Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 17 July 2012

Welcome!

Hello, Renejs, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, 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! 

Please have a detailed look at the core policy Misplaced Pages:No original research. What it means is that Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish work you have done yourself. I have reverted your contribution to Nazareth because of this. It may be appropriate to add it back again later. DJ Clayworth 20:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please also read Misplaced Pages:Verification and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Thank you. DJ Clayworth 20:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Nazareth

I posted a response to your comments on my talk page. Please feel free to continue the discussion there, or at the Nazareth talk page. User:Tiamut 10:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not be rude

Implying that I am childish is no way to carry on a discussion. While you may believe that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus, you cannot patrol an article to exclude the newest archaeological developments so as to make it sound like there is continuing support for this thesis. The world has moved on. More and more archeological finds in Nazareth will establish many interesting things about its history. While you do not have to change your beliefs, you certainly have to let that information be represented in the article per WP:NPOV. Using Jayjg (talk · contribs) to get my edits reverted was very uncouth of you, particularly since you must be aware of our less than functional relationship. I am very disappointed. Tiamut 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kopp on Nazareth

I think we may have a legitimate historiographical question here. I've posted on the talk page asking people to say what they think. nadav (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me

by repeatedly discussing your issues with the Nazareth article on my talk page instead of the article talk page. It is there to discuss edits related to the article. Please use it. Tiamat 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, on my talk page, you accused me of deleting sourced information. I reviewed the history of my edits and could find no such thing. Could you please provide me with a diff outlining my "deletions"? Failing that, I expect that you will acknowledge that your accusation was unfounded and ideally try apologizing. Tiamat 10:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Arguments from silence"

The section of the "Nazareth" article, "Earliest history & archaeological evidence," seeks to present useful information, not conclusions which are unsubstantiated and debatable (see below). The statement that an "argument from silence is rarely proof of anything" (which I deleted 2 December 2007) is quite untrue, particularly in reference to archaeological data where digging in the ground plainly shows what is absent as well as what is present. As to the literary silence regarding Nazareth in ancient sources, this must be allowed to speak for itself, for it is a fact. A great many scholars find that silence quite significant, as a history of the Nazareth literature shows. To conclude on one side or the other in this matter is inappropriate. Finally, the possiblility that Nazareth was "merely a small, obscure and insignificant town" at the turn of the era is now under debate. That claim suffers from the following problems: (1) the fact that Luke chp. 4 portrays Nazareth as a "polis" ("city," v. 29), and one having a synagogue, means that the settlement had considerable population in the evangelist's mind; and (2) it is unlikely that even an insignificant village would have evaded all mention by Josephus who, for a time, lived only 3 kilometers away in Japhia.--Renejs

Big job

Hey there. Well, I'm not sure I'm up to that kind of job re: the Nazareth article. I think it's going to be hard for us to come to an agreement on how much emphasis the views you explain in your book should be given in the article. I know what it's like to be deeply passionate about one's scholarship and it's hard to take the kind of distance necessary to give space to all significant viewpoints (or even determine which viewpoints are significant). Anyway, I'm glad that you finally published your book. I hope I'll be able to get my hands on a copy, since I'm fascinated by archaeology and history, especially as it relates to my home town (and that's my problem, in that I don't really have the distance required to approach the subject purely from an anaytical angle). But I do appreciate the offer, the cooperative and conciliatory tone and I wish you the best of luck with your pursuits. If you want to edit out some Chad Emmett stuff (when he's quoted for archaeological information), I don;t really mind. I'm sure we can find other more scholarly sources that say basically what he does. So please, if you're going to go that route. Remove the citation and add {{fact|date=December 2008}} after the sentence in question. I'll come along and place in a substitute ref, if I can find one. If not, I'll rephrase per the sources we can find. Thanks again for your offer, but piecemeal changes on the article and talk page are all I can muster for that subject right now. Warm regards, Tiamut 16:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not move by copying and pasting

Nazarene (disambiguation) was created as a redirect to Nazarene. You changed it from being a redirect by copying and pasting the content from Nazarene. See the revision history. If you want the disambiguation page to be located at Nazarene (disambiguation) , then either use the Move function, or if the move requires admin assistance, then propose the most as described at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. older ≠ wiser 22:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

NO! "Moving" pages like you say got us into this problem in the first place!!! When you move a page, "The old title will become a redirect page to the new title." This is exactly what we DON'T want! Nobody want "Nazarene" to redirect to "Nazarene (disambiguation)."

You've already muddied the waters enough with confusing (and malicious) redirects involving all these pages. I will not continue the charade. If you have a problem with the disambiguation page being where it belongs, and with the content page where it belongs, then contact Wiki administration.Renejs (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It matters not what ill-advised decisions got you to where you are now, but moving by copying and pasting is an unacceple response. Period.

So, it's permitted to get us into the stew with redirects, but not permitted to get us out by "copying and pasting"? Hmmm. . .

I've submitted the matter for mediation: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-10-27/Nazarene.Renejs (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Nazarene. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. That is a disambiguation page. I'd also be careful to whom you do that to as well... A8UDI talk 17:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Nazareth, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. And if you are the Rene I am thinking of, wp:coi may be of interest. Ari (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a talk page, please take advantage of it and discuss as opposed to vandalising the page. --Ari (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nazareth. 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. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Nazareth. If you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, you will be blocked from editing. Ari (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eugene (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your editing

is under discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Renejs_and_disruptive_editting Dlohcierekim 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE POV Edit Warring

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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I have reported your continued edit warring to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Eugene (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR complaint about your edits

Your edits are being discussed at WP:AN3#User:Renejs reported by User:Eugeneacurry (Result: ). You are welcome to respond there. Since others have challenged your work, you should expect to wait for consensus on Talk before making controversial changes. You have made seven edits since April 8 which contain words like 'restoration' in the edit summary, which suggests you are reverting the work of others. This should not continue unless others support you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Eisenman

Hi. I read James:The brother of Jesus when it first came out but don't remember much of it now. I recall Eisenman saying he thought Jesus of Nazareth was just a mistranslation of Jesus the Nazarene or Nazarite. Can you tell me if Eisenman would reasonably be called a mythicist? Anthony (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think Eisenman would now say he's a "mythicist." But you would have to ask him yourself to be certain.Renejs (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This kitten is for your fine work helping to clean up the Nazareth article. Thanks!

Guy Macon (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edits at Nazareth

Two matters:

• First I advise you to read the panel "WARNING:ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" which appears at the top of Talk:Nazareth and familiarize yourself with its content and the content of the pages it links to.
• Second I want to ask you if you have verified that "B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, Plate XI, top right." is a source providing the information "However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area.".

Zero 00:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)