Hello, Clinkophonist/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! AndyZ17:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How is it POV to have the template in a certain place, and how is it bias to record who initially proposed the page move? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its POV to have the template in a certain place because other people think it should go somewhere else. It should be up to who added the template, and there is certainly no rule that I can see that says it has to go in only one place. As for the name of the individual it's recorded in the history already. To put it on the page as well implies that there is some value in knowing who made the request, but why should that matter? it is the request itself that should be judged for merit, not who made it, hence it is bias to point this information out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clinkophonist (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 December 2005
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- KHM0300:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit(s) were either a test or outright POV vandalism; I was opting for the kinder, gentler approach, but if you insist it was not a test, I'll believe you. To say that "...the Pastoral Epistles are a product of church fakery..." is POV and inaccurate; scholars maintain they are likely pseudonymous, a critical term used in a specific way that does not have your apparently intended POV impact. Please refrain from this type of edit, as it is against WP policy, and particularly probelmatic on such a disputed article. Thanks...KHM0300:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism involves vandalising. Adding readable content without damaging the content of the article is not vandalism. READ Wikipedia:Vandalism. You are highly biased and your false characterisation of my edits as vandalism is extremely offensive and against policy. Clinkophonist
The article has been labeled POV and "weasel" for some time; do you feel your recent edits have helped to resolve these disputes? KHM0302:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary "centuries of Jewish knowledge about how this was supposed to be interpreted is written within it" is music to my ears[1]. JFW | T@lk22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss on the appropriate talk pages before simply reverting to the older POV/inaccurate versions of the Jesus/Bible articles. Thanks...KHM0323:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The matter was brought to my attention by a user on the #wikipedia-en-vandalism IRC channel. The policy does not prescribe warning users before blocking for violation of the 3RR rule, nor do I consider it necessary. Users who revert are or should be aware of the rule. On the condition that you refrain from violating the rule again, I have no problem unblocking you early. // Pathoschild02:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record...I didn't bring this to anyone's attention. I regret that you have been blocked, because I think your violation was probably unintentional. Read my comments at Talk:Christianity, and Biblical adherance when you can. Even if I or we assume good faith on your part - which I'm willing to do - you need to recognize that your plan is not something the WP community has agreed to. Reconsider. KHM0302:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas I see the positive idea behind your restructuring approach (as far as I understand the impetzs), transferring the stuff using cut'n'paste is evil for reasons of copyright.
If the vast majority of an article's content should go under a new title, this should be done be page moving, so that the hostory is preserved. This would be the case for Internal consistency and the Bible, please have look at the talk pages.
If an article gets split, as I assume is planned for the scientific foreknowledge, the split off should mention the original authors in the edit history.
If you habe any questions on these issue, don't hesitate to ask me.
It does, my first edit summary states exactly where the content comes from.
Unfortunately there isn't a single example of a page being moved elsewhere. The content is mostly split into multiple articles which are merged to from other articles as well. So its just the first edit summary, really. Clinkophonist11:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However Schaller also writes "While one lion grasps the throat, others usually begin to eat, and the animal may die from loss of its blood and viscera rather than from strangulation or suffocation" (Schaller, The Serengeti Lion, 1972, p266). Schaller also writes that the "classic sequence of events" is for a lioness to bring down the prey by biting the throat, then the lion will begin to feed while the lioness strangles. The prey dies within four minutes, the the male continues to eat alone, with the lionesses feeding only after the lion is sated. (ibid. p267). The Bible describes the lion killing for the lioness, the opposite of what Schaller describes.
Don't think that was me. I added two main articles to the "Gospels" section (the main "Gospels" article as well as the "Synpotic problem" article), and tweaked the paragrpah which began "Believers in Biblical inerrancy..." to include the idea that many reject the supernatural claims of the Bible. KHM0320:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say it again. You did notice that I stated I had retained the ampersand? It would help if you read things properly before reaching a conclusion about them. Clinkophonist21:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that I'm trying to wade through these POV waters and work with you (and others), trying to compromise. I hope you can do the same. KHM0323:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FYI -- You are close (as am I, I think) to violation of the 3 revert rule at the "Historicity" article. Just be careful with any more reverts in the next 24 hours or so, lest another block occur, which I don't want to see. Just a heads up...KHM0320:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
