User talk:Rossnixon

Welcome!


 * To leave me a new message, click here.

You can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump.

Archived Discussions: page 1, p2, p3

ABC hypothesis FYI
I opened up a mediation here. - RoyBoy 800 03:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The mediator would like another agree to him mediating on the talk page. - RoyBoy 800 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Please don't abuse the rollback feature. Your edits to Jesus were not simply reverting vandalism. You may want to read ROLLBACK again, if you haven't already. It's also shameful that you used rollback to get up to your 3RR limit as well. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked it again as you suggested. It said "When an admin or rollbacker sees an unworthy change to an article (usually vandalism)". It was "unworthy" as there was no consensus to change it. It then became vandalism when the editor in question kept reverting without adequate discussion. rossnixon 08:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Just stumbled on your page
You seem to be a longtime user here, who supports Intelligent Design. What do you make of that project? I've been banned twice for disagreeing with people there, and I'm pretty much fed up with wikipedia.GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By 'project', do you mean the Wikipedia page? Or the Discovery Institute's ideas? I stopped looking at the WP page long ago, as I don't really keep up with the subject. I'm more into creationism of the YEC variety. You can't be banned for merely disagreeing with people, if you were following WP guidelines. rossnixon 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

sarfati book?
Are you sure that is a book you added to the Sarfati article? No sign of it on Amazon yet. David D. (Talk) 03:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

references on being complex
Ross, my objective is only to produce a reference for stating the doctrine is complex due to the editor that stated it was POV. I think the request is absurd; I did a quick search and took the third one that I checked. It stated the doctrine was complex and I did not look at anything else. Regardless, I think the reference is reputable, but would be happier if there was another one. Do you know of one? If so, please use it. If not, it should stay because it is both reputable and verifiable. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we need a more neutral POV, see my comments on talk:Christianity. OK, I see your answer already. rossnixon 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Global warming
Your persistent low-level disruption at global warming violates several Wikipedia policies (see WP:V, WP:TE, etc). Please stop. At the next occurrence, I will request advice on handling the matter from other administrators by initiating a thread at WP:ANI. You will of course be free to present your perspective there, but it would be best if matters did not reach that point. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize, not because the edit is wrong, but because I thought about it further and realized that it would need a citation to explain or back-up the "inconsequential" nature of the temperature change. It was a "good faith" "bold edit". rossnixon 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus
You quickly dismissed my edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth as 'WP:OR and unreliable source'. I assume you were referring to reference and quote of John Remsburg? You did not make this clear. Remsburg is published and therefore seems to not fit your definition of WP:OR. Your claim of 'unreliable' is puzzling when sat next to the clearly Christian apologist references and quotes that litter this page.

Hopefully you are interested in providing a balanced article and not simply defending Christian beliefs and desires to suppress any information that demonstrates Jesus is a mythological construct? Thanks. MonoApe (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will take a closer look. I spotted some "leading weasel" phrases. I will check to see if the source authors have qualifications in the relevant fields. rossnixon 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert on Noah's Ark
Hi there, In the interests of avoiding further reverts, I've put back my changes that you removed here]. You had put the language which fails to treat this from a neutral voice (e.g. talking from within the religion rather than as a neutral party). The article is about more than just the ark, it's about the story surrounding the ark (which you've put it back to). You also removed the quote with the geological viewpoint (referenced), the mention of sacrifice, the period of the deluge, put back the amateurish sentence structure and also re-inserted the spelling mistake "reappeares". I'm sorry if I've treated your edit as unhelpful: but if you've got something more to add perhaps we can discuss how best to incorporate that into it. But drive-by reverting with an obvious ignorance of the fixes isn't real helpful. Thanks, NathanLee (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Concensus and Pseudoscience
This is exactly what I said to Christian Skeptic when I reinstated this sentence the last time.

I reverted your deletion of the the statement in Answers in Genesis about YEC being considered pseudoscience. Your reasoning was perfectly valid, in that scientific concensus has no bearing on pseudoscience. However the statement was also perfectly true, in that going against concencus is the reason that YEC is considered pseudoscience. I.e. because the conclusions of YEC are philosophically unacceptable, the methods are non-specifically dismissed as unscientific. If anti-YECs want to hang the illogic of this conclusion out there for the world to see, I say let them.

I was very tempted to remove the sentence myself when it was first added, but on further consideration I came to the above conclusion. LowKey (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed up and moved the sentence. And actually the 'pseudoscience' is mentioned already in the Criticism section, so now it is mentioned twice and my previous edit summary was correct. rossnixon 11:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a RfC on Talk:Flood geology regarding a statement in the lead of the article. I don't know if you watchlist this article, but your input would be appreciated.LowKey (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion debate
Abortion debate. You mention that the right to life accrues at something like the pro-nucleus stage (?). Your very interesting biology reference, however, (which I read in full) makes no reference whatsoever to right to life or personhood, so I must conclude that such is your opinion. My opinion is that any such lines you draw have no basis in science and are therefore purely political. Korky Day (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Very christian of you -- NOT
How Christian of you to replace the image of Helen Clark with something that might be considered to denigrate her. Try reading Biographies of living persons which says material (including images) requires a high degree of sensitivity. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was done as a joke. The un-photoshopped, more realistic image is in widespread use. She has denigrated herself by her actions, a photo is going to make little or no difference. Why is a false image of her acceptable anyway? rossnixon 02:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you're a better editor
This edit would be considered vandalism if it were from an IP editor. You are a much better editor than that. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 01:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. It was a bold, if somewhat 'cheeky' edit that one! rossnixon 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I get your sense of humor. Unfortunately, a lot of admins have none.  And again, placing humorous edits does qualify as vandalism, and you're not a vandal.  And of course, maybe it's one of the funny things that hits just a bit too close to home.  Just a thought.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Flood geology/chronology
Ross, I just added a para about flood chronology (meaning when the flood occurred in terms of modern chronology) to the Flood geology. I said that the Genesis chronology (A begat B in his nth year, and B begat C in his nth year, and so on) places the flood 1600 (approx) years after Creation, which I believe is pretty correct. But then I say that Creationists, taking the biblical chronology as their basis, date Creation to the 3rd millenium. But this may not be correct, as I gather that many date it to about 10,000 BC. Why do they do that, and what's the range of opinion in creationist circles? Thanks PiCo (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Creation is dated at 4000 to 4100 BC using very conservative/literalist reasoning, but to avoid being quite so dogmatic, we generally say the earth is 6-10 thousand years old (i.e. 4000 to 8000 BC). This allows for nearly any "unknown" factors. Note than this does not pull the flood back to 6400 BC, it only pulls back the earlier genealogies. The flood is still thought to have been circa 2300-2500 BC.rossnixon 01:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ghosting
Hey Rossnixon, just letting you know I reverted back the change to the above page. Per the manual of style, disambiguation pages are intended to help readers to navigate through Wikipedia articles, which was the main reason I made the change. It was an additional benefit that some of the stuff removed was unreferenced nonsense (the "ghosting sexual position" crap, Halloween pranks etc). I know the Hamish & Andy part wasn't nonsense, but it was tagged as unreferenced since June, and belongs in their main article anyway. As an aside, I'm looking forward to Hamish & Andy's Re-Gifted show this week, because I missed some of their Rove appearances and this will be a great opportunity to catch up. Somno (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, fair enough. Whaddya mean "you missed some Rove episodes"? How can a true blue Ozzie do that?!? ;-) rossnixon 01:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know! I tend to forget that it's on, which isn't even a good excuse. I expect the disambig page will be expanded again after the Regifted special airs, but we can move whatever's useful to their main article, perhaps just leaving "A game described by Hamish & Andy" as the last entry in the disambig page? Somno (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Noah's Ark
Since you've contributed to the recent discussion at Talk:Noah's Ark, this is just a courtesy note to let you know a RFC has been filed here. Thanks, Ben (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The lede for Noah says this:

Noah saves his family and represenatives of all animals in groups of two or seven...

Apart from the spelling mistake, I'm wondering about the reference to the seven animals. I sort of recall a long discussion about this on the Noah's Ark article a long time ago, and I sort of remember we came to the conclusion that it actually meant 14 animals - the Hebrew says, literally, "seven-seven, man-woman" meaning seven male and seven female (it actually uses the words for "man" and "woman"). I don't want to go to all the trouble of researching it again. Do you happen to know what's correct? PiCo (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no way to know for sure. Bible commentators are evenly divided about whether the Hebrew means ‘seven’ or ‘seven pairs’ of each type of clean animal. www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp rossnixon 01:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas
If you wish to display a seasonal greeting, please do so on your user page, but absolutely do not vandalize an article to do so. Rklawton (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not vandalism actually, just a two word addition (a temporary 'decoration' as per my edit comment). rossnixon 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, vandalism, and you should know better. You should also be aware that your incivility has also been noted.  Rklawton (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Eeekster (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am aware of the rule. I trust that you will not revert me again. My version appears to be long-standing, therefore you should seek consensus on the talk page for your suggested change. rossnixon 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Noah
Good work on editing the Islamic section. PiCo (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A further thought: So you trimmed the Islamic section bcse it was too large (and I agree): and what happens when I try to trim the literalist section of Noah's ark because it's too large? All hell breaks loose... PiCo (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends on the method used to calculate the best proportions. Do we go by the current beliefs of the english-speaking general public? Or by the current beliefs of English-speaking scholars in that area of expertise? If a belief is widespread but only introduced recently, do we shrink a long-held opposing view way down in size? Example: X was believed for 2000 years by 95% of people. New view Y was followed for the next 150 years by 80%, the remaining 20% still go with "X". An 8:2 proportion to represent current views would belittle/ignore the literature and cultural impact of the more long-standing view. rossnixon 01:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the answer isn't easy.It's interesting though that the literalist view is comparatively recent - it emerged in the early 20th century. Before that, the literal truth of the Genesis story had been accepted rather than examined. It was only in the early 20th century that a whole intellectual structure to support this view was thought necessary. It's all very interesting as part of the intellectual history of the West. PiCo (talk)


 * I think the literalist view was the only one until the attacks from the European "higher criticism" of the 19th century. There was no reason to examine whether the view was valid - no one had produced a convincing alternative, and still haven't IMHO. The so-called fundamentalist revival was just a fight to reclaim ground lost to higher criticism once it became obvious that it's claims were largely invalid. rossnixon 01:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus
Ross, would you mind commenting on a content dispute at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a table comparing the accounts of Matthew and Luke. There are concerns over the use of primary sources, OR, novel synthesis, lack of explanation/context which would be afforded by prose, and even its necessity, given the section "The nativity as myth". The table can be seen at this version of the page: at section 1.3, "The narratives compared". Discussion on the issue can be found at Talk:Nativity of Jesus, in the threads "The two narratives compared", "The two narratives compared, part 2", and at "Task List (January 15, 2009)". Your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated, as very few persons have commented on it. Thank you, Ross. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I found it interesting...Nazirite and Nazarite are actually different words, says the OED. Nazirites are the people such as Samson and John the Baptist, and Nazarites are persons from Nazareth, or Christians. Just thought you might be interested too. Cheers. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me
The meaning of this?

There is a problem on the article. I could not identify the problem in the article, so I requested help on the discussion page. It's clear vandalism. Please do not revert my comments without explanation. --Hojimachongtalk 02:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark FAR
nominated Noah's Ark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take care
Your recent edit to User talk:Stephan Schulz‎ removed two other editors' comments and Stephan's replies. I'm sure he is aware of your previous edit and did not object when it was removed. Let him decide. Vsmith (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, that was not intended, sorry. Please note however that it is vandalism to remove comments from a user talk page other than your own. rossnixon 01:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yahweh the god of Shem but not of Japheth
It's at Genesis 9:26-27, the Blessing of Noah:

26And he [Noah] said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

27God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

There's no definite article in the Hebrew - it doesn't say "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem", it says "Blessed be YHWH Elohim of Shem", with YHWH as a personal name - it doesn't mean "Lord". So a better translation would be, "Blessed be YHWH (the) God of Shem".

Note how the text carefully says that YHWH Elohim is the god "of Shem", but omits anything like this for Japheth. This is an ongoing theme in the OT - with each generation, Yahweh becomes more and more closely identified with a narrower and narrower group: first with the descendants of Shem (Japheth and Ham are ruled out), then of the descendants of Abraham (but the Covenant is exclusively with Abraham's descendants through Isaac and Israel), and then finally with one family, that of David (ruling out the royal dynasties of the northern kingdom of Israel).

Something else that intrigues me is the pattern of reversals you find in this chain. Usually the eldest son is favoured, but at key points it's often the youngest who is favoured over his brothers. David himself is the most notable example, but there's also Judah (the youngest son of his mother, although not of his father). The position with Abraham and Shem is unclear, but these four are the four crucial flexion points in the narrative of God's favour towards Israel.

The pattern of generations is also interesting, though God knows what it means: there are ten generations from Adam to Noah, another ten to Abraham, then a group of 3 (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), then ten again from Judah to David, and ten from David to the fall of the Temple. Clearly the author - and it must have been a single author - was trying to build a chain of generations, but why this structure? And for that matter, why is it only visible if you include Chronicles and Ruth - or at least the last parts from Judah on to the Destruction. The bible is full of mysteries, which is what makes it so fascinating.

PiCo (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

NZ swine flu cases
Hi, I see you tried to improve the NZ entry in Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table. However the figures in your edit were wrong; if you read the source cited, you'll see that only four cases have been confirmed through laboratory tests, which is the count that should be given in the first column of the table. I've reverted to the correct figures. -- Avenue (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first source is older. Look at the newer second source: 13 confirmed, 96 suspected. I will change it back. rossnixon 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing that changed with the "confirmed" numbers between the two sources is that they realised one person hadn't come from the US, so the number decreased from 14 to 13. But the main point is that "confirmed" here doesn't mean confirmed by laboratory tests, which is what goes in that column. See my last post in this section for more. I'm happy to try to explain further if you're still not recognising the distinction after reading that, but it might be best if we carry on the conversation there. -- Avenue (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I had assumed the newspaper meant "laboratory confirmed" when it said "confirmed". I think that was a bad choice of word by the newspaper - the virus can *only* be confirmed by laboratory tests. rossnixon 01:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In fairness to the Herald, the Ministry of Health has often glossed over the distinction between probable and confirmed cases; e.g. here. So virtually all the media reports about NZ get this wrong, or at best do the same. -- Avenue (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone has upped confirmed to 16. Want to change it back to 3 for me? Suspected is now 111 rossnixon 08:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne‎ beat me to it. I did update the suspected count - thanks for the tip. -- Avenue (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a nice NZ map here - click on regions or "NZ Total". Don't know how often it is updated, but will be interesting to check every day or two. rossnixon 01:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

They don't make a warning template for this
But do not use "search and replace" as you did here, most especially for mass date format changes, which is controversial enough. You managed to raise, among other things, the question of "whether Christmas ought to be ADlebrated on December 25 or January 6". I don't know about you, but I don't plan to ADlebrate a darn thing. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Re your edit to Global Warming
Controversial edits that drastically change the content of an article (like your [edit to [[Global warming]]) can be considered disruptive and should be discussed on the talk page first. Thanks. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding politically motivated categories
Hi. I believe the category Critics of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia is a legitimate one. All of the individuals on the list have expressed through written works or public statement their opposition or concerns for the legitimacy of the bombing. So I don't see why it should be deleted. I believe this category is similar to that the categories of critics of feminism, American anti-Iraq War activists, ect.. --Happywith006 (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio
I've deleted some copyvio material you placed on Talk:Flood geology without even noting where it came from, I've put a link with my reply so people can read it where you found it. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring - September 29, 2009
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. - Peter Deer (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, in regards to the thing you keep editing take it to talk and develop a consensus, repeated edit warring with others about this is not helpful. Peter Deer (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I took it to the talk page, but no one in a week or so has bothered to comment. rossnixon 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Other wiki encyclopaedia
Greetings Rossnixon, I haven't been active here at WP for quite some time but I do recall that we seem to have common areas of interest. You may be interested in this encyclopaedia. LowKey (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe you are not interested, but could you possibly look over our flood geology article and make a few suggestions? LowKey (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions warning
Can't be bothered to find the right template, but be aware the GW (and any number of other articles) are covered by General sanctions/Climate change probation William M. Connolley (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. --TS 22:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Genesis in Abraham
Hi, thanks for your correction of my understanding. Clearly the issue of how to quote such texts is more complex than I appreciate. Perhaps you could explain why the translation you chose differs both from the translation at the cited reference, and the translation of the NIV in the boxed quote above? If this is covered in relatively understandable guidelines, a link would be fine; I don't want to take up too much of your time. --MegaSloth (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All I have done is substituted the modern english terms 'you' and 'from' for the archaic versions 'thee' and obscure usage of 'of'. It would be pedantic to call that a retranslation. rossnixon 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pointless name-calling...
Please refrain from pointless (and wrong) name-calling such as, especially at articles under probation. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a harmless 'dig'. Don't be hyper-sensitive. rossnixon 01:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
If you continue to edit war on creation according to genesis you will be reported for doing so. Please note that spacing edits so that they're not technically violating WP:3RR's 24-hour rule will unlikely gain you any lenience. Ben (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just looking for a good compromise, trying various more neutral sounding versions. If anything it is you that is edit warring. I don't recall you looking for alternatives. rossnixon 01:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The introduction is currently sourced and perfectly neutral, so why would I go and look for alternatives? Ben (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus
Hey RossNixon, thanks for deciding to help contribute to the Jesus page! As you can imagine, this page is highly contentious and requires much deliberation. You may not have noticed that the section which you removed material from is actually the topic of an ongoing collaboration. Please feel free to contribute any ideas you may have, but because you removed cited material that is relevant to the section I am going to revert it. If you really feel that the article will be better without that text then please jump in and explain! ThanksJstanierm (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit
- see also, Scare quotes. Never appropriate in articlespace unless as part of a direct written quotation. -- King Öomie 05:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info. rossnixon 01:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Failing to adhere to WP:Words_to_avoid#Myth_and_legend
Again with the non-neutral edits. Quit it. Ben (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Creationism
You believe in Creationism??? Is it possible? Could you explain why? --Little sawyer (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely! You will find, if you do a little research (Google is your friend), that this is quite a common belief. See answersingenesis.org & creation.com rossnixon 01:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite common in the American south, and only there. -- King Öomie  03:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Something wrong with the American South??--Gniniv (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a Creationist and I don't even live in the western hemisphere. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 07:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Needed Consensus on the Genesis creation myth page
Being a latecomer to the article, I'm unclear exactly who is committed to the article and what they are committed to. I've heard a good deal from those in favor of the "myth" title, but not so much from those opposed. Eactly WHAT would be needed for a consensus title before you would be comfortable making improvements to the article? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

AGW Theory
Sorry, you can't call it a hoax here. It's still a controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm... I believe I put it under "possible hoaxes", not "proven hoaxes". rossnixon 01:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Would you mind refactoring this to raise the level of discourse a bit? Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 05:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC) No. No personal attacks there. rossnixon 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Creationism
Hey Rossnixon, I've started a new section on the Creationism talk page here concerning the contentious Gallup poll issue. I didn't revert your edit but figured it'd be better to work it out on the Talk page than in edit summaries. SQGibbon (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth
I appreciate your enthusiasm for what appears to be a consensus forming around the new title. However, I think it would be wise to wait for the process to conclude and for the actual page move to be completed before jumping the gun on the lead sentence. Further, I think you'll find it's not just skeptics (or even primarily skeptics) who are comfortable with the label of "creation myth". There is mainstream scholarly support for the term, even among some groups of Christians. Ἀλήθεια 03:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Global warming
Hey Ross, I reverted your edit which added Global Warming to List of Hoaxes. As I said in my edit summary, Global Warming is a fact. Some of the evidence used to support GW may have been hoaxed, but Global Warming remains a fact. If you disagree, you would need to delete our Global Warming article, the first sentence of which reads "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. ". Moriori (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Age of the earth
I reverted your edit on the Creationism page. While any scientific claim may be strictly said to be a hypothesis, the age of the earth is among the best supported ones you could name. Agathman (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fellow YEC Editor
Nice to meet a fellow YEC editor. You can debate with me or leave a note on my talk page.--Gniniv (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
I have started a mediation page as a last resort effort on the conflict between pro-literal (or YEC) and pro-secular (or evolution) bias in the articles Objections to evolution and Genesis creation narrative. Please participate by following this link Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative.-- Gniniv (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Trib comment in Apostasy in Christianity Article
Rossnixon,

You comments from Thomas Ice that "Some pre-tribulation adherents in Protestantism believe that apostasy can be interpreted as the pre-tribulation Rapture of all Christians. This is because apostasy means departure (translated so in the first seven English translations)" applies only to the "apostasy" mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, and none of the other passages. I think you were aware of this but it is not reflected in your comment. Therefore, I thought that it was more appropriate to place your comments in footnote #37 in line with what is mentioned about 2 Thess. 2:3. This makes more sense since, from my research, this view is not well received from the vast majority of scholars and commentators. Blessings,ClassArm (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

July 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Young Earth creationism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — raeky ( talk 03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Christ page - few vs some
I felt the change warranted because the word "few" is imprecise and slanted to marginalize a group of people holding the views under discussion there. The word "some" communicates the same information, but without the slant. I'd truly like to hear your argument as to why "few" makes the article more encylopedic and from a more neutral point of view than the word "some" - especially in the case in question. Thanks for taking a little time to consider this; we share the same goals, I'm rather certain! Spiral5800 (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just now noticed the post above mine on this page about a supposed edit war on a page on creationism. I haven't read any more details, but the NPOV policy is very clear.  My own personal views on religion and christianity in particular played no role in my editing - I was motivated purely to make the article better, on a small scale obviously.  Do you find any difficulty approaching religious topics dispassionately; that is, would you edit out parts of an article that were examples of obvious evangelism or articles slanted toward the creationist viewpoint?  As a source of information, we all obviously must do our best to try to be neutral - and to know in which cases we cannot.  I too know that it is impossible for any of us to check all our opinions at the door, which is why I am asking you about this.  I look forward to a cogent, productive, and polite conversation on this topic.  Thanks again for your time! Spiral5800 (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Book of Genesis - addition of text in lead not backed by article
You added "Some modern critical scholars, however claim the 15th century." I would think you are experienced enough to know that the lead summarises the article and this unsourced statement does not do that. This seems to be part of an attempt of yours to add this sort of claim to articles. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You've also been slowly edit warring this information into other entries when you know this is not a view held by scholars. Please stop doing this.  At the very least try to get consensus on the talk page before making any edits that might be controversial.Griswaldo (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The original statement was also unsourced. My expansion of the date range is affirmed by conservative (but non-fringe) scholars. My edit should stand, although I do agree that a ref/citation would be an improvement. rossnixon 02:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Flood myth. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jess talk&#124;edits 02:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No. My edit is not controversial, as such. It merely makes an uncited statement into a true statement. rossnixon 02:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it's controversial. Per WP:BRD, when a change you make is reverted, the next step is to discuss on talk. Re-reverting is a violation of WP:EW (with or without 4 edits in 24 hours) and could end up getting you in trouble. As a note, there are legitimate concerns with the proposed text, not the least of which is WP:Weasel. I'd suggest addressing those on the talk page, since they're undoubtedly what will come up. Jess talk&#124;edits 02:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've checkedWP:Weasel and can't see any problem, but thanks for the advice. Looks like this will have to continue on the talk page of the article. rossnixon 02:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:Weasel tends to apply to any statement which involves the word "some". The appropriate question to ask is "who"? Fixing such problems involves either the removal of the "some" statement, or replacing it with a specific person/group and a reliable source. In any case, I have to point out that I watch Flood geology too, and warring over there is covered by the same policies. This may sound harsh, but I'm letting you know because things like this invariably lead to a report at AN3. It's very much advisable that you don't perform any more than ~ 1 revert on an article to avoid getting caught in a war. Anyway, good luck. Jess talk&#124;edits 03:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You're currently edit warring on Rapture and Jesus. When someone reverts your contributions and asked you to discuss on the talk page, the appropriate course of action is not to re-revert. You need to go to the talk page and summarize your objections. As I stated very clearly to you above, this behavior will get you reported on WP:AN3, which will lead to a block. Jess talk&#124;edits 03:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When I do a trivial, uncontroversial edit and provide a clear edit summary... I don't call that an edit war. rossnixon 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly re-reverting content is edit warring, and is very clearly not (by its very nature) uncontroversial. Please read over WP:EW as you've been instructed to do in the past. Repeatedly edit warring will get you blocked, so it would benefit you to be familiar with policy. Jess talk&#124;edits 02:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Israel road sign 302.svg I advise you (as one who has bitterly tasted my own tendency to WP:TE) to seek WP:Conflict resolution. As a fellow YEC editor, we need to be careful to uphold the integrity and principles of Wikipedia, even while trying to improve the secular bias on important articles.-- Gniniv (talk)  10:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Izzy Cooper.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Izzy Cooper.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Counterproductive edits.
This edit was highly counterproductive, more for the way it was made than for the content, which is simply an error. You recently tried to make this very same change and were reverted with a request that you come to Talk and explain your change. Instead, you edit-warred, ignoring the request and simply repeating your earlier edit comment.

Why would you think that the comment would be any more persuasive the second time around? Why would you think that reverting was better than discussing? If you wish to participate in editing controversial articles, you're going to need to learn to get consensus for your changes instead of trying to forcefully ram them down our throats.

I'm going to leave your erroneous edit in place to give you a chance to justify or revert it. If you don't do the former, I expect that the latter will occur, one way or another. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already discussed your poor behavior, but I don't want to overlook the meat: your date is wrong. Take a look at this, which is a fair summary, well-cited. It shows that the date you suggested is a fringe view. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In the same vein, your recent edits to Creation science go against common sense, the rules and consensus. Please stop changing the article without first getting buy-in on the Discussion page. You won't get this buy-in, of course, which may be why you're bordering on edit-warring instead. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed your request to take the Jesus edit to talk, sorry. I thought my edit summaries would have been sufficient. Will do. rossnixon 01:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Too bold?
Please consider discussing some of your bolder changes in Talk and gaining consensus, instead of just editing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If this was the edit I think it was, it was introduced without citations and is clearly wrong in places, such as stating that Genesis pronounces a "flat earth". rossnixon 02:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Four corners. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ross, you've reverted three times in quick succession, which is edit-warring. But you haven't said a thing on the talk page about why you did this. I'm very disappointed; you know better than to do this.. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have missed some of my comments perhaps? Some are in 'edit summaries', some are on 'talk'. rossnixon 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit comments aren't sufficient, and I saw nothing in Talk. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Luke
I invite you to come offer your two cents over on Gospel of Luke. Dylan and another editor are trying to push a POV that they say represents the "mainstream", which just so happens to be a pretty liberal POV. I can tell you more about this if you are interested.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * More canvassing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ARE YOU OPPOSED TO CANVASSING, DYLAN? - then explain your call on the Evolution talk page for "more eyes" for the Creation Science article! rossnixon 01:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Step 1: Calm down and be civil.
 * Step 2: Repeat step 1, avoiding SCREAMING CAPS.
 * Step 3: Read WP:CANVASS. You will learn that a neutrally-phrased and untargeted call for editors is not canvassing.
 * Step 4: Retract your accusation. No apology needed, though one would be graciously accepted.
 * Got it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rossnixon, take a look at this edit for an example of the POV pushing Dylan is doing. He deletes the sources because he considers them "sectarian".RomanHistorian (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's because they're apologetic, not scholarly. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rossnixon, as you probably noticed elsewhere, Dylan defines everything that is not atheistic as "apologetic".RomanHistorian (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Secular is non-religious, not atheistic. I would have thought by now that you'd be aware of the difference. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:YEC
Hi! Would you be interested in joining this WikiProject? We are short on editors and it would be nice to have another guy onboard...-- Novus Orator 06:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, probably not. Don't really have the spare time. rossnixon 01:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Rapture Intro
I think you've finally nailed down a stable intro. Thanks for doing better than I could do ;-)SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

[Deleted - I forgot to sign] see next post Gwilenius (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Creation Science edit
(previous version is more accurate. I don't see any obvious quote problem; let me know if I missed it)

You are correct, there should be no change in the quote. This is my first time editing content, I didn't realize I was editing the quotation from the original source. Sorry.

However, I do challenge the first sentence which asserts that creation science attempts to disprove scientific facts when I have cited the president of the Institute for Creation Research which gives proof that all creation scientists do not disprove facts, therefore the implication they they do is a logical fallacy (hasty generalization) and is false.

Also, Creation Science is not the same as scientific creationism - scientific creationism, as with theistic evolution and other models, is a subset of Creation Science, which is in itself a subset of Creationism.

Gwilenius (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Isobel (Izzy) Cooper.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Isobel (Izzy) Cooper.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Fringe views" on Jesus
I find your revert and comment about my edits insulting and naive. To dismiss a rather large segment of humanity (in many countries, the majority opinion) as "fringe" and pretend that their views on Jesus are unimportant is both repulsive and intolerant. And as far as the "scholarly" comment, in academia, almost all professors outside the field of religion feel that way. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You will find that Wikipedia guidelines state that fringe views should rarely be included. In encyclopedias, we give scholarly views. It is like 'Evolution'. You won't find the first section stating that 40% of people don't believe it explains our origins. (P.S. I regret that you felt insulted - there was no such intent.) rossnixon 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Talking
It's polite to look at the talk page before telling me I need to go to the talk page. . GDallimore (Talk) 11:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Entirely different section on Jesus Fringe Views- Fringe vs. Small Minority of Scholars
As I understand it, among many writers who have contened that Jesus did not exist, there are two widely read ones today, Robert Price and Earl Doherty. While relatively few historians believe this, Price remains a respected scholar while for a variety of reasons, Doherty is not. There is a difference between a small minority view and a view that is considered outright silly by the scholarly community. As WP:FRINGE puts it "However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.

Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight."

It's a bit (IMO) like the difference between David Bohm's theories on quantum physics and those promoted by the film What the Bleep Do we Know?. In the first case, Very few physicists believe David Bohm's theories on quantum physics- nonetheless David Bohm remains a highly respected physicist. In the second case, the ideas promoted in What the Bleep Do we Know? are universally viewed as junk pseudo-science by the entire community of physicists.

Other scholars that have contended Jesus did not exist include George Wells (a professor of German), who was desribed by the more mainstream Graham Stanton as the most thoroughgoing and sophisticated claimant of Jesus' non-existence.

It is true that this claim has been made by wholly unreliable historians as well, but in general it should be counted as a small minority view, not a fringe view.

It seems to be OK to simply mention tangentially that such a view exists (it is not my view, BTW) in the article on Chronology of Jesus. I thought it would help to resolve the tag. (I actually made the change on behalf of a friend who is a convinced Jesus-mythicist, which however I am not.)--WickerGuy (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

YEC or OEC
Are you a YEC or an OEC? Please leave me a message on my talk page. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 14:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary warning
Consider this a formal warning about your recent edit at Genesis creation narrative, " As a creation myth similarIt has similarities to several " which stated "fix bad English". This was clearly misleading. Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Global Warming
Could you please explain this edit? I'm having a hard time seeing a good faith reason for such a change... and I'm really trying. You should know better than this. If there's a legitimate reason I'm missing, please let me know. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Project: YEC
Think you might want to join? This project section has a lot of potential, but currently lacks direction. Wekn  reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 11:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Book of Genesis
I'm no language or religion expert but Book of Genesis article's first paragraph used to say "Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Bereʾšyt, "In THE beginning")" this was changed to "Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Bereʾšyt, "In A beginning")" The first version was referenced but the change wasn't, what are your thoughts?Theroadislong (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "bi-roshiit". Made up of a preposition, "bi" (or "be" if you like", meaning, "in" or "at", and a second word the root of which is the consonants r-sh, meaning "head". No definite article. Therefore it means "at (or in) head." The full phrase can be transliterated "At head making (or forming, or creating) Elohim the heavens and the earth". (Note that there are definite articles for "heavens" and "earth", and that "heavens" is plural).


 * This is nonsensical in English, but "In A beginning" is even more so. Stick with the source.
 * PiCo (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This blog has some interesting material that you might like (pertains to giants like Goliath). PiCo (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay
Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics.  Schwede 66  09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)