User talk:Rob117
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Given your comments at Talk:Book of Daniel, I wonder if you might have a look at Talk:Belshazzar. User:Kuratowski's Ghost seems intent on inserting apologetics into the article. john k 16:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Egyptian chronology
I think it's fine to use whatever chronology, and I'm also more familiar with the Sothically based dates for the 12th dynasty. What I think we should do (and I've been as guilty of this as anybody) is explain what dates we are using at each point. john k 04:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RFC's
Hey there. I'm removing your listing of User:WikiRat at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct because 1) you have to create a subpage for the subject of an RfC (see the others at the RfC page for examples,) 2) new entries go at the top of the page in the "Candidate pages"section, 3) You should talk to the user in question first, as there's been little interaction, and this person simply might not know about WP policies on original research and 4) The place to go for disputes over the content of article is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Article content disputes. Cheers and happy editing,Sean|Black 08:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rob117, I know you vehemently disagree with the things I post. Contrary to your contention, little of that which has been posted is ‘original research’. Much of it has been effectively documented by Church Historians. You may not agree, fine. I’m willing to address all of your concerns rationally, and patiently. But now you are trying to tarnish my ability to post? You appeal to others for assistance in your dispute with me, and you haven't yet tried to work with me to resolve our dispute. (I would go so far as to say, you haven't even answered my arguments?!)
Please, try adopting the approach that it is better to work with someone, than against them. I can be reasonable, I am willing to work with you to find the middle ground if you can hide your contempt for ideas you haven’t considered, or disagree with. Rather than Ad Hominem, focus on the prepositions (which you must admit, I do present). If you are truly interested in the Celtic Christianity or ecclesiastical history, than that is reason enough for me to work with you to find balance though we happen to disagree. As long as you adhere to a policy of hostility, we cannot move forward.
(PS I cannot log in because I have forgotten my password, and when I ask Wikipedia to email passwords to my email address, I never seem to get them (perhaps they are going to some other account). But you can reach me at the User_talk:WikiRat page nonetheless) --WikiRat 11:00, 7 November 2005 (EST)
[edit] Wikiproject
Hi, this is a general invite, asking whether anyone might be interested in joining a long term Wikiproject
(As in Biblical Criticism, rather than about criticising the bible)
Its goal is to increase the amount of information originating from academia in biblical articles, as it is noticably lacking at the moment, this includes
- Textual criticism
- Critical theories
- Mention, and summary, of historical commentaries (i.e. commentaries interpreting the subject from people thousands of years ago)
- Information concerning change in interpretation, over tim
- Interpretations from historic groups cast as heretics by the mainstream, including esoteric traditions (such as from groups like those responsible for the Book of Enoch)
- Interpretations from historic groups who were once the mainstream, but where the interpretation is no longer supported by the mainstream.
- Apologetics (from academic sources, rather than local religious people)
This also includes transferring the information present in the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia, which is not present in Wikipedia. This work is over 100 years old, and so the information needs updating once copied over, e.g. by taking account of subsequent scholarship (e.g. Martin Noth, Richard Friedman, Israel Finkelstein).
--francis 00:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Caratacus and cranks
Rob117, I'm contacting you because you've contributed to this debate in the past. Help! We have another British Israelite nut (or possibly the same one under a different name) throwing fringe theories at Caratacus, Claudia Rufina and related articles. I don't think I have the patience to go through all this again. Any assistance you can lend would be sincerely appreciated. --Nicknack009 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just a Thanks
I'm just thanking you for correcting my daft mistake on List of Celtic Tribes. I have really tried with pages like that, and people like you remind me I MUST READ my edits properly in the mid of night! oterwise i will tell people the gauls went west to Turkey as i did...it's an interesting thought...if a tad wrong! I hope people like you are watching my tail in future, but i won't need it! Ciriii 01:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Noah's Ark
Rob, how much of an expert are you on Mesopotamian myth? Please have a look at the section "Other flood stories" (or whatever it's called) on the article Noah's Ark and check for accuracy. Thanks. PiCo 01:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Khazars and Bulgars
Thanks for your positive remarks regarding the Khazars article. I note with interest that you are picking up a battle I gave up a long time ago, against the insistance on labeling the ancient Bulgars an Iranian peoples. I think this comes from Bulgarian nationalists' antipathy to Turks and things Turkic.I have yet to have one of these people actually give me a scholarly citation for this Pamirian nonsense. Keep up the good fight... I'll try to rally to the cause now that I'm not alone...Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- The guy you are now dealing with, Stephen, seems reasonable and he is likely right about other influences on a primarily Turkic language. The folks I was up against some months ago were on a crusade to eliminate all Turkic references. It was ridiculous. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] color scheme
What a fun page, your User page, but you didn't clarify if you had ever been mistaken for Napoleon. Anyway, among the little panels you have in place, there's (at least) one I can't read: It starts with "NYR" and I can perceive some fuzzy streaks in deep purple or blue at the right, but it is illegible. If you have control over the colors (I have no idea if these are standard or self-created patches) it would be appreciated by the color-blind if you would use something like white, yellow, or a very pastel shade of almost anything in the lettering. ThanksCarrionluggage 23:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but I didn't make those templates; I just picked them from this list. So I can't change them.--Rob117 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The "NYR" one says I'm a New York Rangers fan.--Rob117 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About You
I love all your About Me template things. Funny! By the way, I have a cousin with Asperger's. He's brilliant at age seven. - C. dentata 
04:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ugarit
I am sure whatever you find will be extremely interesting. I always admire your brand of skepticism. - C. dentata 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bible and History buttinski
Don't expect historical accuracy (events)within Biblical literature. Its aim is to teach theology not accurate ancient history, and don't expect ancient history to be accurate either. Ancient history is a strange animal. Don't believe every thing you read, even skeptics are sometimes very uninformed. They don't have much interest in the ancient past, they just enjoy looking for loop holes. If you cannot find the "historical" Robin Hood or the "historical" King Arthur how the hell do think anyone can find the "historical" Abraham or the "historical" Jesus. It just ain't gonna happen. User:Kazuba 6 May 2006
[edit] Category:Aspergian Wikipedians
Category:Aspergian Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. The is also a proposal to create an association to meet the needs of users with mental health conditions. --Salix alba (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edits to Lucifer
Greetings, Rob. While you are absolutely correct that the passage in Ezekiel refers not to the Devil, but to the king of Tyre, this (and the "Lucifer passage") are the sources for most of the Christian doctrines on the existance and character of Lucifer. Instead of removing that information, perhaps it would be better to show why this is a misunderstanding? Justin Eiler 03:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
