User talk:JohnRajendra

Welcome
 Hello JohnRajendra, 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
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)


 * 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 [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.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.

JohnRajendra, good luck, and have fun. – Aboutmovies (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Gospel of Jesus' Wife
Hi John. The section you added to Gospel of Jesus' Wife includes information already included elsewhere in the article - in effect, it duplicates the information, citing a less reliable/expert source (a news blog). I'm going to roll it back, with a view to encouraging to you add the information again, but with better sourcing and without the editorialising which effectively summarises the views of (admittedly expert) bloggers with regard to someone else's conclusions. To be clear, they did not "determine" anything - they simply agreed with others who had previously.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For better or worse (no pun intended), the article reasonably accurately reflects the volume of news coverage with regard to each position and each element of the history of the fragment to date. There was significant coverage of the original announcement, subsequent analysis (including dating) and subsequent commentary. There has not been as much coverage of more recent commentary, mostly because the recent commentary came long after many established experts had determined (in their own minds) that the fragment was a fake. They saw no need to continue commenting. We generally wouldn't cite Evans' work directly with our own interpretations, we cite secondary sources talking about Evans' work. You need to be very careful about the presentation of "scientific data". Wikipedia doesn't publish original thought or research in its primary form. The dating work is covered in detail because secondary sources cover it in detail.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm. I'm not following. In your initial post you have stated that admittedly expert bloggers commenting on someone else's conclusions were one of the reasons for the reversion. However, I'm finding that by not quoting directly from the source, the wikipedia article in question is in fact using expert bloggers or articles commenting on others conclusions. Can you give me clarification as to how to follow the guideliness you've given?


 * The issue was that the conclusions were presented as the conclusions of the authors when in fact they were the conclusions of others, being agreed to by the authors. Presenting the original conclusions would be okay (without editorialising) and presenting the commentary as commentary would be fine also. The section you just added to the article is fine. It's a direct and accurate quote without any editorialising whatsoever. I'm sorry if my explanations were somewhat confusing, but you seem to have understood exactly what you needed to do regardless of my muddling! A good result!  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Stallwart.

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=630406539 your edit] to Hillsong Church may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * from Brian Houston">{{cite web | title=Re: recent media comments on homosexuality | publisher = {{red|&#91;&#91;}} Hillsong.com | date = October 2014 | url = http://hillsong.com/media/statement-re-recent-media-