Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:06, 6 October 2010

Welcome!

Archives

User talk:PiCo/archive1 User talk:PiCo/archive2

Hello PiCo, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started!

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Template messages
• Sandbox

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

FireFox _{12:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)}

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NEW THREADS AT THE BOTTOM PLEASE +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3RR violation

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)

Exodus discussion

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

Template:Z9

Response in Comma Johanneum Discussion

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)

A Reworked Paragraph in the Comma Johanneum Discussion

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)

Requested Explanation

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

Suggestions

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)

A request for your assistance

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).

More Comprehensible

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)

The Second Refutation

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)

Noah's ark

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)

Syncretalism

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)

Zanderbobander on David

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

Uncle Monty

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)

Takes two to tango (idiom)

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)

Large scale text and reference deletions: Edit war warning

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate References

In the Grammar Argument section of the Comma Johanneum article, I added some references for Nolan and Dabney , but in the process, the references for Marshall and Wallace 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)

Edit warring at Chronology of the Bible

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

This has been reported here.

September 2009

Template:Z10

your unorthodox ways of dealing with wiki-addiction

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Cherubini's modern reputation

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)

Your edit war at Chronology of the Bible

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gordon Bennett (artist)

A tag has been placed on Gordon Bennett (artist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

'Creation account/story/myth'?

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/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)

Don't just revert

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)

Timeline_Classical_Composers_Classical

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 Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 15‎ if you're interested. Regards, --(RT) (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

NP Lemche

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Olivia Manning

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 , 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)

Watchit Peekipoo!

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)

Those indents you changed

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)

Unreferenced BLPs

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 13 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)

Abraham

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 () 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)

Yahweh

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)

No-one Disputes These Two Things

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 " (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)

Table

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)

Bible and history

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)

Your PROctol citation...

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)

Solomon's temple

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)

Khirbet Qeiyafa

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)

Myth

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)

Messages from Deadtotruth

Source and Text Deletion Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, 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)

Serpent & Tree deletion from Ancient Near East context section

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 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"

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

Wrong Target

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)

Genesis creation myth

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)

March 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Saturday (novel)

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)

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Donald Friend

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)

Searches for Noah's Ark

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! KillerChihuahuaAdvice 12:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wassup?

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)

Donald Friend reversions

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)

St Peter's Basilica

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)

Nuragic civilization

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)

Dare I?

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 Misplaced Pages page.tubs, of course. Amandajm (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Judaism

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. Judaism thus begins with an ethical monotheism: the belief that God is one, and concerned with the actions of mankind. 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. 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. In the Greco-Roman era, many different interpretations of monotheism existed in Judaism, including the interpretations that gave rise to Christianity. 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.

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)

Yeah

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)

religious movements

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)

Olivia - a pill of sorts

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)

June Rose Bellamy

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)

Presentation of a Barnstar

		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)

You are now a Reviewer

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 Misplaced Pages: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)