| Revision as of 15:50, 10 October 2015 editMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk | contribs)594 edits →WARNING: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:07, 10 October 2015 edit undoKnowledgebattle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,231 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| Please read ]. While you may have good intentions in the background, you are not being helpful when the body of your warning is insults. Thanks. ] ] 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) | Please read ]. While you may have good intentions in the background, you are not being helpful when the body of your warning is insults. Thanks. ] ] 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :{{Reply to|Dustin V. S.}} They're fucking politicians. Everything they say and do will be skewed. I understand, and will comply; but resentfully, as they deserve no respect. ] 22:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC) | :{{Reply to|Dustin V. S.}} They're fucking politicians. Everything they say and do will be skewed. I understand, and will comply; but resentfully, as they deserve no respect. ] 22:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == WARNING == | |||
| before using the undo edit button, CHECK ALL THE EDITS by user. your use of undo on my edit BROKE the book citations which i fixed, which could have been avoided by simply readding the ref manually.also CHECK if the ref is at all relevant to that line] (]) 15:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:07, 10 October 2015
Jesus edits
I hope I can count on your help on the Jesus page. There's a lot of pro-Christian bias there, and we need editors with a good grasp of WP policies. Please join us on the Talk page to discuss changes. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, that's fine. The most hilarious edit I've ever felt compelled to make, was when I saw, "Jesus... etc... is the Son of God... etc etc..." and I was like, "Hold up! Naw, you're not gonna get away with that BS."
- However, I noticed that you reverted my edits, back to the traditional "BC" / "AD". Why is that? After all...
- Some people have gone into the Jesus page to remove the Islam section, because they "don't feel that Islam should be on a 'Christian' page"...
- Editors have had to revise their edits, because the Jesus page isn't a "Christian" page. Yet, "BC" and "AD" are solely Christian traditions. However, it is now more appropriate, customary, and professional to use "BCE" and "CE", in reference to the perceived common era.
- To make my point, similarly, the Muhammad page has "c. 570 – 8 June 632". "c." meaning circa (around). It should probably be updated to include "CE", as well; however...
- The tradition of the Islamic calendar starts at 579 CE, which would make this the year 1436. However, the Muhammad page uses the contemporary dating method, instead of "year 0" (representing the year that Muhammad started hallucinating his angel visions).
- My point is: it's not uniform to apply traditional (Christian) dating methods to a Jesus page, while also applying the appropriate (common era) dating method to a Muhammad page. Kowldge Bttl 11:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Failed Bible prophecies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Failed Bible prophecies is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Failed Bible prophecies 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. --Non-Dropframe talk 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Non-dropframe: Cool, thanks for letting me know. Kowldge Bttl 02:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Misplaced Pages, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. StAnselm (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Don't worry, the speedy deletion was denied, as the page does not meet the criteria for section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
- I have not, and will not, create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. I'm well-aware that attack pages are not tolerated by Misplaced Pages, and I wouldn't want to do such a thing. Failed prophecies and predictions are well-known throughout history, and a failed prophecy or prediction is not an attack on anyone. Please refer to: Unfulfilled Christian religious predictions, List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events, Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ, and 2012 phenomenon, to name a few. Peace. Kowldge Bttl 22:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Warning at User talk:143.231.249.141#October 2015
Please read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. While you may have good intentions in the background, you are not being helpful when the body of your warning is insults. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Dustin V. S.: They're fucking politicians. Everything they say and do will be skewed. I understand, and will comply; but resentfully, as they deserve no respect. Kowldge Bttl 22:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)