User talk:DenJones

February 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article John 18:38, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Feb 2012
Please read WP:3RR and note that on John 18:38 three editors oppose your edit. Time to stop, else you will be blocked. History2007 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR and WP:Edit war warning
You seem to be disregarding WP:Consensus and starting a revert cycle on John 18:38. Stop, or you will be blocked from Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

History2007
I've reverted your edit on the talk page of this user who has permanently left Wikipedia - see WP:LEAVE. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to John 18:38, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Which you did again shortly after being reverted. Not just original research but edits telling the reader what is important, significant, etc. You need to read WP:NPOV and WP:Words to avoid. I've reverted you there and at the Seer stone article for similar reasons. I see another editor reverted some of your text at Reformed Egyptian. That's 3 editors. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Specific problems
Some of your edits are ok, but these, , , aren't. " it has been drawn upon many times as a significant occurrence thereof." isn't your text, but it's dreadful writing. And hard to source, we can't use searches as sources, we need a source meeting WP:RS that actually says that. Ah, the Nietzsche ref in was obviously in the wrong place. There are other problems in that edit in any case. Eg "he may have meant any number of other things. His exact intention in aborting the conversation is completely open to speculation. However, regardless of his exact meaning in uttering the question "What is truth?", his action, Warren W. Wiersbe in his The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, feels was to ignore the assertion of Jesus that he was the "witness to truth". This is, however, only one interpretation of Pilate's going "out again unto the Jews." It is significant that Pilate immediately tells them categorically: "I find in him no fault at all" -- a fact often overlooked when commentators and scholars "judge" Pilate's action." is basically your interpretation and original research - WP:NOR. "of the world, truth and light being important topics in the Gospel of John, more so than in the other three Gospels." would need a source, probably attributed to the author of the source. I don't like replying to email when I don't know the person, sorry. And it's best to be open about all this anyway. So, replace the other stuff. Looking at the old version of the analysis it has problems, eg "Note that Jesus, although he does not respond to Pilate's question (perhaps because Pilate "went out again" before giving him a chance to) believes he knows the answer." We don't tell readers what to note or what is important, we tell them what reliable sources say about them (we have our own criteria for 'reliable'. I don't know if " His statement may have been made in jest that the trial was a mockery, or he may have actually intended to reflect on the philosophical position that truth is hard to ascertain" is another editor's original research or in the source.

I hope this helps. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nine Coaches Waiting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alpine. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nine Coaches Waiting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Savoyard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)