia. In fact, even many agnostics believe this. For many people, the debate is about whether or not God literally inspired prophets to write the Bible, or whether God exists at all. Not about the Torah...which they assume is Mosaic, either way.

Right now this article focuses on the technical details, but lacks the general reasoning for it's very existence. It lacks a good overview of why this topic exists. RK (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I just found this [4] which I was going to ask you about and relates to the above. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. Can't do any serious work just now. I'm in the UK and don't have my own computer. Just going round the traps looking for vandalism. Amandajm (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i invite you to a dicussion. here. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wind setdown? Looks like a lot of OR there. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Seen this one yet? --Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If something directly follows a comment prefixed with n colons, then it should be prefixed with n+1 colons if and only if it's directly in reply to that preceding comment. If not, then not... AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on your latest comment at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah, please indicate at MedCab whether or not you agree to participate in that page's process. If you do not agree to participate in this bilateral resolution within 3 days, I am likely to take other, unilateral steps, which are likely not to reflect well upon your account; so it appears to be in your interests to participate wholeheartedly. JJB 20:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I clarify:

• You have not indicated agreement to participate in MedCab as I requested. Based on your editing schedule, I extend the deadline above and ask you to do so within 2 days from now, at the MedCab page. Participation means good-faith commitment and attempt to reach consensus about my content concerns and about my concerns with your behavior, as more fully laid out at that page.
• My intent above is to give you a good-faith warning about my intents to deal with potential future violations from your account in my judgment, rather than not telling you until my intents are carried out. In particular, based on MedCab results, potential steps available to me are likely to involve greater review of your edits, by myself and others, for content and behavior violations.
• I must also warn you that ambiguous interaction from you, such as your responses elsewhere to the above, is not sufficiently cogent to qualify as agreement to participate.
• Since you perceive my cautious and qualified speech about my own resources (e.g., "likely") as containing "threats", I will be happy to clarify it with an unqualified promise, not founded in my resources but in WP's basic purpose: what I perceive as your policy violations will be dealt with, completely enough to satisfy consensus, one way or another, by one party or another.
• Please agree to participate rather than violate WP:DR by failing to agree. JJB 14:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

was the themes and attitudes 100% , wholly, totally vacuous? what about waugh's attitude to Chokey? i think it was a bit lazy to just jettison every word, and such a rude edit summary. i've been called a cretin recently and now this work 'vacuous' - i think the section was too bloated on reflection,too much taken from the intro to the penguin modern clasics edition, but.. .. still, i think your edit was lazy really, certainly it is not vacuous to discuss waughs attitude to race , and the fashionable taste for jazz, that he didn't share, in the depiction of chokey for eg. no need to reply, just wanted to say that, i always dread messages from people i see as enemies anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

PiCo - I understand that the article is pretty broad and after reading your comments/Talk, you obviously aren't on "a mission" to discredit the Bible or Christians. I mean some people obviously are, but I can tell that you aren't However, to be blunt, I ticks me off to no end when I read Wikipedia pages about books of the Bible or Biblical places/people and the only thing I read is "there is no way that one 'Isaiah' wrote all this" or "there are two 'Daniels' because prophecy is impossible" or "the Exodus as told in the Bible is a myth". I have recently taken an interest in Wikipedia and am doing my little bit to create some order from some of the disjointed, crazy pages out there that are usually just piles of trivia and I want to "help" Bible pages too (because that's what I love) and I don't feel like I can do that because "Christian-centric" edits seem to be blocked at every turn as non-neutral while all the other text of "the Bible is bunk" is allowed free reign... Not directing anything at you - just frustrated. That's why I deleted my "Talk" post - doesn't do anyone any good to be a flamer.

Yes - Wikipedia should be fun - I agree whole-heartedly. I love to feel like when I complete some logical edits and leave a page it is more clear, more interesting, more deep, and more concrete. Keep thinking I should just stick with my sports pages, cartoons, and Christian music and stop giving myself an ulcer about stuff that ultimately doesn't matter. Probably, but...

Anyway, Thanks. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Good words. Thanks again!Ckruschke (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

You are not being useful as an editor in this article. Perhaps a deleteionist, but not editor. It is all too easy to delete, but try replacing what you delete with something else, or at least request others to so if you are unable. I am reverting all your reference deletions not because I disagree, but because it makes it harder to reference the article properly if existing references are no longer there. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Your 'editing' in this article is destructive. Aside from telling others what should be done, you have not contributed anything to the article, and made the editing of others more difficult. Please contribute constructively and not destructively. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm restoring the map. I woudl suggest you bring up in talk the following:

1) Why you claim the map is inappropriate

2) What your idea of the map should be

3) How you suggest one is generated

Cheers KoakhtzvigadMobile (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice edits - made one minor grammatical tweak. One question - technically isn't there a 4th possibility - the one where Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch as the Bible states? Ckruschke (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for the friendly reminder PiCo, but as I recall the only time I breached the convention was as long ago as Christmas Day last year. I soon realised my mistake and, indeed, apologised for my faux pas on 10 January when responding to a query in OLG "Why were the following sections removed?". If I have recommitted, I apologise, but off-hand I can't recall another instance. Thanks for your commendation, by the way. I have also picked up another faux pas of mine (which nobody pulled me up on) which consists in posting very extensive proposed re-writes in the relative talk page. See, for a brutal example, what I have been posting in Juan Diego talk. I now plan to put them in tabs on my user page (tab 1 is a recent proposal for Francis of Assisi).Ridiculus mus (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted a deletion you made from the "Technical analyses" section and referred those interested to the talk page where I wrote a paragraph which ended with my saying I would post a full defence of the deleted text in here. So here goes:-

The text cites four studies of the tilma. You were concerned that one of them ("the UV examination") was not direct and unobstructed by the bullet-proof glass (now plexiglass) shield. In fact, the examination you were probably thinking of is the discredited work of Garza-Valdéz, who took photos under UV light from in front of the plexiglass screen in 1999 (I dealt with this at great length under section 15 of Talk:Our Lady of Guadalupe). As it happens, of the 4 examinations cited in the text, two used UV (the other two clearly had direct access: one being Cabrera who says in terms that he handled it, and the other being Gómez, the art restorer, who touched up part of the paint surface).

Philip Callahan (1979) and José Sol Rosales (1982) both used UV light. Callahan explains in his published account of his examination that it was direct and unobstructed (op. cit., Preface, p. iv), although he was not permitted to touch the tilma or bring his hand or camera within 3 inches of it (ibid., p.6). Rosales (in the interview published in Proceso N° 1333) does not in terms say he had unobstructed access, but he could hardly have reported (as he does) his assurance as to the material of the support (which he viewed through a surgeon's microscope), nor could he have used raking light with any prospect of success (as he did), unless the glass shield had been removed. References to a direct and unobstructed examination of the tilma in 1982 (the year of Rosales' examination) appear in two other sources: one is Proceso N° 1332 which provides the context for Rosales' report and says that Fr. Warnholz (an associate of Mgr. Schulenburg and chief archivist at the basilica's library at the time) "Tuve la suerte (mala o buena) de contemplar de cerca y directamente la imagen original la noche del 4 de noviembre de 1982". I take "de cerca y directamente" to mean direct and unobstructed access. The other source is an unsigned article in L'Osservatore Romano (English edn, 23 January 2002) which includes this:-

At the beginning of the 1980s, certain somewhat disputable interventions were made under the direct responsibility of the basilica's authorities at the time, without the knowledge of the Archbishop of Mexico or of the Holy See. The complete photographic and written documentation of this intervention is kept in the basilica's museum, together with all the samples of material removed. [my emphasis]

This can only be a reference to the examination by Rosales, attended (we must presume) by Warnholz and probably (although nothing turns on it) by Schulenburg. In the result: out of the four examinations cited in the article, three were manifestly direct, and the evidence as to the fourth raises an overwhelming inference that it too was direct. I hope I have set your doubts at rest. Ridiculus mus (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Grovelling apologies for having myself mis-remembered the facts. Callahan did not use UV light. It was Garza-Valdéz who used both IR and UV, but made his claims only by reference to the UV photos. It was therefore unnecessary for me to discuss Callahan. Ridiculus mus (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on that. The seas are much rougher at History of the Papacy than they ever were at OLG. Ridiculus mus (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The following was sent to the 4 people I listed. Looks like my entry has already been deleted and Ret.Prof has added some more drafts...

There is an on-going discussion on Talk:Gospel of Matthew between Ret.Prof and In ictu oculi that you may have been following over the past 2-3 weeks. As it has gotten to somewhat of an impass, I and another editor (PiCo) would like your official input. Please go to the referenced page and scroll down to the thread entitled "This needs other Wikipedia editors", read lead to this section and then scroll down to the two drafts that have been proposed. Thanks much for your help! Ckruschke (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

(xfer'd from Talk:Gospel of Matthew)
NOTE to editor PiCo: Please don't change the indents again. You make it look as if editor Ckruschke responded to editor In ictu oculi, when Ckruschke's response was clearly to Ret.Prof. And I did not respond to Ckruschke, as your indents show. We all responded to editor Ret.Prof, so we are all indented the same amount. You only indent another colon when you respond to the editor directly above your response. Your indents just confuse who responds to whom, so please don't change them again. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  10:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Aye-aye sir! (Do I do right to not indent at all here?)PiCo (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You would do well to give WP:INDENT a quick scan, PiCo. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  10:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• PS. Just as a gentle reminder to an editor who's been around possibly longer than I have.

< grin > You been playin' with me? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  10:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A philosopher has said, "There's lots more to cover." Go forth meaningfully and npovingly. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  11:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So sorry, PiCo. I'm right in the middle of another project, and I'll return as soon as I can. Best to you and yours! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am taking a break from editing this article. My only request is that when the average reader looks up this article, they are able to know what is going on in clear readable prose. It is a hot topic in academic circles, but also a lot of lay people are now interested in finding out if Matthew wrote a Gospel after all. - Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Editing Wiki should be a pleasure, not a battle. Have you told InIctu and asked him to do likewise? PiCo (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Clear readable prose I can do, but the latest scholarship is beyond me - I'm not any kind of scholar, NT or OT or other, I'm a professional writer, I do journalism for a living. PiCo (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not hard, just read Ictu's references and mine and be fair. It is and will be a hot story or Tabor would not be writing about. He likes to sell books and be in the limelight. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, it's probably best to just comment here since the Talk:Gospel of Matthew seems to be constantly being refactored.

• I did offer, when Ret.Prof was simply reverting everything "Will you join me and just walk away and let other editors edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)"
• And I did again offer "So, back to this article, Gospel of Matthew, given that you've got this long history of, shall we say, engagement for the Gospel of the Hebrews and Authentic Gospel of Matthew, perhaps that'd be a reason to be hands off while other editors decide what to do with this chunk of Gospel of the Hebrews that you have inserted into Gospel of Matthew here? Just a suggestion. I'm quite happy to walk far far away and let mainstream editors like PiCo and History2007 get on with a clean up here without obtaining your "consensus". Sound good?In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)"

However I don't think that precludes (a) offering support and comment for mainstream editors on the Talk page. (b) removing my own POV OR and Duplication tags when POV OR and Duplication have been removed, mainly by yourself. It might however preclude (c) the edit I made - after discussion on the Talk page - of your own genealogy/infancy header from Clarke. Which you further reedited and improved. If the Talk page settles down and the refactoring stops I'll answer this there. Thanks again for your improvements.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ictu, honesty and integrity are important. If you say you are going to "walk away" then walk the walk. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

'owyagoinmate? Still hammering away at misconceptions about Leonardo, are we? Well, you think you've got a case1 I started (and tracked dow all the relevant references to) a large article on all the speculations etc about Leonardo- scientific, artistic, personal, so on so on.

Comments go: this is a mish mash of stuff that should all be in other articles! No it isn't- it all relates to speculation (most of it ridiculous) on goin, a new theory every week, and now they are going to exhume his body. So several editors who have never contributed to a Leonardo article bought into it, "no point in it", with someone else making sensible noises about keeping it. Ham (admin) "we have a consensus here", deleted it any way.... I am pissed off! Amandajm (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I pity any foolish mortal who tangles with Mandy on Lenny. Bear in mind, tho, that Wikipedia is the Peoples Voice - if a small majority say the sun is fueled by massive bushfires, then so does Wikipedia. Where is it you're having this problem? PiCo (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Here:

[5]

There is a deletion archive I suppose. Amandajm (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is some discussion...Well, me blowing my stack after the deletion actually, on this page [6] Amandajm (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I know you have a lot of knowledge in the subject matter I would gladly appreciate any help you can provide in improving this article (which I have recently created). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a new one for you! Lots of socking on that and related page, relentless in fact from Vietnam, Yongle the Great. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Pip, there aren't any sources other than what's there. I've searched. And everything has gone awfully quiet on that issue. Nothing new has turned up ever since they had a conference about it. One of the people involved left a message on the talk page before the event, and nothing since. Maybe they have decided that it's probably by Whatsisface dell'ultimo after all! It looks very much like his work. There is no reason to doubt that it is actually 16th century. Amandajm (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, would you be able to improve the Devil article. I left some suggestions an improvement on its talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not buying into that article. I wouldn't dare. I will ignore you. Why don't you go and try tidying up the Sodomy article? The intro is extraordinarily narrow and inaccurate, and if one restates it as a legal term in all it's permutations, one is accused of prejudice. Amandajm (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

{{

Dear friend. You deleted one of the claims without any knowledge about this part of claim. At least read about the scholars that support that part and then if they are not important scholars, then deleted them. Wikipedia is not a place for my claims and yours. here is a place for the documented knowledges from scientist of any part of science. we are just link their documents to this papers. If you have any discussion about this claim, I'm ready to talk with you in discussion page.P. Pajouhesh (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been a long time contributor to articles on the OT and on religion in general. See my user page. I have no interest in Macdonald as such. I put his page on my watchlist because the page was flagged on the LGBT board back in 2008 [7]. Hence my first comment there, which is recorded on the talk page [8]. I have some interest in Montgomery, but knew nothing about Macdonald until I came to the page. I have always only been interested in accuracy. Paul B (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, nice to see that your improvement to G.Matt remains intact. I'd be happy to input on Deuteronomist, though you may know more than me, I am much more interested in Hellenistic era. If you're around today, take a look at Talk:Notzrim and make sure I am being fair to this Messianic Jewish IP from India. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to edit the Hinduism page, that is if you have sources in hand. Thigle (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I had posted questions for you on the discussion page but In ictu oculi successfully obscured them by editing the discussion page in such a way as to make it difficult to find. I am sad to see yet another Editor walk away to leave the anon IPs with few rights to fend for ourselves against this relentless belligerence. His tactics are working very well it seems. For what its worth your input was very welcome. :( 81.103.121.144 (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks again. We now have page protection for 2 weeks, I would like to invite you, Editor2020, John Carter, Ian Thomson, Jayjg (I don't think any other registered editors/admins have been editing?) to consider whether an AfD or merge back to the Nazarene REDIRECT or something else is appropriate. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey PiCo, discussion has started at Talk:Notzrim. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits insisted that the relationship was sexual. Please see my edit to Antinous: Talk with quote from Lambert, whom you don't seem to have read very carefully. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe, as does Lambert, that the relationship was sexual, and I fought rather hard with a fool to include the language which was in the article. In an encyclopedia setting, however, I believe, with Lambert, that the verdict must be the old Scottish one: "Not proven." I think you should revert your latest revert, unless you have a good argument in your favor. If you don't revert. or offer a good argument, within 24 hours, I will revert. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I told you that I agree with you, but that I was erring on the side of caution. You cited Lambert, evidently not noticing that I had. Cite Oxford. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Splendid. Please edit the article accordingly, with my thanks and praise. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Noone is in the slightest doubt that it is meant to represent Leonardo, regardless of who did it. The subject hasn't been questioned by anyone. Good grief! Look at the time! Amandajm (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There was never any reason to think it was Galileo. The picture was on a shelf in a cupboard, almost certainly with another picture directly on top of it, because those scratches are exactly what you get when the hooks on the back of a pic come in contact with the front of another one. Murray Menzies had ths great romantic theory that the eyes were so compelling that someone deliberately scratched the painting. He didn't like my suggestion and informed me huffilly that I had obviously never seen the way that paintings were stored in a galley. Ha! Ha! In my long and varied life I have worked both in a museum, and as a removalist's packer.I know exactly how things are stored.

Anyway, as to the identity, all that it means is that there was a gap in the family memory, and someone at sometime knew it was once of those famous men from Tuscany but had forgotten which one. It happens easily. A friend gave me a turned ivory chess set which she referred to as her "Russian" chess set. It wasn't Russian; it was obviously very English. I couldn't work out why she believed it to be Russian until I realised it was "Georgian" which she had interpreted as "coming from Georgia". Likewise there is a window in a church in Canberra which the guides would inform you with total confidence had come from England and was five hundred years old and was the oldest stained glass in Australia. It was made in the 1400s and commemorated the 1418 War. Since it was obviously a 20th century window, it took me a while to work out that the 1418 war was the 14-18 War, i.e. 1914-1918. It was amazing that the written guide of the church had repeated this bit of nonsense.

Anyway, as for the painting, the reverse inscription on the back clearly indicates that we are meant to believe it is a representation of Leonardo. Amandajm (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Poopsie Darling, you are wrong about the syntax. The comma and the word "and" indicate that the following matter refers back to the subject of the sentence, not the place where it was found. Anyhow, you can have Lenny all to yourself. I'm heading back to bloody Romanesque domestic architecture with which Johnbo is supposed to be assisting but seems to have done a runner. Amandajm (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Romanesque architecture, bottom of page. Busy! ....but I might just stop for a Vegemte sandwich. Amandajm (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you there? Talking about living in caves.... Go over to the page Primate, which has just been the featured article. Take a look at the talk page. I object to the picture that they have chosen to represent the human primate. You'll see why. I put forward a different proposal that really threw them into a flap. Whatever they are, they are not anthopologists! You'll laugh!

Amandajm (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but I was reading the King James Version, and it says giants in Genesis 6:4. But it doesn't matter :)Nashhinton (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

just looked at the Dubrovnik article. It refers to the walls, but no date. I refers to "Renaissance" buildings being damaged in an earthquake, and mentions "Gothic'. There is no mentions whatever of the 11th and 12th centuries. 1225 (or some such) is the earliest date that gets a mention. There may well be plenty of Romanesque buildings, but that part of the town's history is invisible i the article.

I would suspect there may also be villages houses, farm houses etc dating from that period, right across eastern Europe. But they are hard to find reference to.

As for France, I can't believe how totally remiss they are about taking care of old buildings.The house of Nicholas Flamel in Paris was almost derelict, and its not as if late medieval houses are common in Paris. It happens to be the only one that was left standing in the rebuilding! There is a remarkable house with great details around its windows, in Cluny. I haven't used it because the photos are not good, and the sight of that place with windows that have been bricked up, boarded up and covered with plastic over the last century of neglect, makes e feel sick in the stomach.

The French are totally bloody stupid when it comes to taking care of anything that isn't a chateau! They don't have a clue what they've got. I located several Ancient Roman buildings that they had simply lost even though they were in the middle of town. Gawd! Amandajm (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked out Dubrovnik, on a good list of major sites. It's all just a little bit later, with Transitional at an abbey church and everything else Gothic/Renaissance/Baroque. It must be fascinating. Amandajm (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are getting as bad as JNW! I have probably put in every effing reference I could find. If nobody is prepared to actually state what the buildings are like, then I use the building itself as a primary resource. That's obvious! The "characteristics' can be referenced fairly easily. Except that few of the references bother to talk about secualr architecture at all. I've got to drop out shortly as I'm taking two lads to the Harry Potter premier and I need to check my bank balance, not to mention the bus time table.

What to you reckon would suit me best? Emma's fluffy grey one, Helena's black with the boobies showing, Helen red sparkly Armani or Miriam's flowing silk caftan that hid a multitude of....(remember Dita Cobb? "I wear Berlie long-line, Darlings, because it hides a multitude of Meee!" all said in an irresistibly deep and throaty voice...)

Well, Martin wants me to go as Neville Longbottom's grandmother, but I sent the red handbag to St Vinnies and threw the laced up boots in the bin because they went mouldy. I'll have to think about this! Oh, I'm not wearing the boot in this portrait!

Amandajm (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I love you too!

When I had just left my husband I was thinner and lean in the face, and had put a brown rinse in my hair, which went wrong and came out almost black. I could do a really good take on Severus Snape, particularly as I was feeling rather gloomy. M and I were having lunch at the shopping mall when the young woman at the next table overheard me talking to my son and realised that he had the same name as her child. So she said "Go and ask that boy what his name is".

This cute little red-headed foru-year-old trotted over and asked "What's your name?" to which MJD replies "Martin". The little lad looked slightly surpriosed then said with great dignity "Well, my name is not Martin! It's Ronald Weasley!"

We chatted for a few minutes, then I stood up, leaned over the table in the menacing way that Snape does in the second movie and quoted "Mr. Weasley! I'd be very careful if I were you! Someone might think you were up to something!"

Ronald Weasley bolted bak to the table and sat there stuffing chips into his mouth very rapidly. His mother said "What did that lady just say to you, darling?"

To which Ronald replied with absolute conviction, "That's not a lady, Mummy! That's Professor Snape!"

Maybe I'll find my gardening gloves and do Prof. Sprout!

Amandajm (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My son, who owns a striped velvet jacket, went as Sirius Black, so I went as Sirius Black's loathsome mother and complained about my son in a loud imperious manner to anyone who was prepared to listen. We had a great night! Amandajm (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Notzrim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notzrim until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Would you kindly list your educational background and special expertise in biblical archaeology? Thank you. Ray Oliver, Esq. 68.46.131.43 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just fyi, Template:Judaism is not supposed to be collapsible. Debresser (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(copied from my talkpage)Oh, thanks for telling me. I imagine many hours of discussion have gone into that policy :). PiCo (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually not. The suggestion to make this template collapsible was made twice on its talkpage, but was simply ignored by others. Personally, I think templates like this should not be collapsible. They are not footer templates (used at the bottom of an article), but rather are used at the very beginning of articles. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, PiCo. I wonder if you'd have any objection to my removing the comment you added here. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the article, and even as a (deprecated) comment about the topic there's no context to show what it means. Normally, I'd just let something like this go, but given the history of the article I am a little concerned about its sparking contentious off-topic discussion, since it's in its own section. Please advise. Rivertorch (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Poopsie! I am just leaving you a message to tell you that I still love you, despite everything! Amandajm (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't sure who to ask, so I thought I would ask you and you might be able to direct me into the right direction. On one article there is someone who shows up (not signed in, IP only) who seems to his only agenda is to remove the name of an individual from an article (assumably because he does not like the individual being referred to as a Karaite — there are a few disgruntled Karaites who do not like the person in the article). The IP's entire history has been an attempt to remove this person from the article. Where would I go to take this to a higher level at Wiki? Or whom might I ask who would be able to point me in the right direction? The IP seems to be ignoring any discussion in the Talk pages, and all undo descriptions. — al-Shimoni (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, FYI: I just updated and expanded the John Bright (biblical scholar) article, and noticed in the history that you started the article as a stub back in 2007, so this is to let you know, in case you want to check it out, or proofread it.
Thanks. —Telpardec (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, I do not see any reason why basic archeological findings regarding ancient Israel and Judah shouldn't be mentioned at the site dedicated solely to this subject.Considering the claim that no or little archeological evidence was found regarding Judah,it is, as you know, an incorrect claim.The references given bellow,from two Israeli newspapers,do not support your assumption.Contrary, they are showing the opposite.I agree with you that we should not enter in to "edit-war",therefore maybe we should try to find solution,or to ask Wiki for mediation and for site protection.I do not have any problem with your editions and I would be happy if you continue to enrich the site.If you have any proposal,argument or suggestion please write me. All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please express your opinion over the suggestion to merge the article Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both articles are substantially the same, and shouldn't exist in separate. You can participate in the discussion here Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merging with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes - it is interesting! However, I think that Moses may have got his "shining head" just for being in the presence of God, not for looking at his face. Exodus 33:20-23 indicates that Moses never saw God's face - God put His hand in front of the cleft in the rock that He put Moses in so that Moses would only see His back as He passes or "lest he should die". Fun to discuss though. Jacob also "almost" got to see God's face when he was wrestling with "a Man" in Gen 32:24-32. God/Jesus finally gets away before Jacob can see his face (and die) in the growing dawn only after blessing (and crippling) Jacob. Ckruschke (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

I always thought that the King/Priest who spoke to Abraham, Melchizedek is in Gen 14 and the others that you cited are in 18, was referring to Jesus. That way I could wrap my head around both God's statement that no one can look on his face w/o dying, and the fact that an obviously Godly personage turns up in broud daylight for everyone to see in various parts of the OT.

One option for why God fades into the background as the Bible progresses through the OT is maybe because the Jews more and more turned to the paganism of their surrounding neighbors and since He was less important to them, the Jews "saw" Him working in their lives less and less. Doesn't mean that he wasn't there - the Jews just weren't seeing him. If He were human, I'd say that he was ticked that His children were almost completely ignoring Him and His teachings, but God is incapable of that kind of spite. Again, fun to speculate on. Ckruschke (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Definition of Iron age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age The Iron Age is the archaeological period generally occurring after the Bronze Age, marked by the prevalent use of iron. The early period of the age is characterized by the widespread use of iron or steel. The adoption of such material coincided with other changes in society, including differing agricultural practices, religious beliefs and artistic styles. The Iron Age as an archaeological term indicates the condition as to civilization and culture of a people using iron as the material for their cutting tools and weapons.[1] The Iron Age is the 3rd principal period of the three-age system created by Christian Jürgensen Thomsen for classifying ancient societies and prehistoric stages of progress

As you see if we are speaking about Iron age, the definition of Iron age is SOLELY archeological. Therefore our arguments can be based primarily on archeological findings.That is the reason why it is NECESSARY to adhere to this fact. YHVH I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be used to reflect any religious rhetoric. My addition is again based on valid archeological findings and has fundamental importance in understanding of the process of transformation of Canaanite-Israelite society from polytheism to monotheism.This addition is not supposed to give credibility to any religious arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the ONLY site on Wikipedia where we can show what has been archeologically verified from ancient Israel, and what is a myth. As you see below the sources of other sections are solely Biblical. This is something you may challenge.There are no places at Wiki (and shouldn't be other places) to give the summary of archeological facts, ESPECIALLY if we are speaking about strictly archeological sections like Iron Age sections. We are speaking about the The History of Ancient Israel and Judah and we are speaking about IRON AGE=ARCHEOLOGY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 23:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the the site reflecting Syro-Palestinian archaeology could be appropriate replacement for the historical and archeological facts regarding ancient Israel and Judah. I believe that anyone interested in this particular issue will not "Google" for Syro-Palestinian archaeology,rather will come to this site. Neither I think that there is general agreement between archeologist (including Israelis) that the history and archeology of ancient Israel is a part of Syro_palestinian cultural, or archeological concourse. Again, As I said before, my main argument is that in my editions,I did not go too much into the details. I mentioned very few basic archeological findings, with very strong and relevant references. Most, if not of them are related to Iron Age II, which is in fact the core of this whole subject. Considering the language of the inscription, the main reason why I only used the terms such as "writings and alphabet" without mentioning Hebrew language (as it was established to be an inscription written in Hebrew language and Hebrew writing, by Haifa university scholars, who were the only ones in charge to determine this ) was because I believed that the term "Hebrew language" would be even more controversial .In this case, I tried to find a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 22:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you aren't helping. As you must know, no source says this is written in a Hebrew script (or at least I can't find one), and you removed the three sources I'd added including Garfinkel that describe the script as Proto-Canaanite, making it easier for Tritomex to keep adding his confusion (and I think he is confused here, as in the context of his source 'Hebrew writing' is referring to language, not script. Looks like the two of you are at 3RR, and I look like I'm disagreeing with both of you. I'll have to take this to RSN or somewhere at this rate. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning of sanctions, due to history of edit warring:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Second opinion on discretionary sanctions". Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, based off the discussion at AN, I'm retracting the warning of sanctions as not applicable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

On what basis do you deem the site "doesn't need" an etymology section? You have removed well sourced information that's important to the article without explaining why. And changing a name because it looks "really strange" to you is a very bad reason. The name is a widely used alternate and there's nothing strange about it. Please refrain from making such non-sensible edits again, or alternately try to state a good reason for doing it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my email? Have you changed your email address or what? Is your mailbox so full it's jammed? When are you going to respond to the most outrageous Leonardo article ever written, and tell me how to get it properly published? I have had 450 hits in a week, but all is silent.... no responses..... (well, only from my son, my sister, Attlios, Johnbo, who hasn't finished reading it yet, and my dear David Kinsela who at least told me it was ...... drat! I've forgotten what his glowing adjective was......)

This is bigger than the "Dah Vinci Code" and no-one else has discovered it yet...... well no-one except the odd American or two or three, a Serbian, a Brazilian, a South Korean, a Spaniard, a Bulgarian, an Indonesian who only looked at the first page, and two Russian computer programmers in Vladavostok who are a tad obsessive so they read the whole twenty-one pages, twice each.

Leonardo da Vinci and the Virgin of the Rocks

P.S. I just reread your comments about Leonardo's Science on the talk page. You really are divinely witty!

Amandajm (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything okay there? You aren't your normal charming self today :).. to be honest I agree with you that the non-Genesis content in Serpent (Bible) is little more than a series of not particularly informative placeholders, but the unfortunate fact is that the article is Serpent (Bible) not Serpent (Genesis), and we can't just delete the other Bible uses simply because they aren't as well sourced (some are sourced) and it isn't my job to spend 2 hours per "write it as an anlysis oif the theme, and sourcing it up when ^{[citation needed]} tags will do. Can you please restore what you deleted but add cn banner or tags. Is that okay? Cheers :) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're just bored, not grumped ;). I saw your edits at Torah/Pentateuch, but would need a mountain of work - more than others you've done good to in the past year. I'm watching, but unfortunately I have to do overtime this weekend. As regards Serpent (Bible), if you restore, then tag and banner it, I had in mind to add some SBL qual sources to the NT section before you deleted it (as it was sorely lacking), but I can't jump to it this quickly. If I still haven't improved it in 2 months, delete it again ;). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Voltaire is Voltaire of course ;) Oesterley, Kelly and Wray and Mobley aren't fringe, they're just rationalist academics looking at how the serpent evolved from Canaan to the Bible Belt. The very last thing in the article that should be deleted IMHO. Anyway, will work on it later. But leave NT content intact. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I have seen your edits to Genesis creation narrative on my watchlist and I think you have been doing a fine job with the article. Thank you for your efforts. Adam in MO Talk 00:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiCo. I noticed you reverted some edits I made at Priestly source, Jahwist, and Deuteronomist and I just wanted to clarify a few things. First off, I don't know a heck of a lot about the doc. hypothesis, so if I say anything monumentally stupid, please do let me know. The edits I made though, were based on the following portion of the lede of documentary hypothesis (emphasis mine):

Julius Wellhausen's contribution was to order these sources chronologically as JEDP, giving them a coherent setting in the evolving religious history of Israel, which he saw as one of ever-increasing priestly power. Wellhausen's formulation was:

• the Yahwist source ( J ) : written c. 950 BC in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
• the Elohist source ( E ) : written c. 850 BC in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
• the Deuteronomist ( D ) : written c. 600 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
• the Priestly source ( P ) : written c. 500 BC by Kohens (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.
• The Redactors: first JE, then JED, and finally JEDP, producing the final form of the Torah c. 450 BC.

While the hypothesis dominated biblical scholarship for much of the 20th century, it has been increasingly challenged by other models in the last part of the 20th century. Its terminology and insights continue to provide the framework for some modern theories on the origins of the Torah.^[8]

So, please don't think I'm being hostile or anything, because I'm definitely not. It's entirely possible that I'm the one who needs schooling here, so feel free to do so if you think it necessary. I just wanted to see if you could clarify how exactly the edits I made were "inaccurate", or not "a matter of the doc. hyp." as you put it in the edit summaries. Thanks very much! Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The King James version is fine; this has "soul" rather than "being". hgilbert (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Dunno! Just moved it up where it did apply to put another one in its original spot because that particular claim wasn't found in Friedman. (I couldn't find it anywhere anyway.) Professor marginalia (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the engineering discussion is silly and tried to remove it a few weeks ago. But others insisted on keeping it -- you might want to read the relevant section of Talk about this. --Macrakis (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know you were a music buff. It's a work I haven't really paid attention to properly despite it being known as one of his more avant garde works, - the 2 recordings I have are among those in storage so can't even dig them out now to listen, based on your comments I've missed something! http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2007/May07/Liszt_Via_Crucis_v5061.htm If you like that you may want to sample some of the various French composers' Leçons de ténèbres or Rachmaninov's vigil , occasional Arvo Pärt bites in those too. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

iTunes? I only just came to terms with death of the LP. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Goodo :). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Vermes still writing interesting stuff, incredible - he must be in his 80s now. Unless it's a reprint, but admit hadn't seen it before. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Calabe1992 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

History2007 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Restore.

You have no WP:CON for your changes.

If you object, then feel free to discuse it at Talk:Biblical cosmology-- per all Wikipedia policies-- such as those detailed at WP:BRD. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 06:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The cosmology part is way out of my way Pico. Maybe you guys can aim this towards the sky and see if some biblical passages can be read among the stars. Else, the other option is to invoke beam me up Scotty and just check it out personally... If that does not work, try the "add ice" option. It usually works... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but before getting worked up on it, remember that an IP may change it all in 6 months. History2007 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia may be a sandcastle, but so is most of life. C'est la vie. History2007 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Good line. Very clever. But these things do happen in real life, e.g. it happened to my favorite designer. He builds a bunker under his house in Wisconsin to be safe of Russian nuke bombs, then a Jeep overtakes him... End of story... History2007 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, now I have to go. Talk to you later. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Books of Kings, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asa and Zimri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Canaan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hazor

Deuteronomist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Amon

Timeline of cosmology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Abyss

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Jesus' walk on water, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Entering heaven alive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enoch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not a proper user but I would like to inform you of the guideline of WP:ERA, which you seem to not be adhering to in your mass edits to articles where you are changing BC to BCE. Please follow that guideline and retain the original era that was there to begin with! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.127.199 (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

PiCo, I've warned this IP editor about his WP:ERA violations - feel free to ignore his warning. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: Genesis creation narrative edit 02:16 23 January 2012 PiCo diff

• old: forming Adam, literally the first man, from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden...
• new: forming the first man, from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden...
• Revision as of 02:16, 23 January 2012 PiCo (talk | contribs)
• (not accurate - in Gen.2 adam is not yet a personal name.)

Yes, before he was put in the garden, the narrative calls him "the man", but in Genesis 2:19 (KJV) he is called by name when he begins to name the creatures:

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Your edit was correct, he was not called Adam at the "forming", but later, at the naming of creatures. I don't see a need for pointing that out in the intro, but it may deserve a mention in the body of the article somewhere, but none of the sources I have on hand mention it. Feel free.

Neat save on the failed verification sentence, switching from Blenkinsopp to Bandstra.
—Telpardec  TALK  04:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion of this thread is at THIS LINK. —Telpardec  TALK  12:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, I've looked through about 40 of the 100 or so edits that user:Jasonasosa made on Serpent (Bible), 28-31 October 2011, which you undid in one go on 13 November with the edit summary "revert to last good version". (That was before the further deletions and restorations discussed privately between yourself and In ictu oculi.) They seem to be good edits, rearranging material in good faith as explained on the talk page, and expanding citations e.g. with links to Google books. It looks as if you might have misdiagnosed what had been going on. Would you object if I reinstated Jason's work? – Fayenatic (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Most of what you deleted after reverting on 13 Nov had been deleted anyway, but feel free to look it over again. – Fayenatic L (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[9] [10]. Badda bing badda boom. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Even with many misunderstandings, you have retained a level attitude at all times when dealing with the reasonable and not-so-reasonable at Talk:Genesis creation narrative. St John Chrysostom view/my bias 19:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you John. You've been quite civil yourself :) PiCo (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm handling it in emacs (programmed to look like wikiEd) on my local computer. It's not nearly done (I'll likely leave the lead until last), and will more than likely be split in to two or more articles. What parts are you interested in? St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 06:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean he was Mario (or Jar Jar Binx?) in disguise? How do I share it, or where should I post it (or those sections that I dub to be reasonably complete and polished)? I was going to post the whole thing to the talk page for comments before it went live, but it's already far too long (thus the likely spin-off), and I'd not like to disrupt the talk page for comment, for anything more than an alpha version. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 08:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a new article yet. The parts that will be spun off are scattered throughout the article as-is when expanded, and it's not up to Wikipedia standards yet (I don't know if it would be deleted if it was posted to Wikipedia); most of it is an expansion, and an improvement in prose (it's ghastly, in the current article, in places almost unreadable), not a vast change of perspective (although I am adding those perspectives that I shared in asking "are these RS?" section, to give "due weight" to more traditional scholarship; for example [pulling random numbers out of the air], "due weight" seems like it should give maybe one in four or five to it, as it is still a major viewpoint, albeit not a majority). I am keeping all current sources and perspectives except the most unreliable (as I mentioned, EG White). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 00:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

An RfC has been created at Genesis creation narrative#RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth" in the academic sense"?. Since you have been involved in this discussion, I'm informing you about it here. This is not an attempt to canvass, because people on both sides of the dispute are being notified. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited The Exodus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phylacteries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Matthew Henry and similar are notable, so had to restore that. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited The Exodus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Dever (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Til warned for a personal attack. WP:BRD seems to apply now, so you can start a discussion if you want to remove it again. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The blatant hypocrisy wrt to "personal attacks" is strikingly evident when certain editors like me are held to an INCREDIBLY high standard and a VERY tight leash, while certain other "favoured" editors are held to an incredibly LOW standard and can get away with near-murder in terms of personal attacks. If my edit summary was perceived as a personal attack, please accept my apology. But your oft repeated habit of going to controversial theological articles and blanking out 20 kb of data added by multiple editors with no discussion or justification whatsoever, on your own authority or whims is almost always going to provoke a reversion to the multi-editor version, you know. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Til, I don't regard being called a "known pov-pusher" as personally offensive or a personal attack. Intemperate, but not a personal attack. And you're quite right, I did blank out a large amount of material with very little in the way of explanation, and I apologise for that. PiCo (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Well done noticing the obvious reference in Ezekiel to the Garden of Eden location in Lebanon. You are a smartie. Thanks for the backup. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, I think you overlooked something with this edit. The edit comment said: "(→‎Chapter 1: There's no command to be fruitful and multiply at this point - comes later)". The context is Genesis 1:20-23, the fifth day critters. Note verse 22: "And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." The bibleref2c at the end should be 1:20-23, not 1:20-21 for the fifth day. There is also a problem with the word birds. It should be fowls. The fowl category in the KJV includes any creature with wings that flies, not just birds, but the bat with featherless wings, and also "among the fowls" are various kinds of winged insects and creeping things that fly, some of which have more than 2 wings, like the butterfly and dragonfly with 4 wings. Something to keep in mind when you hit the prophetic vision in Daniel 7 of a leopard with 4 wings of a fowl on its back. A fowl, singular, but 4 wings. (I have no idea what fowl it refers to, but there has to be some significance to it, right? Duh.) Another thing is that the fowl on the 5th day came forth from the waters, and therefore would be water fowl. (Quack, quack.) We learn from the 2nd chapter of Genesis that in between the making of the man and the woman, a variety of special creatures were also made, including fowl of the field, and well, basically domestic fowl, like the alarm-clock bird. (Cock-a-doodle-doo.) OK, I seem to be getting long-winded. That should be enough food for thought – Bone Appetite!
—Telpardec  TALK  22:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello PiCo. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Isaiah 7:14, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Israel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The edits look pretty good to my mind. Not too radical hacking, careful pruning :) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Zad68 (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Immanuel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Israel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

thx :) In ictu oculi (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you? As for me, read your own talk page archive. Paul B (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Always remember that charity of Mother Eve! 128.187.97.19 (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page of Elizabeth II, where I, after long negotiation, eventually spat the dummy. Several people left messages of support, so I wrote the changes. But the "owner" of the page, who is myopic and apparently a little constipated, has promptly reverted.

As you are a journalist, you are possibly the last person to whom I should appeal, for balanced coverage, rather than sensationalism..... but, there you are!

Amandajm (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been sorted. But It took an awful lot of persistence. Amandajm (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve Uniformitarianism but all my edits have been reverted. What am I doing wrong? SmittysmithIII (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

[11], Please do explain. Or better yet modify the paragraph to be less misleading - this is definitely an issue that people associate with Minimalism and I don't see a way not to mention it in the article. I based the argument only on Finkelstein, but I am sure there are other sources that could be used for a neutral description as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your great rewrite of Biblical Minimalism - that article really needed the attention, and you did a great job! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I took a wikibreak for a while... upon returning, I came around to the Curse of Ham page and saw your massive edits on that article. I want to say that you did a pretty good job with that edit, removing a lot rubbish that Til and I fought pretty hard about. I had done some early massive edits to that article, but I was too careful to keep a lot of lard, that I was glad you were able to shed away. So thanks for your hard work on that. After watching some of your edits on other pages, I often feel that your precision is a little too deep, right down to the bone of things... but maybe that's what the Curse of Ham article needed.Jasonasosa (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adam and Eve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Surah, Ophite, Safa and Marwa

Merneptah Stele (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Megiddo

Mesha Stele (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jehoram

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A new debate has started over whether it is the or just one of the creation narratives. Please add your voice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Poopsie Darling, you left me a message a week ago! How come I didn't see it until now?

Leonardo? I wouldn't. As soon as you start, you are going to have so many people telling you what you can and can't do that it isn't worth it. It's stable. Leave it be!

I still don't have a copy of your book. Tell me how to get it online.

When are we going to do the Art Gallery thing? I'm not taking you to the cathedral again........ not after that near incident with Philip Jorkings......

xx Amandajm (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be some problems with the method of archiving the page:

1. Why did the bot move contents to Talk:Book of Deuteronomy/Archive 4 instead of to Talk:Book of Deuteronomy/archive1?
2. The section titled "References" should have been moved together with the other stuff (it refers to section titled "Yahweh and Israel").

(I posted a message at Misza13's talkpage). -- -- -- 21:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed by Brad (talk). Sorry for bothering you. -- -- -- 22:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahc (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed your comments on the Talk page.Learned69 (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Learned69 (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Something interesting for you to see.

Hi PiCo,

In the view history section of the Comma Johanneum article, someone identified as Steven Avery made about 50 changes to that article on October 16, 2012.

Does that seem like an unreasonably large number of changes?

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

PiCo: It's not the number of changes that we should be concerned with, but their quality ... Jim: Thanks, PiCo. 7Jim7 (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind the edit. Editor2020 (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Mikelangelo and the Black Sea Gentlemen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've got to go get some lunch, but there is plenty to save this article from WP:A7. SMH, The Age, ABC, etc.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Cedar-pine-christmas-wreath.jpg

Merry Jeremy my friend. The census discussion once again reminded me that you are one of the few non-brain-donor people around here with a sense of humor that once can enjoy interacting with - the rest are ever, ever so dull. So "Merry Jeremy". History2007 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mart Twain said: "It is so easy to give up smoking; I have done it myself thousands of times." But, as on my user page I have achieved liberation now. May the new year bring you liberation too. Last summer I went on the beach a lot more, instead of telling imbecile IPs to go and read WP:V. Next summer, I may go there all day. Perhaps you should too. I hear they have nice beaches where you are... History2007 (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Books of Chronicles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cyrus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pico,

I forgot that I was not signed in when I made an alteration to the article, Comma Johanneum, and now my IP address is displayed in the view-history section of that article (linked below), dated 25 December 2012. Would you please delete those two displays of my IP address from the view-history section? Thank you in advance. Also, is there a way that I myself can change the displayed IP address to my user name on the view-history page if this ever happens again in the future?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comma_Johanneum&action=history

Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Jim7 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pico,

You said, "I'm sorry Jim but I have no idea how to do that. In fact I rather doubt it can be done at all. You need to consult an admin."

Thanks.

I found a wiki page dealing with this and an email address.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight

oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org

I'll try that.

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It worked! Ten minutes after I emailed a request to suppress my IP address on that page, it was done. That was a nice Christmas present. By the way, Merry Christmas! 7Jim7 (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Stick to the talk page for a day, ok? I've warned him for 3RR, and you are there also but don't need a warning. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Would appreciate any comments or clarifications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#footer

Havensdad (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not discuss? Afraid of losing another argument? ► Belchfire-TALK 11:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What WoulD you likE to dreaM of toNight... History2007 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Marduk asked me to relay another message to you regarding this edit. He asked me to inform you that per WP:QP those items may only be used to hit other editors on the head, and have no other utility on this website. History2007 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Heyup, you edited Gospel of the Hebrews in the distant mists, so you might want to input re the duplicatish page too. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You're pretty good at this overgrown-garden cleaning type stuff. I saw you at it before in the canonical G Matthew, this garden is even wilder. Probably a careful examination of what's been uprooted will find about 10% fit to be replanted. The rest can happily go on the bonfire. Good work. Seriously. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh - I didn't even notice the lack of specification with McGrath. I just saw it and thought, "Hmm, that's just one opinion". StAnselm (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested to find out the book - I see The Burial of Jesus: History & Faith by James F. McGrath, but that's from 2008, and I have a feeling that it's self-published. McGrath would be notable, though, with a named chair at Butler University. StAnselm (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right about the book,but my copy is dated 2012. I'm not sure if it's RS - it's by a RS, McGrath being who he is, but the book is not so solid perhaps. I honestly don't know. What do you think? PiCo (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously just butting in here, but I don't see either the book or the author even mentioned in searches of JSTOR, so I'm guessing if he is reliable, he would be probably among the more marginally reliable sources out there. Not knowing the exact article being discussed here, though, maybe it might help to see what, if any, mention the ideas he discusses are discussed in the Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, or some similar recent reference books, of which there are many. It is possible that while he might himself not be reliable, his ideas, whatever they are, might also be put forward by others who are more reliable, or at least discussed in a non-dismissive manner by them. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Having done a little research I see it's a self-published ebook through Amazon. Self-publishing is becoming increasingly popular due to the lower prices (a regular paper book like this would cost close on a hundred dollars I imagine, this one is virtually free). McGrath is Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University in Indianapolis - so he's not nobody. I gather from his other titles that he mixes academic books and popular ones - see here. This particular book is about how historians study the bible - methods and types of conclusions. In using it I concentrated on the "facts" (conclusions bible historians reach) rather than his real subject (methodologies they use). I don't think these facts are contentious - things like the Jewish law relating to burial, the various methods available for burying bodies, the place of crucified criminals. I'd like to find this in other books, but where? PiCo (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If I'm right, he's discussing the broad subject of Biblical criticism, its various methods, conclusions, and the like? I've actually been kind of concerned about the content regarding that subject for a while myself. That sort of thing is covered to at least some depth in some of the Bible reference books out there. Give me a few days to look over those reference books I can lay my hands on, and I can if nothing else maybe generate a list of sources used in those works on the various types of criticism, and some of the conclusions. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the article in question is Entombment of Christ. StAnselm (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not biblical criticism. It's an attempt to explain the historical-critical approach to biblical study, with specific reference to the burial of Jesus. That focus comes about because the Talpiot tomb has been in the news - McGrath felt that too many Christians dismissed the tomb claims for the wrong reasons - because it was counter to what they believed was in the bible (an ascended Jesus couldn't have left bones behind), and not because of what scholars were saying. Right conclusion, wrong reasons. A lack of interest in, or knowledge of, the historical-critical approach leads to this - a kind of biblical study where you believe whatever you want, because you have faith.PiCo (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be a TC buff like me, so you might be interested in this material by Maurice Casey about the pericope in Luke comparing Herod to a fox. Ignocrates (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I pasted this material onto the Q talk page to use there or in a possible future article on Aramaic Q. Ignocrates (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish-Christian gospels, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Epiphanius, Beroea and Virgin Birth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiya, Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. talk spreading out over 'n' pages again ;) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

for the link to that blog on my talk page. Please see my response there. Ignocrates (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your lighthearted approach to reaching NPOV and ability to laugh at edit summaries which might not have been as tactfully expressed as they could have been. KillerChihuahua 21:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abraham. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ► Belchfire-TALK 05:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether you take commissions, but I wonder whether you think WP could use a separate article on the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and whether you would be up for writing it ?

At the moment the topic redirects to Israelites, but that article is really about the "Children of Israel" as a whole, and doesn't really have the scope to ask e.g. what was a tribe, or where did the tribal identities come from, or even give a decent overview of what the Bible has to say about the tribes in any detail. We also have articles on the individual 12 tribes of course, but it seems to me no pull-together, to review the whole idea or put into any kind of context.

For comparison, here are articles from eg:

• Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906
• Encyclopedia Judaica, 1972
• Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture, 2011

There are some quite interesting ideas -- for example the magic of the number 12, even if the identity of the twelve constituents changes. (The EJ seems particularly taken by Martin Noth's suggestions on this). Also the idea that the genealogical relationships reflect natural pre-existing confederations between the tribes; and the idea that different parts of the Biblical narrative may show different groups of the tribes in the ascendent at different times (including the quite interesting points about which tribes are not included in particular passages -- eg the Song of Deborah).

It would be nice to see one of these articles done right, from the bottom up, for once -- a proper summary of the Biblical content, followed by a proper survey of current contemporary views -- rather than the having to patch up somebody else's shambles that it seems you are mostly taking on.

So might that appeal as a little project?

(BTW if you want to do more hacking out of dead wood, it would seem to me that the whole of the second half of the Israelites article seems seriously extraneous. Having established that the Israelites' descendents were the Jews and the Samaritans, theat is where the article should end, IMO.)

All best, Jheald (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started a Talk page discussion regarding the lead of the article. I think we both know full well to expect a concerted effort to force the material back in to the article, but at least now there is no excuse not to discuss and gain consensus first. ► Belchfire-TALK 02:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Book of Leviticus#Off-topic POV cruft is removed from the lead so that we can reach consensus on recent content that was added to the article. Thank you - MrX 00:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Scots language, you may be blocked from editing. This and your edits to English language are nonsensical and fly in the face of reason. This particular warning is for inserting a POV into articles, but it might as well have been for trolling since it's inconceivable to me how someone would deny Scots is a language, given the enormous evidence presented in the bibliography and other reference sections of our article. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

iso639-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.236.219.213 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know how to talk in this. Anyway, I would like a clear explanation on what makes you consider the original Dead Sea Scroll scripture to be an unacceptable source for Wikipedia. I only wrote the facts, without any interpretation. The Dead Sea Scrolls have Immanuel as a single word, a proper name. And they have God giving the name (he vs. she). I gave a link to the original scripture from an Israel official source, along with the translations from the same source. Does it have to be a religious approved "scholar" to satisfy you? Anyway, I give up. You are obviously not going to let any facts which contradict your "interpretations" appear on Wikipedia.

And how come you have 90% of the edits in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.168.161 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably because I waste 90% more of my time than anyone else :) PiCo (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yahweh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Dever (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested in seeing some more references for the claim. I have started a talk page discussion. StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Book of Leviticus, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. You removed sourced content from this article again, after it was unprotected, and you have seemingly ignored the invitation to join the talk page discussion. Your edit summary "Homosexuality and slavery are not themes of the book of Leviticus" simply repeats your previous, unfounded assertion. Again, please join the talk page discussion and stop editing disruptively. - MrX 14:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, PiCo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Book of Leviticus.The discussion is about the topic Book of Leviticus. Thank you. - MrX 02:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a nice place. Certainly do anyone good for 6 months. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dunno, I was speaking of inland. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the edits/reverts you have made on Book of Leviticus. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.80 (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It most certainly is edit warring, and I suggest that you stop forcing your preferred version of the content. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. - MrX 13:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Pico, you are at 3RR. I'm not sure why you say it doesn't apply. I can see there is a problem but I don't think blocks of anyone will help the issue. I've asked for page protection - I can't do this myself as you are the last editor and given your request I have to consider myself involved. I don't think there is enough for me to block, but you are free to bring it up at ANI. Personally I don't think anyone from Homeland Security should be editing here as an IP. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

See WP:AN3#User:PiCo reported by User:216.81.81.80 (Result: ). It looks like you have made at least four reverts, though not within 24 hours. If this dispute continues to run after protection expires, admins may have to issue blocks. It would be helpful if you would respond in the AN3 thread and agree to wait for consensus before reverting again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, I would appreciate your thoughts about developing a consistent reference style across the Jewish-Christian gospel articles (and maybe all J-C articles). I looked at WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references and about 30 randomly chosen featured articles this morning, and I noticed the reference styles are all over the place. I particularly like the style in George Harrison, which is a GA article currently being reviewed in FAC. The article uses "Notes" for explanatory footnotes, "Citations" for citations linking article content to the reliable sources, and "Sources" for the bibliographic sources. Note that the label "References" is never used. What do you think about adopting this style across the J-C articles for the sake of consistency? Ignocrates (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I'm not that easily offended. Maybe I should have refrained from responding off-topic, but at least I've learned something new, as I was unaware of Divino Afflante Spiritu. It's always good to learn something new. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. - Lindert (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, please take a look at my question at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#Cyril of Jerusalem. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in with a suggestion. Btw, I asked you first out of courtesy because you put so much work into the article. I realize In ictu oculi has more familiarity with the subject. We will get this resolved and keep moving forward. Ignocrates (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, let me know sometime in the next few weeks if you have any suggestions for a short list of names for peer review. I want to ask someone who is top shelf. Ignocrates (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Alxjpow/Mikelangelo & The Black Sea Gentlemen. The User has left, but this should be in article space. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if I can create the article. PiCo (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it can be done by WP:RM? Btw unrelated just looking randomly for anyone who'd comment re a possible addition of "foreigner" under NPA text. See Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. I have no reason to know what you'd think or even care re this. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You recently reverted my edit on this sentence Despite the Exodus story, scholars believe that the Passover festival originated not in the biblical story but as a magic ritual to turn away demons from the household by painting the door frame with the blood of a slaughtered sheep. to include the general term "scholars". Not trying to be difficult, but as I've "never" heard this version before, my assumption is that the referenced author is the one who made this conclusion. Do you have any references or other knowledge, which I obviously lack, that backs up the premise that the idea that the Passover practice is rooted in witchcraft is more widespread than one guy?

Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks - guess I could have done my own Google search... Never heard anything other than the church version. Thanks PiCo! Ckruschke (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Pico, this is a friendly warning that you seem to have broken 3RR with edit warring at Genesis creation narrative in the last 24 hrs, and you are the only one who keeps reverting, although your edit summaries mention "edit warring". Note that as of yet I am not involved in this roun:d of reverting, just an observation. --Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I was stunned by something you said on the talkpage there about a week ago, that I've been meaning to ask about since then. You stated that by the end of the 1800s, "most Anglicans" and "100% of Catholics" had rejected the Bible. Where do you get your version of history from? When I think of "churches" that have rejected the Bible, the one that comes to my mind is the People's Temple and Jim Jones, not Anglicans or Catholics. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You added ‘Burkett’ as a source, but no details whatsoever. Can you fill them up?

— Lgfcd (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

— Lgfcd (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Creationist cosmologies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heat death (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)