User talk:Ckruschke/Archive 1

December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Joseph (son of Jacob), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please also see WP:VERIFY - anything that may be challenged needs reliable sources, and WP:NPOV Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to The Exodus. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. same problems, please read our policy and guidelines Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Please read WP:RS. Arkdiscovery.com is not a reliable source for biblical articles. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Or, you could please respond to my posts above. If you get blocked, it could easily be because you aren't discussing your edits when another editor (me in this case) explains why there are problems with them. You look like you could make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, can you please stop and chat here about editing? Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding religion and sources on Wikipedia
"Myth" doesn't mean "false story" in academic use, it refers to any story regarded as sacred that describes how the world came to its current state. Random websites without any editorial oversight nor peer-review are not considered to have "scholarly information," especially when they appear to be more of a commercial site than an academic one (kinda makes you wonder what arkdiscovery.com's real motivations are). Not writing articles as conservative Evangelical apologetics is not the same as treating "atheistic opinions" "as fact." Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources
The Bible can be used as a source in certain instances, but only for what the Bible itself actually says. I reverted you here because the Bible does not give the modern dates "10th century BC" and "1st millenia BC," and it does not say "this is to clarify any confusion brought about by apparent anachronisms that later archaeological work will find." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (Ok, I see that the part on your page wasn't in response to the above, but the message above that). No, that would be considered original research, because you're combining multiple sources to get to your own conclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, precisely because it is "circular thinking." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Archaeology and other sciences actually aren't so much concerned with what did or didn't happen, but only with what there is physical evidence for.  While I also accept the Bible as valid for understanding the world, there is the issue of in what genre different parts of it are valid.  Existential truths are not affected by nor do they affect history.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Edit summaries are the little notes left in an article's history when someone edits a page. The location to add in edit summaries is between the article editing space and the "Save page" button.

Editing Lebanese Air Force
You claimed the following in Lebanese Air Force: "The Pentagon is currently in the process of assisting the Lebanese government in deciding between Kleyate Air Base & Hamat Air Base as the home station of the new aircraft. ". What is your source? -- Zaher1988 · Talk | Contributions 15:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really a "claim", however I can't source it so it probably technically constitutes original research. It can be deleted if it has to be sourced.  Doesn't bother me either way. Ckruschke (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Do you mean you concluded that based on your own research/readings?-- Zaher1988 · Talk | Contributions 13:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I deleted the note. Moot point now.  Ckruschke (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Origins of the Exodus story
I see you're having trouble with the section on the origins of the Exodus story. As you seem to be saying, the point of this section is to set out scholarly theories on how the entire exodus tradition - not just the story in the Book of Exodus - came to be. The first para makes the point that the story in Exodus (the book) isn't the only mention of the tradition in the Bible, although many people aren't aware of this. It's in some, but not all, of the prophets, and in some of the Psalms. Then the second para sets out one recent theory which seeks to suggest an explanation for the tradition. Yes, it's a theory, and the first sentence of that paragraph tries to make that plain - it says the it's found in a single recent book. However, it's a scholarly book, and based on earlier work, and therefore notable.

If you have any more questions about what the section is trying to do, please don't hesitate to ask me on my Talk page. If it seems worth-while we can take it to the article Talk page, which is where discussions of improvements to the article should be held.

And always remember, Wikipedia should be an enjoyable and collaborative experience, not a battleground. PiCo (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Religious articles are about the most contentious on Wikipedia, along with the Israel/Palestinians question and the private lives of American politicians. They all attract people with strong opinions. And yet, ultimately, what's the point? Writing in Wikipedia is very like writing on the beach, the tide is going to wash it all away. So best to do whatever you do in that knowledge.


 * Personally I'm a professional writer - fiction and freelance journalism. I do Wiki as a break, sometimes too much of a break - it's all about time management. My internet connection tells me that right now I've been on for just over 7 hours, and it's still only 3 in the afternoon. In that time I've finished a chapter, and used the internet to check such things as high tide times in the place I'm setting my story and find photos of it. (I've never actually been there, but the beauty of the Internet is that it lets you know about places without going there.) Anyway, that's what I should be doing with my 7 hours. Wikipedia is for when I need to distract my conscious mind and let the subconscious do its work.


 * I guess the point is: don't take Wikipedia too seriously.


 * Read that book about Egyptian influences on the Exodus story. Read the Conclusions (linked from the final para of the section in The Exodus), then, if you feel like it, go back and have a look at his arguments. Yes, he's just one man, and it's a theory, not a fact. I don't dispute that, and I tried to write the para in such a way as to make that clear. But he's also a scholar, and he's building on the work of other scholars.


 * Cheers, and again: don't take Wiki too seriously, it's written in the sand.PiCo (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

943rd Rescue Group
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of 943rd Rescue Group, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: 943d Rescue Group. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give 943d Rescue Group a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep - I was clueless and did it wrong. Thanks for the catch!! Ckruschke (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Aurora
Hey, thanks, it's good to see that someone agrees with me about Aurora's X-Men membership enough to revert an edit. But we really shouldn't do any more reverting or we'll end up in edit-war territory, so discussion pages are our best option now. Please feel free to join the discussion at the bottom of the Talk:List of X-Men members page. I'd love to see your thoughts on the situation, and thanks again. DeadpoolRP (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's not much that's worse than editors who add wrong information (especially intentionally wrong info) and refuse to reply when you try to talk to them about it. Though needlessly insulting and rude editors aren't much better, and there are some of those out there. Good luck with your un-edit war . . . have you tried discussing it on the talk page and getting feedback from others? You said no one else seems to care, so probably so, but I figured it was worth suggesting nonetheless. DeadpoolRP (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Adding a category that suggests something is historical where the historicity is highly disputed would be asserting it is historical, and I believe that breaks our policy here. Not having the category says nothing about whether it is historical and definitely does not suggest it is or is not historical. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't create the category - just reverted a deletion because I disagreed with the editor's reasoning. No blood no foul. Ckruschke (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Careful
Hi Ckruschke, I've deleted Twas The Night Before Easter because it was a copy of the copyrighted text at http://www.familyfiction.com/news/veggietales-releases-first-new-easter-themed-dvd-in-seven-years/. We generally can't take text directly from other sources, even if other websites (Amazon.com, etc) do it. If you want to look into this in more detail, take a look at WP:Copyright violations. I have no problem if you want to recreate the redirect to VeggieTales; the only reason I didn't do that was because the VeggieTales article currently does not mention this release at all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I was just being lazy and using the copy/paste as a placeholder for later and you were too quick on the draw. I'll do the page for real later down the road.  Thanks! Ckruschke (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Eglin O Club
Took your comments, and streamlined the O Club item, tossing out some of the puffy verbiage. Thanks. Mark Sublette (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You were right to point it out. I have been working on this article for a long time, and I let some of the "Press Release" copy by without noting that it was a tad flowery, and could be tightened up. Mark Sublette (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch
It's a theoretical possibility that Moses wrote the Torah, but the vast majority of modern scholars don't think it's what happened. There are all sorts of reasons for that, and I guess the most notable ones would be the contradictions within the 5 books, the anachronisms, and the simple fact that the Torah itself never straightforwardly says that he did. It talks about Moses writing "torah", meaning laws or instructions, but it always seems that these refer to specific laws, not the entire five books. We have articles at documentary hypothesis and Mosaic authorship, but it would be better to look at some good middle of the road bible encyclopedias.

As for the three models, Mosaic authorship does fit into them. There are several variations within the Mosaic authorship tradition, one of them being that Moses wrote the Torah as a series of small scrolls which were later combined. This is very much the documentary hypothesis idea, but it's a very old one. The reason it came about was to explain things like the "to this day" phrases that are scattered through the books (the "day" in question is clearly later than the days of Moses) an anachronisms like the mention of the Canaanites being in the land "then", as if the author is writing from a time when they're not. There's also the problem of Genesis - Moses could describe what he saw for the other 4 books, but he never saw Genesis. So the theory exists, within the Mosaic tradition, that various Genesis-ancestors from Adam to Joseph wrote records of their times to which Moses had access. That's a fragmentary model, but within the Mosaic authorship tradition. PiCo (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Ckruschke (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

New page incubation
Thanks for signing up for the new pages incubation trial! The instructions are on the page itself - any questions or quibbles before you get started? Ironholds (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No - I'm good for now. Ckruschke (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OR
Hi! Just as an FYI.... I notice here that you wanted to tidy up a paragraph - Thanks for your help However, I am removed that version of the paragraph because it was Original research - Another user put that in, believing that other versions of the series "refuted" the rumors, but with no reliable source saying so WhisperToMe (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anytime :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ron Lindner


The article Ron Lindner has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. নাফী ম. সাধ  nafSadh talk 18:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hap Arnold
Hi. Just saw your edit on Henry H. Arnold re completion of the flight training in Dayton, which falls under the pleasant category of "there's always something new to be learned". Do you have a source for that date? I am always interested in new sources, and I'd like to compare it to Coffey (the original source). Thanx.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL
Referring to this edit, please observe WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Thanks. MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 12:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Earl Battey
No, I didn't delete any of your edits as, I thought that you have added a lot of useful information. I formatted the citations and, I Wikified the text so that it read like an encyclopedia article rather than a sports article as per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. We need to remember that we are writing these articles for readers who may know very little about baseball so, phrases such as, "had a cup of coffee in the majors", while it might be familiar to baseball fans, it may leave others scratching their heads. I think you may have delved into the White Sox catching problems a little too much as, the subject of the article had already left the team by then. I think it's great information but, it might be a better fit in the 1960 Chicago White Sox season article. Thanks for your great work on Twins articles.Orsoni (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Planet Narnia
If you have a problem with the redirect, you may nominate it for deletion through the standard WP:RFD process. It is never acceptable or appropriate, however, to simply blank it. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that you didn't delete the redirect — you just blanked it, which isn't the same thing. We have a process in place to delete inappropriate redirects — but it involves WP:RFD. The thing is that if the page is just blanked, it still acts as if it were a real article: because you've saved a blank page, it still shows up as a blue link instead of a red one, so people can still be fooled into clicking on it and ending up on a blank page instead of an article or an edit window. Which is why you're always welcome to nominate the redirect for WP:RFD if you feel it's inappropriate — but blanking it isn't the same thing as deleting it. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've listed it on your behalf at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 25. Bearcat (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel Mediation
Hi Ckruschke, When does the mediation end? My deletion of the contested text keeps getting reverted on the grounds that the mediation is ongoing, but I don't think anything new has appeared or happened after the initial opinion was given several weeks ago. --Esquire880 (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also would you clarify what you mean by "This white-washed POV is what it seems like Esquire is going for and is EXACTLY the kind of "non-NPOV" that the Calvary page has already been accused of by many editors. My 2 cents" -- I don't think think you meant what you wrote -- you are saying that other editors have accused the Calvary Page as whitewashed and thus non-NPOV.  Certainly you're not serious? --Esquire880 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Ckruschke! I appreciate learning the background on the page, now I see why you said that. --Esquire880 (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything Sing-Along Songs And More!


A tag has been placed on The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything Sing-Along Songs And More!, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. K e rowyn Leave a note 19:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I placed the tag and this notice with Twinkle, so I'm not sure why it wrongly notified you. K e rowyn Leave a note 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"if you looked upon the face of God you would die"
Just picking up on that edit summary of yours from The Exodus, because it's interesting. n general terms you're right, the bible does say that no man can look on the face of God. But Moses seems to have been an exception - at the end of Deuteronomy he's eulogised as the only man who ever spoke face to face with God. It seems to be connected with the strange transfiguration that occurred when he received the Commandments - tho even there it's said that he saw God's back, not God's face. So, in general, the picture is confused. But interesting :) PiCo (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd forgotten about Jacob. Genesis doesn't say it was God who wrestled with him (though I think it's implied), and of course the whole episode is deeply mysterious. Who else saw God? Abraham, when he received his three visitors - I think again it's implied rather than stated. And all the Elders of Israel, when they feasted with Yahweh in Heaven - they were certainly in Yahweh's presence, but once more it's not explicitly stated that they looked on the face of God.
 * All those are in Genesis-Moses. Later the prophets hear God but don't see him, except perhaps Ezekiel who sees the heavenly throne (but did he see God?)
 * Then comes the New Testament, where anyone can see Jesus - yet Jesus never explicitly says that he is God.
 * There's a book, unfortunately I can't remember the title or author, but whoever it is notes that God progressively departs from the bible-story: he creates the world and comes to chat with Adam and Eve, gives instruction to Noah and the Patriarchs, and is always there for Moses; but beginning with Joshua he fades into the background, and by the time of Ezra-Nehemiah he isn't there at all. Wish I could remember what book that is PiCo (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse theophanies (see theophany) with seeing God face-to-face. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree - there is definitely a difference! I think PiCo was talking about God's overt contact/conversations with man in general diminishing as history moved on from creation. Ckruschke (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hey there
Hi,

I noticed that on the page "Where's God When I'm S-Scared?," why did you remove the reference and the text I added about one of the scenes from the same episode a bit scary which is just like the Lion and Bear Original Sketch from Teletubbies? For that, why was it incorrect? Become a Teletubbies fan today by reading this section. Also, click here and you'll see what I mean. If some people who watched the episode got scared of Phil Winkelstien, then THAT should have been Darth Vader. Despite this, it would have been SO funny if Darth Vader thundered out of the ceiling at Junior's room and says "Junior, I am your father" and Junior would be saying "NOOOOOO!! That's impossible!!" However, if you're not sure what I am talking about, the same segment from the same VeggieTales episode somewhat reminds me of the Lion and Bear Original Sketch from Teletubbies. Anyway, I had enough of this. Take care and have a wonderful 2012.

Best Wishes, 68.224.119.202 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your insertion was pretty obscure, original research, and non-NPOV. Sorry... However, it would be funny. Ckruschke (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Exodus
I noticed that you had made some earlier edits to the exodus but had them reverted. I recently had the same issue. It would seem that two users are enforcing their own view of what "mainstream scholarly opinion" is on the article. The reason your edits, and mine, were reverted is not that they were wrong or that they didn't represent "mainstream opinion", but that these two users are enforcing a POV on the article. I assure you, your edits and mine were closer to "mainstream scholarly opinion" than the reversions were. If you are willing, we can work together on the article to bring some balance.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll have to go back and look at what I wrote. I seem to remember it being somewhat obscure, a link to a theory on an Exodus date that was only supported by one author and he only printed it on his web page, but I could be wrong. Now that I've been on Wiki for awhile, I've realized that the bar for "scholarly" submissions is pretty high and good or bad, many Christian authors don't meet it. What are you trying to introduce? Ckruschke (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Looks like PiCo has setup a para by para review of the whole page - this would thrill me to death if I were you as "they" have given you the opportunity to comment on specific sections. I'll chime in as well. Ckruschke (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Could you take another look at the talk page for the exodus, specifically the bottom? I commented on PiCo's behavior on the most recent post by History2007. He seems to be purposely obstructing the discussion. This is what was going on in your earlier encounters with him: your sources are probably good and should go in the article, but he and an occasional ally obstruct changes that don't correspond to a his personal super-skepticism.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

One question....
When was the first time you heard of Teletubbies? Have you ever watched it? I did watch the show when I was a younger child. 68.224.119.202 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm obviously a little older than you as I was nearly 30 when Teletubbies came out in 1997. I think I've watched about 5 min of a rerun one time when my son was little - we quickly changed the channel - so obviously I'm not a fan. Why? Ckruschke (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I don't know. I grew up with Teletubbies myself for many years when it was exported to the USA in 1998. 68.224.119.202 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction for future
For your information I am a male, not a female as you referred to me at the DRN. And I will say, I appreciate your input and the fact that not once did you use the word drama. That is something!-- Djathink imacowboy  05:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Case opening
Hello! You were listed as a party to a content dispute at a post on the DRN. Per that discussion, I have opened a Mediation Cabal case here. If you feel you are no longer involved, please feel free to remove your name from the case page.

All discussion will take place on the case's talk page. Please read over the ground rules on the talk page, found here and put your sig below in the indicated spot. After that, and after you have watchlisted the page, please post a short statement in the section below 'Ground Rules' which describes your side of the dispute and what resolution you wish to see.

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Exodus
I invite you to comment on Talk:The_Exodus.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your contribution to the exodus discussion. I encourage you to continue. Can you think or other ways the article could be improved?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox draft of the exodus
I created a sandbox version of the exodus page at User:Quarkgluonsoup/The Exodus/Draft. Please come over and make what edits you think would improve the page.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

revert about silly songs
hi Ckruschke, with reference to this edit  and one more which i had reverted, the user who had added it feels it was wrong to remove it, can you please discuss with him here User_talk:71.34.165.194 on this, ( as i havent seen the video) Thanks and regards--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ   23:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I reconsidered. Although I'm trying to keep the episodes text to be short summaries, and alot of people want to add nonsense. I've told the editor that he/she can continue to add the Silly Songs w/o my intervention. Ckruschke (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * thanks for responding cheers--  Ð ℬig XЯaɣ   23:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The sandbox version of the exodus article has been moved to Talk:The_Exodus/Draft.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Another question for you....
What was up with you removing the list numbers from the section "One article question...." on the page "Talk:VeggieTales"?

68.224.119.202 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Simple clean up. You referred to the article - we didn't need a list of row upon row of numbers to figure out what you were talking about. Ckruschke (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Actually, that was something that someone else added. 68.224.119.202 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Then it's a moot point. Ckruschke (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited William G. Moore Jr., you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Smyrna Airport and Springfield Airport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are my conclusions thus far
In case I have been misunderstood. I agree with Rudolf Bultmann that the Bible stories are theology taught in story form using the language of Myth. It is impossible to single out and remove a historic person. That goes for Eve, Ruth, Mary, Joshua, Sampson, Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus and many other Biblical people. They are a significant part of their sacred theological story.

I have been taught there is nothing supernatural, and nothing in human reason or visible in the world to compel people to believe in God. The mystery of existence is enchanting, but a belief in "The Old One" comes from faith without evidence. However, with faith and prayer people can find greater happiness than without. If there is an afterlife, the loving "Old One" is probably real. "[To an atheist] the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody", from G. K. Chesterton, was one of my teacher's favorite quotes. Ones faith is a vital act of will. If you read Sci Fi don't miss "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card. Try a little fantasy, "Boy's Life" by Robert R. McCammon and "On Strange Tides " by Tim Powers is a great fantasy pirate story. Want a thriller? Don't miss "Vanishing Act" by Thomas Perry. This will introduce you to the remarkable Jane Whitefield. A great character. She is smart and tuff. Real tough. Remember friends are allowed to disagree. Kazuba (talk)kazubaKazuba (talk) I am terrible on the computer.

Historical Jesus talk pageKazuba (talk)


 * I read quite extensively on many subjects - fantasy, sci-fi, thriller, everything - and only a portion are Christian oriented. Thanks for the suggestions. Ckruschke (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Kirby Puckett
Hey Ckrushke, I started a discussion at Talk:Kirby Puckett if you wanted to take a look. Ryan Vesey Review me!  18:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Bob Artley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WAAC


 * LarryBoy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Scooter

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dan Savage
I've been simply crushed with real life of late and so I haven't been able to contribute like I should to the Savage article in relation to his speech controversy. You're not a lone voice in the wilderness here. I hope to get some extra time soon (within 24 hours) and when I do I'll weigh in on the issue. Thanks so much for engaging in the rather thankless task of swimming upstream on this issue. Sometimes Wikipedia displays its sample bias, facilitated by bureaucratic inertia, in disturbing ways. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Bob Artley photo.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Bob Artley photo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited List of VeggieTales characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ermengarde (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Pages
Hi, As stated on my user page, I plan to gradually fade away from Wikipedia. I am still watching some pages, but not as often as before, and the trend will be to reduce involvement. Given that you are so diligent in making sure things do not get out of order, If you could add a few pages to your watchlist and guard against vandalism and crazy edits that will be appreciated. Most of these pages are very stable and hardly get any vandalism, but it would still be good to have someone look at them once in a while.

While I will no longer fix computing articles, many of the Christianity articles are in good shape now, except those on historicity. I think you have seen that the existence, language and historicity issues have now been clarified in the Jesus page itself. I will try to touch up the historicity pages before I fade away.

The pages that may be of interest to you are the core Jesus pages, namely:


 * Key pages: Jesus, Chronology of Jesus, Ministry of Jesus, New Testament places associated with Jesus, Love of Christ, etc.


 * The main biblical episodes: Nativity of Jesus, Baptism of Jesus, Transfiguration of Jesus, Crucifixion of Jesus, Resurrection of Jesus, Ascension of Jesus, as well as related pages such as Confession of Peter and Christology.


 * The sayings and deeds: Miracles of Jesus, Parables of Jesus, Sayings of Jesus on the cross. There are also other pages such as Jesus' walk on water and Marriage at Cana, etc.


 * Historicity: Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Christ, Annals (Tacitus) (I think you watch these three). There is also Suetonius on Christ, Mara Bar-Serapion and Pliny the Younger on Christians (this one needs fixes), and I will fix those soon.

Your help in watching these key pages will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * History - I'd be happy to watch those pages and keep the wolves at bay! I don't have quite the intellect that you've shown or the time to really dig into some of these articles, but I'll lend whatever hand I can. If any others come to mind, even ones that are not related to Christianity, please let me know. Ckruschke (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * You are being modest really. But thank you for offering to help. One page that I thought of afterwards was Gospel harmony, it is pretty stable, but Carl who initially wrote that page also retired, and so has no one else watching it. Again, thank you for helping on these. History2007 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited Lompoc, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note
I was looking at your userpage, and I couldn't help noticing one of your userboxes said, "This user loves The Beatles." Ahh, who doesn't? But another reason I'm here is to inform you that you have new messages here. 72.230.135.196 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't see a comment that was made recently on the Spaceballs Talk site. Just a comment from July which I ignored - it's kind of immaterial (to me) whether the movie is a comedy, a parody, or both... Ckruschke (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

You could have went to the page to let them know that you saw the message instead of going to your talk page only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.135.196 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I said, the issue seems pretty unimportant. However, if it will make you happy, I'll put something in on the page. Ckruschke (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Book
Hi - thanks for your reply. I wasn't sure whether it was to my FTN note or the Moon landing conspiracy one. I am interested to understand (mostly) why people engage in the apparently Sisyphean task of defending Wikipedia against both crude vandalism and the more 'subtle' kind, i.e. inserting points of view that are against the policies on neutrality, verifiability and so on. It would tire me out! Is it difficult? Do you ever lose patience? Have you ever been tempted into being uncivil or abrupt? As I mentioned, I'm writing a book about Wikipedia but wanted to get away from the 'how to' or 'what it is' and focus on the people who actually work on it. What inspires them? Why do they do it? That sort of thing. Do email me if you prefer to communicate in private. Thanks Hestiaea (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Warmath
Sorry, I reverted your revert - the new image I have found is a PD image, and the other is a non-free. PD images are always preferred for articles, and as such, I've nommed the old image for deletion as a replaceable fairuse image. – Connormah (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, rushed for time, don't mean to come off as a jerk, but per WP:NFCC, we can't have unfree images when there are free images available. – Connormah (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk page comments
You shouldn't remove someone's comments merely because they duplicate someone else's on a talk page. And if they are unsigned, there is Template:unsigned specifically for that purpose.
 * Talk:Peanuts‎
 * WP:TALK

I'm going to restore the comments, please don't remove them for this reason again. - jc37 19:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is painfully obvious that you are restoring a useless test edit that was most likely done by the same person who wrote the identical thread at the bottom of the page. I was therefore simply cleaning up the page and removing nonsense and will most likely be ignored. Thus it boggles my mind why you would make such an effort considering if anyone comments to either thread its pretty clear that they will either A) point this same thing out or B) should the thread grow, they will request that the two threads be combined. However, if it is that important to you, I guess you can have at it... Ckruschke (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * If that is so, then just move the comments to the thread in question. People can ask follow up questions. Moving comments is one thing, but removing legitimate comments or questions from an article talk page can be considered disruptive.
 * Regardless, we don't remove legitimate talk page questions for these reasons, per WP:TALK, and for that matter WP:AGF.
 * Thanks for understanding. - jc37 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously this is a VERY VERY minor issue, however I see it as clearly a duplicate Talk thread that should have been deleted for clarity and continuity (especially since it was pasted into the top of the Talk page). Agree to disagree at this point. Ckruschke (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Sneetches and Other Stories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Holt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

...
Merry Christmas! History2007 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Matthew
My apologies, but my Wiki-editing is complete now. As I said a few months ago I have been wrapping up, and as of yesterday I stopped all new development. I will still be watching pages (I just reverted a Chronology edit) but my new edits have ended. I have now completed all the historicity materials and yesterday finished the rising deities fixes. But that is it. Again, I am sorry, but everything has a season and this season is over. But I will still watch pages and your watching them will also be appreciated. And Merry Christmas again. History2007 (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I should say that I still feel bad about not going to work on Matthew, but I have really been trying to stop. I did a few edits again today to really wrap up elsewhere, but I just do not know enough about the "authorship issues" of the gospels to work on Matthew. So again, do accept my apologies. History2007 (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob. I know you said you were wrapping up.  Ckruschke (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

USAAF
Hey, nice hearing from you again! AAMOF, I capped the entire term for that very reason, even though I had a momentary qualm. I cannot recall when the original edit was penned but just noticed it for the first time last night. My gut tells me the statement might also have included reference to the "Army Service Forces" had it not been for the then-inevitable edits over "Services of Supply" as its predecessor name, etc. :-) I'm going to try a compromise by using the generic and inclusive "Army's ground forces" and see how that flies. Thanx for the input.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Didn't know how to handle that one - Talk is usually for "more important things". However, your edits are usually golden so I'm good with "whatever". I posted a longer response on your Talk page. Ckruschke (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Minuteman ICBM
I've found a source regarding the Minuteman's launch reaction time - but it only states that the missile can be launched within "minutes" of the receipt of a valid launch order.

My point in adding a 'citation needed' tag was to question the dubious claim of a launch within "one minute" of a launch order, not to question the fact that solid-fuel ICBMs have (relatively) fast launch times compared to liquid-fuel rockets.

You might want to have put that on the talk page first before reverting an (arguably valid) edit like that. No offense, but that was rather dismissive - and not very polite.

Cheers. Assassin3577 (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep - I was impulsive - I posted a longer response on your page. Ckruschke (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

List of VeggieTales characters
I wanted to let you know that I nominated List of VeggieTales characters for deletion at Xfd because it appears to lack notability WP:LISTN.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)