User talk:Deadtotruth

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Source Deletion
I've been looking through old edits on a number of articles, and it appears that one of your sources has been systematically removed by a single individual. You may want to go to Vassyana's user contributions around December 23rd. He seems to have mistakenly removed the reference as if it were a self promotional ad of some kind. I've contacted him to let him know about his simple mistake. He may not know (and you may not know) that it has been peer reviewed with the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Board of Roman Catholic Bishops. In any case, I wanted you to be aware so that you can check the information in the articles. In a few places he's left uncited information that has no reference, and some of the edits he created now point to sources that do not say what the article says.EGMichaels 16:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I just noticed that the source doesn't have its own article.  That might have been Vassyana's problem.  I've seen mistakes like that in the past.  I was trying to move onto other subjects than religion, but I should probably help start an article on the translation now that it's been brought to my attention.  I could use some help, I think.EGMichaels (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your comment at Talk:Genesis_creation_myth
Since this is more of a personal reply (from me to you) and not really for the general audience I figured I'd post it here (hope you don't mind).

Firstly let me thank you for the compliments. Secondly, I agree wholeheartedly that your edits have added value and that under typical circumstances would have been perfectly fine. I agree that my statement is atypical for my personal views yet this article and the constant tendentious editing / debate is also quite atypical. My fears were that your edits would be immediately assumed to be in bad faith and reverted on sight being that many editors of this article have adopted a very "Us vs. Them" attitude and are very prone to knee jerk reactions. I encourage all of your edits but just as friendly advice, I would suggest that you can prevent much of the knee-jerk reverts (like you saw with PiCo) by briefly stating what you are editing and why on the talk page. You by no means have to follow this advice (as it is only advice) and far be it from me to question or stop anyone from making valuable good faith edits, I would just hate to see your good intentions get dragged into an edit war or have some bad faith AN/I complaint brought up against you for "POV pushing" as has already been done for a handful of people that contribute to this article in good faith. All the best Nefariousski (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Source and Text Deletion
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tediouspedant (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 February 2010

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth
Deadtotruth, it's not appropriate that you issue warnings on my personal talk page. If you have a problem with my editing, express it in those terms, not as threats.

My deletion of your material on Philo is on the basis that he is not important enough to merit a whole subsection of two paragraphs. Also, the section where you inserted the Philo material is intended to be a neutral summary of the contents of Genesis 1-2, without interpretation. You haven't been around the article long enough to know this, of course, but I have - I've been editing it for more than two years. If you have a contrary view on either of these points, the proper place to express it is the article talk page.PiCo (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Deadtotruth, you have no authority to warn anyone about anything. PiCo (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, anyone can issue warnings, that's not restricted to us Administrators. However, there are other issues. First, we ask users not to 'template the regulars' - see WP:DTTR. Secondly, this is clearly a content dispute and you should definitely call people's edits vandalism in such cases, see WP:Vandalism. Thirdly is what looks like personal attacks on article and user talk pages where you are accusing people of having double standards. Please stop this. Again, I think you should read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. You all have your own points of view which you hold strongly, but that's no excuse for incivility. None of this should be read as an endorsement of any article edits by any of the editors involved - yours or the three you accused of double standards. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Deadtotruth, you've already been warned about bullying behaviour. Please stop now. PiCo (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are now two sections entitled 5 Theology and Judaeo-Christian interpretation and 6 Commentaries, Criticism, Controversies and non Judaeo-Christian views. I have no objection to anything about Philo's theology and Creation ex nihilo theology going in the former section and anything about the scientific accuracy of Creation ex nihilo going in the latter section. Hopefully that will help you and PiCo to accommodate your differences. --Tediouspedant (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See my note about wholesale deletions on PiCo's page. --Tediouspedant (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in commenting
The gaming has continued. You may want to comment here on a charge you're me!EGMichaels (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip Schaff
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. PiCo (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Drawing your attention to my inquiries
Hello deadtotruth. I wanted to make sure that you see the questions I have put to you on the talk page at Genesis creation myth. Please give attention to this-I have been unable to verify the claims to ex nihilo in several sources you've added to the article and am requesting quotes from those materials. Thanks. Please put the page on your watch list if you haven't already done so. That may help you keep current should questions such as this arise related to all contributions to the page. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked Forty Minutes with Einstein, Wrinkles in Time, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics, Creation: the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe, Creation Ex Nihilo: Thoughts on Science, Show Me God, God and the Astronomers - and I'm asking for quotations for Comprehensive New Testament and Before the Beginning: Cosmology Explained also. Clontz appears to be a version of New Testament for young people, and Before the Beginning is authored by a cosmic physicist and its publisher self-claimed to focus on publishing intriguing but fringe points of view.  If these aren't your references, I apologize, but I was given to understand they were.  Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my talk page for my response. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my latest response. The article talk page is the proper venue to discuss any changes to the article, not user talk pages, so please let's not digress into discussing your suggestions of new references on my page.  Thanks. I've listed the references I'm questioning here above, I've listed and discussed them on the article talk page twice, and on my page, now listed twice.  We need to focus on those. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my talk page again for my reply. My opinions of the Wesley, et al refs will be appear on the article's talk page shortly. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of sources
Thank you for your comment on my talk page regarding the use of sources - Schaff and Augustine, to be exact. While you're doubtless quite sincere in what you write, you're failing to grasp the fundamental difference between subjects such as philosophy and theology, where thinkers separated by centuries can legitimately be treated as equals, and those such as history and biblical studies, where they cannot. It might help if you think about history: historian A, writing about Hitler in the 1950s, will not have access to documents discovered after that date, which will mean that his work has to be treated with caution in comparison with historian B, writing in the 1990s. So it is with biblical studies: Schaff had no access to Ugaritic texts, for example, and he obviously couldn't consider the ideas of John Day which have used those texts, and other sources also not available in the 19th century, to construct a totally new set of ideas about ancient Israelite religion. For this reason the ideas of ancient and pre-modern writers hold no authority when we try to understand the background and original meaning of biblical texts.

I hope this clarifies matters for you. PiCo (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your most recent message. It might be better, though, to put this sort of thing on the article talk page, since it's about the article and would be of interest to all editors. As for what you say: the question isn't whether there have been changes to the text of Genesis, but changes to the scholarly interpretation. There have been such changes since the late 19th century, and they've been revolutionary - Schaff is thoroughly out of date. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your postings on the Alistair Haines 2 RFAR Workshop page
Dear Deadtotruth,

You may not be familiar with the Arbitration process, so I thought I try and clarify a few things with you. A number of your postings on the Alistair Haines 2 RFAR Workshop page resemble evidence, and as such should be posted on the Evidence page, backed up with diffs, keeping within the 1,000 word limit. The workshop page is for proposing Findings of Fact, Principles and Remedies. These should be short paragraphs and broken down into sections as appropriate. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed some of your material from the workshop page. If you read the guide to arbitration, you'll see that a lot of what you've said is actually an attempt at providing evidence and that belongs on the Evidence page.  You are welcome to provide evidence there if you like, but you must stay under the 1000 word limit.  You have already found the area for analyzing evidence, so please limit your analysis to that section.  Also, please do not post the same thing multiple times.  It makes the page longer, harder to keep track of, and breaks discussion up so it is hard to follow.  I've removed a number of your duplications, but from now on keep your contributions focused.  And finally, do not refactor others' posts as you did on the Workshop talk page. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 14:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note on Alastair Haines 2 case:
If any parties have any relevant information to add, now is the time. Several arbitrators have spoken up in ArbCom's discussions that the facts of this case are clear, and that providing this additional time would be not useful. I strongly urge all parties to provide any further evidence and workshop proposals they have, and quickly. I will post this to all parties talk page and will update when any proposed final decision is available. (this is a note I've provided to all parties to attempt to give as much notices as possible of a proposed decision being moved up). SirFozzie (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice..
Hi. This is a message to let you know that the proposed decision in the Alastair Haines 2 case has been posted. Please see this link for the proposed decision and to view the arbitrator's votes on this case. SirFozzie (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2
This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
 * Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
 * To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

Edits
Hi Deadtotruth Re Hebrew Gospel hypothesis can I request that you please review WP:BRD, other editors are entitled to revert if there is a significant concern. Here the concern is deja vu on the content having previously appeared and been deleted on other "Aramaic Primacy" articles, for which see WP:FRINGE.

I see the summary
 * "Undid revision 558772487 by In ictu oculi (talk) reverting everything to upgrade citations on the page and include more recent scholarship - koster, Schneemelcher, Howard, etc"

And am glad to see you have used Talk
 * In ictu oculi, please stop mass deleting information on this page without a reasonable basis. I will reverting the page to undo the mass deletion that has no basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadtotruth (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

But the repeated insertion of non-consensus content still constitutes Edit warring, I request you remove the content until other editors have time to view and some consensus is established. I have already asked WP Christianity editors for input 10 hours ago. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)