User talk:Fdf3

 Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles


 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
 * Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

, good luck, and have fun.

Christ myth theory
Hello Fdf3,

You seem to be missing the point of the text in question. It does not say that Mithras was born to a virgin mother, it says that some people say Mithras was born to a virgin mother. They may be wrong about this, but it's important for the article to note that they said this, as it's an important element of their case that Jesus was a myth. Please discuss this matter on the article's talk page (Talk:Christ myth theory) rather than simply removing the sentence. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Fdf3, I'm sympathetic to your frustration here. It's certainly aggravating when cranks peddle misinformation. But, as Akhilleus notes, the section in question is merely detailing the claims of the Christ mythers. Of course Mithras wasn't born of a virgin, but these crackpots say he was. (In fact all the supposed parrallels mentioned in the article--"Mithras was born to a virgin mother,Horus had twelve disciples,Attis was crucified,Osiris was resurrected from the dead"--are nonsense.) The scholarly reception section indicates that serious scholarship rejects this stuff. Eugene (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is if thats the case, it should be introduced as "some people claim..." instead of "according to mythological sources..." or whatever it has now. Because Mithras was 100% not born from a virgin woman in mythology. --Fdf3 (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what the article currently does: "For example, proponents have claimed that, according to classical mythological sources...". Eugene (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems very weird to me. Just to let you know I am not new to Wikipedia. I used to have another username where I massed well over 15,000 edits and then requested a block because Wikipedia was becoming too important to me. I just decided to try it out again. I'm saying this, so you don't think I'm some new user who just wants his way. That being said, when I used to edit Wikipedia, nothing like this would ever fly. Unless there was an article purely dedicated to this, I cannot believe you are allowing an article to claim mythology depicts something it does not. I mean anyone can claim anything. But this makes no destinction between it actually being false and it not. Right now it sounds like this is true. It should probably be removed all together. Its very odd. --Fdf3 (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is dedicated to a crackpot theory which is predicated on a pile of distortions. The article indicates as much quite clearly in the final sections, but it's important to detail the theory's claims though. Eugene (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I got ya. --Fdf3 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm considering adding some information to the article that would address your concerns. I have the sources lined up and the sentences sketched out in my head.  If you were to raise your concerns on the article's talk page it would help add legitemacy to the additions. Eugene (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK --Fdf3 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Abraham. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Abraham. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. You may want to consider that Wikipedia is not that important, and if you are getting "ticked off," you may want to take a wikiholiday. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you seriously stop? Do we need to have conversations on three seperate pages? --Fdf3 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)