User talk:Laschuetz

Essenes
Generally, an article should only be linked to once. Avoid using "external links" to link internally. See Links. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Essenes that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Essenes with this edit, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Essenes with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Essenes. Jim1138 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, my last set of changes need to be applied. It would've been around 8:15pm CT on February 6th. I have completed all my additions (new links) and will apply that one last edit (I promise!) if allowed. Again, my apologies for not understanding the posting rules. I appreciate your consideration. Thanks!

This is the last set of edits that need to be applied. After this evening, that will be the last that I will post to the "Essenes" entry in the "Name" section. Thank you!

However, Flavius Josephus – born Yosef ben Mattathias – was the son of a priestly family on both sides and a self-described Pharisee. "From ages sixteen to nineteen, according to his autobiography, Josephus experimented with the various Jewish sects in order to choose the best, finally deciding on the Pharisees as the most attuned to the people. In an apparent chronological conflict, however, Josephus also states that he spent these three years with a desert ascetic named Bannus, a period that ended when he was nineteen." We come to understand his true feelings about these so-called "Essenes" in Chapter 8 of "The Jewish War" as follows:


 * "2.(119)For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends (italicized for emphasis) to a severer discipline, are called Essenes.  These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for each other than other sects have."

Besides the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Bible only mentions only one other Jewish sect; namely, HaDerech or "The Way." We see that Saul was hell-bent on persecuting the men and women of The Way in Damascus on orders from the Sanhedrin in Acts 9:1-2. After his conversion, Paul recounts the story and how Christ appeared to him in Acts 22. And, finally, he admits to belonging to this sect in Acts 24:14-15 when defending himself with Governor Felix. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) of only one Jewish sect with a male priesthood of ascetics in the Judean Desert wilderness east of Jerusalem (i.e., Qumran; see Matthew 3:1-3) and a congregation of men and women in Damascus. They would perform a tevilah (a full-body, ritual immersion or "baptism") in a mikveh (a collection of "living water") of which the Jordan River qualified as it had a natural spring as its source; see Mark 1:9. In fact, several references are made to "The Way" in the "The Exhortation" contained in the Damascus Document and throughout the DSS:


 * "For when they were unfaithful and forsook Him (God), He hid his face from Israel and His Sanctuary and delivered them up to the sword. But remembering the Covenant of the forefathers, He left a remnant to Israel and did not deliver it up to be destroyed.  And in the age of wrath, three hundred and ninety years after He had give them into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, He visited them, and He caused a plant root to spring from Israel and Aaron to inherit His Land and to prosper on the good things of His earth.  And they perceived their iniquity and recognized that they were guilty men, yet for twenty years they were like blind men groping for The Way (italicized for emphasis).


 * And God observed their deeds, that they sought Him with a whole heart, and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way (italicized for emphasis) of His heart. And he made known to the latter generations that which God had done to the latter generation, the congregation of traitors, to those who departed from The Way (italicized for emphasis)."

These Jewish messianics, who recognized Christ from His birth, had separated themselves from the false teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees who practiced in the Temple at Jerusalem. We know how Christ felt about them in Matthew 3:7, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 16:6-12, Matthew 23, et al.; He certainly did not mince words. The term "Essenes" was likely a derogatory one applied by Josephus – possibly meaning "pious ones." There is no mention of that sect biblically, and the term should be dismissed once and for all. The true, third, Jewish sect called "The Way" in the New Testament should be recognized henceforth. Josephus was likely guilty of "historical revisionism," and the New Testament Scriptures clearly contradict his claims on this subject.

Again, I apologize for not knowing about the sandbox. Wikipedia needs to have a program for training newbie contributors like myself. None of this was intentional, and I was only editing my content -- NOT vandalizing (which expressly conveys malicious intent; nothing could be further from the truth)!!! Also, I didn't see that I had a message at the top of the screen; it's not very noticeable. This whole thing has put a bad taste about contributing and questioning whether I should continue donating money to Wikimedia in the future!

The Way
I would suggest that you use wp:Reliable Sources to write a wikipedia article on HaDerech and work from there. Editor2020 (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So, the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls are not considered "reliable sources?" Wow... Regardless, I will ask to create an article entitled HaDerech or The Way (religious sect). Thank you!

Please stop deleting sourced material at Census of Quirinius
Hello - You have twice deleted sourced material from the lead of Census of Quirinius and replaced it with your own original research.. Please stop doing that and discuss changes you wish to make, which must be backed by reliable sources, on the article talk page. Thank you.Smeat75 (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Not just original research but a violation of WP:NPOV - your edit summary makes that obvious:"Corrected the "Herod" referenced in Christ's birth narrative; there is no conflict with the Book of Luke, which was an historical account -- written in chronological order -- to Mattathias ben Theophilus, the kohen gadol in 65-66 CE. STOP SUPPRESSING.." Multiple reliable sources see a conflict, and many also do not see Luke as a purely historical account. And our article on Luke doesn't date it to the 60s, it says "The most probable date for its composition is around 80-100 AD, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century." You are trying to push your pov into the article.  Doug Weller  talk 18:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Doug, the sourced material is WRONG for the stated reason. The census of Quirinius was historically in 6 CE. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. The "Herod" serving in 6 CE was Herod Archelaus. So, what's your problem? Just because theologians dismiss the very historical Gospel of Luke doesn't mean that historians should. If Luke were written c.80-100 CE, then who the heck is Theophilus? Luke allegedly died in 84 CE based on a Wikipedia article; see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist. So, if theologians state that the Book of Luke is problematic, then why was it canonized. No, it's the theologians -- who throw HISTORY by the wayside -- who are wrong. Have the COURAGE to set the story straight!


 * Our "No original research policy states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows: Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings; tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs. "
 * We never comment on sources ourselves. The person you attacked as discredited is a Professor Emeritus and his book meets our definition of reliable sources at WP:RS. He's a professor of history, not a theologian. Please stop, this is what got you blocked before.  Doug Weller  talk 05:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Herod Archelaus, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 04:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Doug, how is it "disruptive editing" when it's the truth? The census of Quirinius was in 6 CE; that is an undisputed FACT! Herod the Great died in 4 BCE; again, that is historical FACT! Herod Archelaus served as Judean king and Roman ethnarch from 4 BCE - 6 CE when he was banished from power; he died in exile in 18 CE. Again, all historical FACT! So, who was the "Herod" of Christ's birth narrative in 6 CE when the aforementioned census was taken? It was none other than Herod Archelaus! That is NOT my opinion -- nor my POV. It is FACT! Now, change the article to the facts and not the garbage currently posted that is conjecture!

It's just like the article on Herod Antipas. Some chucklehead author is able to say that he was not called a Judean king based on a published book in 1999 by a spurious author named Israel Shatzman. I provided six references from the Bible where his predecessor, he, and his successor were all called kings. If anyone needs to be removed from their editorial responsibilities, it's you and your ilk. PUBLISH HISTORICAL FACT!


 * We are a mainstream encyclopedia. We don't take religious texts as historical fact. We use reliable sources that discuss those texts. You seem to have strong disagreements with our policies and guidelines and appear to be trying to force your views into articles. We have editors who can constructively edit while holding to the tenets of biblical literalism, but you so far don't appear to be one of them. Being called a king in the Bible doesn't make someone a king, it may show that the authors were reflecting local customs, for instance. That seems to be the case for Antipas. I didn't use Shatzman as a source there, and your comments on him might be considered a violation of one of our most important policies, WP:BLP. Doug Weller  talk 12:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging  Doug Weller  talk 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

When you disregard historical facts, you cease to become "mainstream;" it implies you have an agenda -- just like the Ministry of Truth (aka Minitrue) in the novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four." Wikipedia has become propagandized. You may want to read your site's own content: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Ministry_of_Truth.


 * Oh I agree entirely. The problem is that the Bible isn't a compendium of historical facts and we don't treat it as one here. Doug Weller  talk 15:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Now, we've discovered the truth haven't we, Doug? In fact, the Bible is THE historical document, and you may want to read yet more content on the Wikipedia site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Archaeology_S,ociety. Nearly every week, another archeological find proves that fact as well and is published in the "Biblical Archealogy Review" (BAR). So, now we know with great certainty that the Wikimedia Foundation is Orwell's Minitrue. I can't wait to use your direct quote. Thank you for playing. Katherine Maher has been contacted, and she is aware of you. I took a screenshot in case you attempt to modify your response. Have a good day, Doug.


 * Why would I modify my response? It's quite possible she's aware of me already, I have regular phone calls with various people at the Foundation. Interesting though that your response to my comments is an attempt to get me in trouble with the Foundation. Doug Weller  talk 20:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

April 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Essenes. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Please discuss at Talk:Essenes what you want to add. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Way. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Resurrection of the dead, you may be blocked from editing. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Essenes. Septrillion (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. It looks like you are here to add your own original research to articles, with emphasis on a blog by Alan Schuetz. This is not allowed under our policy. You have chosen a user name which includes the word 'Schuetz', suggesting you may be connected to the proponent of these views. You have edit warred to restore your material to articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)