User talk:Rossnixon/Archive 3

Archive 2 (Sep 2006 - Dec 2007)

Re: Jesus - sprotect or protect
The protection level of the article Jesus was changed from semi to full; however, the semi-protected tag was not changed to fully protected. I merely corrected the tag. I did not change the protection level. &mdash;Wayward Talk 09:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesus
I can protect pages, but in the case of Jesus I was not the one who initially protected it. Someone else did, with a low level of protection. Still, a POV warrior went against consensus and reverted a sensible revert. So I upped the level of protection. Then the internet place I was at (I am in Ecuador doing fieldwork) blacked out so I coudln{t change the tag of the protection. I generally do not like to see any page protected but once more than one person starts imposing a non-consensus view, I generally think people need some time to discuss. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark
Ross, in the Noah's Ark article, I find this sentence at the top of the section on literal interpretations of the story: "Many Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians are believers in Biblical inerrancy, the concept that the Bible, as the word of God, is without error, but must be interpreted using the historical-grammatical method in order to be understood correctly whenever there is no clear reason for any other reading." When I click the link to 'historical-grammatical method' I find that what's described is not what I understand as a literal interpretation of the Bible - one based on the idea that God's word does not deceive, and that texts should be taken literally unless some other meaning (poetic, allegoric, etc) is clearly intended. You're far more able than me to judge - would you like to take a look at the sentence and see if this erference to historical-grammatical is justified? Thanks PiCo 04:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The historical-grammatical article exaggerates the difference between "literal" and "historical-grammatical". A person who is a "literalist" does not believe that Jesus is a door when he said "I am the door". A literalist *does* look at context. A literalist looks at the "plain meaning" of the text; the meaning which is obvious. I would describe the "historical-grammatical" method as the literalist method plus scholarly research and conjecture (i.e. sometimes they go too far with their imaginations, reinterpreting the Bible to fit with other so-called evidence). rossnixon 02:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So I take it you're happy with that sentence? Ok, I'll leave it alone then. Thanks. PiCo 08:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a good blog about this, http://michaelpahl.blogspot.com/2006/06/meeting-god-in-crowded-room.html

Pastafarianism
Sorry about that, you're quite right. I forgot that there are two separate articles. yandman 09:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark again
Thanks for the link to the NZ site - it made me smile.

Had a thought abt the original Ark while in the bath: Creation was vegetarian from the beginning up till the animals got off the Ark, which means that Noah didn't have to worry about providing, e.g., mice for the 2 cats - which is just as well, as that would have broken the "only-2-of-each" rule. On the other hand, it raises the interesting question of just what the cats did eat? An idle thought. All the best. PiCo 07:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Noah was vegetarian. But I believe the animals became omnivorous shortly after "the fall".

The cats (and all other animals) would have been fed vegetable-based food on the ark. I don't discount that Noah could have had supplies of dried-meat as well. There is no problems feeding vegetables to cats, as lions were fed vegetables in London Zoo during WWII when there was a shortage of meat. rossnixon 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Firefox 2.0
Regarding what does Firefox have to do with anything? JoshuaZ 03:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Religous" jumped out at me as an error while I was reading the article. I just wish more people used a browser/editor with real-time spell-checking, then fewer misspellings would be entered. rossnixon 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Hmm, I'll have to upgrade. JoshuaZ 04:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A few websites require IE (e.g. Windows/Microsoft Update). For these, I use an add-on "IE Tab" which renders the page inside Firefox using IE. rossnixon 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, to clarify; the spellchecking is in "forms", not with normal viewing. rossnixon 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. JoshuaZ 05:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and abortion
I noticed you changed the text "a woman's right to control her pregnancy" to "a woman's right to kill her baby" at the Abortion debate article. And I noticed that you also were reverted for a claimed NPOV violation. I agree completely with the revert, and am contacting you personally in case you would like to discuss this further. Hopefully this was just a lapse of judgement. If not, feel free to contact me, or start a discussion thread at Talk:Abortion debate. Here's a little hint, baby and fetus are only synonymous to a certain POV, kill is very POV, and your version ignores the 'choice' aspect, where the pro-choice movement supports a woman's right to terminate or carry to term (at least on paper), thus making 'control' a much more accurate word.--Andrew c 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope the revert holds. Is this Ross Nixon going to help finance, educate, and provide health care for any of the "babies" he wants to cause to be born? If the mothers are unmarried, can he help them find husbands (if they want a husband, but maybe Ross Nixon does not care about that point.) Carrionluggage 07:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please try to discuss content, instead of making personal attacks. I don't care if Ross Nixon is Pro-choice or Pro-life, and I am not going to attack his personal life, or question his motivations or personal behavior outside of wikipedia. Your comment is not helpful, and has nothing to do with the disputed content. --Andrew c 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it is relevant. My wife and I adopted babies born out of wedlock, and so did some friends of ours.  Sometimes when we encountered people with "Adopt, don't Abort" bumper stickers entering or leaving their cars in a parking lot, we'd say how nice that was and ask them how many children they had adopted. The answer was invariably "none." It is hypocritical to urge the banning of abortion without any plan or effort to deal with the consequences. I was pointing out that responsible action to prevent abortion places an onus on the activist to make some plan to deal with the pregnancy and birth. Good medical care should be provided, some kind of financial and perhaps counseling aid for the new mother, and sometimes they try to trace the father and make him help support the baby (a low-yielding effort, however). Carrionluggage 09:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of blog as a source
Regarding Blogs are not generally regarded as reliable sources-do you have some other source that backs this up? (I'm wondering because this isn't a solution I've heard before and the older translations I've glanced at such as the Vulgatus don't seem to be very consistent with this translation). JoshuaZ 01:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was hesitant because it was a blog, but included it due to the apparent academic flavour of most of the posts, and the fact that many sources were given that apparently were favourable to this "variant translation". rossnixon 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To be blunt it doesn't look very academic to me, it looks like a standard apologetic blog. I don't have the time but I'd tentatively suggest looking up one of the sources that the blogger cites and citing that instead. JoshuaZ 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. rossnixon 08:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

addition of causes of death cat to abortion
I disagree with including the article in that category. I've outlined my reasons at Talk:Abortion. If you would respond to what I've written there, I'd appreciate it. I won't add or remove the article from the category until we discuss it. Thanks!--Kchase T 10:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rossnixon, you haven't participated in any of the conversation at Talk:Abortion but continue to add the article into cat:causes of death. Please take part in the discussion and don't revert other's edits repeatedly. Edit warring just fills the article's history with reversions and never establishes a consensus. To make it worse, people could get blocked for 3RR violations. Please join the dialogue.--Kchase T 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have joined the discussion already; and I only reverted the category once. rossnixon 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Help Prevent Article Deletion: Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs
Hello, I'm leaving you this message because I notice you've made at least one significant edit to the Wikipedia article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. The article has recently been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia, and there is considerable support for that position.

I'm hoping you'll help me support the continued existence of the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article by registering a keep vote on the article's request for deletion page. The article contains some good information, and represents an unobtrusive way to present notable minority viewpoints about dinosaurs that cannot reasonably be elaborated on in the parent article. It shouldn't be deleted simply because the viewpoints it presents aren't "scientific."

Thanks! Killdevil 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention-seekers and mythomanes
Ross, I'm willing to let your deletion of that phrase (in the ark-search section of Naoh's Ark) stand, but you might be interested thast I lifted it almost word-for-word from the ICR site which is quoted in the section - it's their phrase, not mine! (Well, ok, the attention-sekers bit is their phrase; "mythomane is a word I've ben fond of since I first heard from a Frenchman, and I was thinking of Ron Wyatt - it means someone who makes up his own story, no matter how far it might be at varience from reality, and then quite honestly believes it - that's Ron). PiCo 14:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Auckland Meetup 2 Scheduled - Feb 10 2007
You are invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - SimonLyall 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Speciation
Interested in your comment re speciation. To what level to creationists believe that speciation is possible? To genus, family, or order level? just curious --Michael Johnson 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You may have heard that lion/tiger/lion/leopard/jaguar/leopard can interbreed. And sometimes the offspring are fertile. A creationist quote: "There is enough genetic variability within the Felidae, however, to account for a fair amount of the diversity seen in today’s cat populations since the creation." This would equate to the "Family" level. I had seen previous quotes mentioning speciation to the "genus" level. rossnixon 08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rapture; help with uncited and/or original research
Hi, I see you have posted to Rapture. If you are interested in this article you may wish to help with providing sources and citations where possible and helping delete original or uncited research where citations cant be found. See [|rapture discussion] "Original research not for Wikipedia" for more specific information. SmithBlue 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Religous Perspectives on Dinosaurs: Kinds disagreement
OrangeMarlin and Rossnixon. I would like the two of your to file a RfC (Request for Comment) over your ongoing mini revert war. [| Requests_for_comment] explains what is necessary. This article need work done on it. The revert war is draining scare resources. My guess is that a RfC will lead to a quick resolution. SmithBlue 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Good to see the two of you communicating - I suggeszt that in future you both limit yourselves to 1 revert and then discuss or request comment. SmithBlue 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You have now made the same revert to an edit over three times in the article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. I would suggest that you don't make an another revert to your edit. It's in the discussion page, everyone is discussing it. If there is consensus, which there is not, I will agree to your changes. But right now, you are on a one-man (or woman) revert war, and I won't personally participate. Let's come to a consensus, which is much more acceptable to the community. Orangemarlin 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And how many times did you revert my edit? At least I had a "ref". But what do you think of linking "kinds" to Baraminology. I think it's a helpful solution. rossnixon 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to get into an argument with you, but twice. Others reverted your edit, and no one, but you, reverted those.  That kind of indicates there is a lack of consensus to your position.  That's kind of small with respect to the huge changes you just made.  Orangemarlin 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis – A Devil’s Chaplain
(I’m the i.p. address 82.47.208.4. I wasn’t logged in at the time) Why is the quote from the book “irrelevant” to that section of the article? It explains exactly what happened! Plus its Dawkins own testimony. If it is too long, than can it be reduced in size, leaving only the vital details?

I take it, that from your other messages here, that you’re a proponent of creationism? (And probably not a big fan of Dawkins too!) I think that its only fair to leave that quote in that explains exactly what happens with no pov bias (since it comes straight from Dawkins himself) Simpsons contributor 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is about Answers in Genesis. What you are including is discussion of a "news" item. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper or magazine. It is fine to mention the controversy, with a link - but the details should not be extensively quoted. That's my opinion, you may want to see what others think. rossnixon 00:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal remarks
Ross, I'm sure no offense was meant, but I would appreciate it if you did not make personal remarks directed at me.Trishm 09:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit at the Abortion article
Hi, you recently deleted some info in the Abortion article about the POV of a footnoted pro-life source. I agree with you that the article should not have POV info about pro-life sources, without POV info about pro-choice sources. Both should be included, whene relevant. I've started a Request for Comments about it, here, in case you're interested.Ferrylodge 02:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Documentary Hypothesis and beyond
Ross, you might be interested in this website, which seems (I'm no expert, so only seems) to give a good overview of contemporary scholarly battles over the DH:

http://www.bibleorigins.net/oneauthorprimaryhistory.html

PiCo 05:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The main problem with the interpretation is the suggestion that it was all written in circa 560BC. This does not explain the "books of the law" that are mentioned by previous generations going back to David (circa 1000 BC). The "unified theme" and coherence referred to could be due to inspiration of the writers by God. rossnixon 03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure he means it was all written "de novo" in 560 BC - I think his meaning is that someone at that time took existing texts and stories and wove them into a single set of connected books running from Genesis to the end of 2 Kings. But it's not quite the same idea as the DH - the DH says that JEPD existed as complete texts before the redactors existed, whereas he's saying (I think) that the redactor (in abt. 560 BC) had access to early texts, (including the law codes), but that these were not JEPD. To my mind both arguments have strengths and weaknesses. The DH can explain why the stories in Genesis get repeated so often - 2 Creation stories, 2 genealogies, 2 Arks (but only one Tower of Babel), but because it puts the composition of JEP so early - prior to the Babylonian exile - it can't explain why these stories have such strong parallels with Mesopotamian myth. The minimalists can explain the Mesopotamian connection, but by putting the composition so late (560 BC) they can't explain why there are so many coded references to much earlier events (e.g., the prophesy that Esau will break the yoke of Jacob, which the DH interprets as a record of Edom/Esau's successful revolt from Judah in about 800 BC). The Mosaic authorship theory in turn, asks us to believe in Divine authorship, which then brings up some awkward questions about the nature of this divinity, who seems frequently to be cruel and capricious - too many exhortations to kill children for my taste. Still, it's all interesting, and I try to keep an open mind. PiCo 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Warming
Stuff like this is essentially vandalism - please don't do it William M. Connolley 11:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop disruptively inserting POV-loaded sentences into the GW lede, especially after the talk page discussion covered this. --Skyemoor 11:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean the "59%" quote, quotes are not POV... and as I stated, I put this in before seeing that it had already been discussed. rossnixon 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth Brethren and John Bodkin Adams
Finally, whether Crowley reacted or not... bla, bla, bla... to his PB upbringing, the fact is he was raised as PB - and others included in the list also fall under this category. Basically Ross, you are adding and removing based on PB propoganda criteria - anything that is good for PB stays, all else is whitewashed. This site is for those who want to find out info with a NPOV - please try to respect them and the integrity of the site. Malick78 10:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi ross, I was just wondering why you keep removing and reassigning PB members who may have done naughty things - specifically, Adams and Haigh? You give no reasons the latter especially, despite the fact I have multipple sources that state he was PB. You also failed to give a reason for putting back the 'notorious' section and including Adams there. Please give reasons for this - so others can check you are not just acting on a biased whim - which I suspect you are. Why separate 'notorious' people at all? Why are they not just normal members? Laughably, you say there are no 'members' - well all the other contributers to the page are happy with the term - are you suggesting changing it completely or was that just a lapse on your part?


 * I'm trying to be neutral. Re "membership" - there is no joining/signing/paperwork/membership-list.

I am happy for any notorious characters to be included - but only if they were practicing PBs at the time that they achieved their notoriety (otherwise it is misleading to the casual reader). Question: Is Richard Dawkins a notable Anglican? rossnixon 02:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. To be honest, your comments and edits are all made to the benefit of the PB and involve hiding bad PR. You also ignore editing 'harmless' people like Keillor. So all in all, it does seem like you have an agenda...

Re: who should be included, surely the main point is that someone was a PB for a significant portion of their life. Adams and Haigh both qualify. As for Crowley, the information would be of interest to casual readers and can be qualified with a short comment. How can more information be bad (and it is relevant)?

Finally, the word 'member' is used by all contributors to the page, and it is used in its least official connotation - ie. that someone subscribed to a belief.

Category:Mythological ships
Hi! I've transferred your proposal to delete this category to the correct forum, WP:CfD. The discussion has been transfered to Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 27. Here's the standard notice and link:

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Best, --Shirahadasha 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Everlasting conscious punishment"
Hello - I've commented on your recent revert in Talk:Answers in Genesis. Help or comment on this concern would be appreciated. One4OneWorld 13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent revert of the Dispensationalism article.
Regarding your comment; "prev version was better."

My addition to the first section was made to rectify the inference that Dispensationalism is a Protestant only theology, which is erroneous. Unless you or someone else can come up with better verbiage to clarify this issue, my addition should stay, regardless of what your own personal preference may be.

Regarding your comment; "Dispute that Jews are not special to God. "

My addition regarding supersessionism/replacement theology was made to clarify and accurately state the essential core of this theology, and also to provide additional contrast to dispensationalism in a very straightforward and concise manner, which is something that was not present in the original article.

The addition that I made is an accurate encapsulation of what the very core of supersessionism/replacement theology is, and therefore should stay, regardless of what your own personal point of view is, or what your own personal agendas or misconceptions may be.

The statement is not a proclamation of the "Jews not being special to God", as you have mistakenly presumed. By projecting your own meaning onto it you have taken the original statement out of it's immediate context, rephrased it, and transformed it into an inflammatory statement that verges on anti-semitic; expanding it out to a place not intended.

Your dispute in this case is effectively baseless, unfounded, and illegitimate.

You have violated the procedures and guidelines set forth in the Help:Reverting article. Please review this article for future reference.

You have violated the procedures and guidelines set forth in the Resolving disputes article. Please review this article for future reference. WikiMasterCreator 11:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologise for my edit. I have just realised that you were talking about supersessionism. I had read this too quickly and assumed it was meant to be a dispensationalist view. rossnixon 07:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Apology humbly accepted.WikiMasterCreator 07:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Genealogy
I have recollections of correspondence with one Ross Nixon, genealogist, New Zealander, whose wife has some ancestors in common with me. A few of those common ancestors now have their own pages on the Genealogy Wikia, a free interactive wiki using the same software as Wikipedia. Anyone interested in genealogy should have at least a brief look at that. In some areas it is ahead of Wikipedia in its detail. Robin Patterson 12:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

closed plymouth brethren are no exclusive plymouth brethren
Hello Brother Rossnixon: I´m an Evangelical Baptist from Venezuela, a country in South America, ruled by Dictator Hugo Chávez, a darling from dogmatic communists you fight against; but this time I want to tell you on another completly different issue: An Article in wikipedia on Plymouth Brethren falsely claim Closed P.B. are same group as Exclusive Brethren or Taylorites. Because you are a New Zealander, -by the way an University in your beautiful homeland had a Venezuelan Rector/President-, you must to know by first hand this is simply untruth. New Zealand had many Open, Closed P.B. congregations, and Exclusives are important as a religious (and in lesser grade as a political one also), group there. http:www.cultwatch.org is a ministry by baptists and presbyterians evangelizing to Exclusives. My mother is a Closed Plymouth Brethren, her group NEVER talk on Taylor or teach any doctrine linked to him. I work as columnist/colaborator for a Spanish Closed Brethren Magazine, Gethsemaní, led by Joan Soler i Rius. I have tried to fix it, but many users delete my work, my references to sources and links proving this. I think there are political reasons behind it, because Exclusives- nowithstanding any heresy a Christian can find in them- are supporters and endorsing right-wing politicians and candidates. This situation ofuscate and irritate so much to comunists, that these people tries to create guilt by association on Closed Brethren. Help me with the article please.

A question, if I may
You seem to be more involved with Creationism related pages than I am, and I was wondering if you could answer a question I have about the Kitzmiller case. Jim62sch won't allow me to even indicate on the Creationism article page that there's a dispute at all about the current, well, dispute i'm in on the Creationism talk page, and I was wondering, do federal District Courts have authority to have their rulings apply throughout the entire United States, instead of just inside their districts? Jim62sch just gave me a "Go study the US court system" response when I asked him about this on the talk page, and I have a feeling there's actually an increadibly easy answer to this question that nobody really wants to tell me. So far, nobody is actually told me why i'm wrong, and i've been getting a feeling that there's some unspoken idea that the Kitzmiller case actually makes teaching Intelligent Design in public schools as an idea on equal footing with evolution illegal in the entire U.S., instead of just the Pennsylvania Middle District, and i'd really like to get to the bottom of this without having to waste the next few days studying the entire U.S. Court System. (The Wikipedia articles don't seem to have an explanation on where these District Court rulings can apply) Homestarmy 02:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but as a New Zealander who has never studied the US court system... I don't think I can help. I only know of one US lawyer, see If you can't find his email address, email me for it. rossnixon 01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism
Thanks. I appreciate your compromise with this edit. And it reads a lot better too!!!!! Good job. Orangemarlin 01:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Most of my edits are reasonably good. Some of yours are too! ;-) rossnixon 02:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. I think??????  Orangemarlin 02:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

24thC BC cat
Ross, about NA and this cat: there are exactly two articles in it, one called 24th Century BC (figures), and the other isNoah's Ark. Is this really a sensible category at all? (I have no strong feelings on the subject of whether NA should be ni the cat, and in fact if there were a dozen or so articles in it I'd support the inclusion, but a cat with just two articles, one of them simply the name of the category, seems a bit artificial to me). I put this in your personal page because I don't want to start yet another interminable, pointless discussion on the NA talk page. Cheers, P. PiCo 05:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Mosaic authorship
Ross, I've written an article on Mosaic authorship, since no-one else seemed willing to do it. I'd be grateful if you could look at it from your perspective and make any changes or suggestions for change that you think are needed. One aspect I haven't looked at is modern scholars who hold to the MA tradition - I believe Kenneth Kitchen does, and there are certainly less famous people who do, but I'm handicapped by a lack of knowledge of who's who in that area. If you could look into that it would be valuable). Thanks in advance PiCo 04:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Formats
I think all of the file formats are listed now. I'll have to move over the MIME types tomorrow, if they aren't done by then. All the other information from the table would have to be added from individual research on each file format, as that information does not appear in the old table. ColdFusion650 03:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Conservative answers to the DH
Hi Ross. I wonder if you're aware of this site - Alpha and Omega Ministries. This article is an excellent, fair and balanced overview of the DH, as put forward by Wellhausen, plus an examination of what went before Wellenhausen. Naturally I don't agre with his subsequent critique of the DH, but it's a very good article and I could recommend it to anyone. Cheers, PiCo 09:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From that article, "This critique has been, of necessity, brief." YEAH RIGHT! (I'm a slow reader, seems long to me). I'll agree with the C. S. Lewis quote, "They claim to see fern-seed and can't see a elephant ten yards away in broad daylight." rossnixon 01:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Creation science
Sorry that is not peer review. That is having a few of your like minded friends proofread it for you. If you want this, make a case on the talk page. Thanks.--Filll 23:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To expand on what Filll said, the reason peer review works like it does is that often the peers hold contrary views to those of the scientist who wrote the paper (or at the very least are neutral about it). This guarantees that the paper will be held up to a very high standard. What's being done in this case involves papers being sent only to people who hold the same conclusion as the authors, so they're likely to let it pass even if the science is sloppy. They may call it "peer review," but that doesn't make it such. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Doc Hyp & Tel Dan stele
Hi Ross. Of course you're always welcome to comment. I think the Tel Dan steleis now accepted as genuine by everyone - the article misrepresents the current state of play in the "Criticisms" section, to my mind. PiCo 05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Passage of the Red Sea
Ross, if you're interested and don't fear getting into what might turn into a quagmire, have a look at Passage of the Red Sea. It's part of a series or group of articles about the Exodus stations. Someone has been going through the whole set replacing them with what he believes to be the truth about the Exodus, which is that it's a historical memory of ancient Egyptian trading routes (or at least I think that's the idea). And so we now have no mention of Moses leading the Israelitesn across the Red Sea, or even through a Sea of Reeds, because he believes they went by boat. And I think Mt Sinai is now located in Jordan. I just don't have the energy to try to keep it on-topic, but you're welcome to try if you think it worthwhile. PiCo 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

1903, 1905, & 1920
A revert has occurred yesterday as follows:

Rossnixon (Talk | contribs) (83,602 bytes) (rv, It can't be a 1920 and 1905 book.    And it apparently appeared in 1903 which makes both categories wrong, anyone know better?


 * In fact, the situation is as follows:
 * (1) The Protocols of Zion is not A BOOK. It's more like a Literary Event over time/years.
 * (a) In 1903 article(s) is/are published in Znamya (newspaper) - "related name" Pavel Krushevan in the Russian language.
 * (b) In 1905 Serge Nilus publishes a Second Edition of his book, Velikoe v malom, and he adds an extra, final Chapter (not an Appendix as some inaccurately say); in fact, it's his Chapter XII (12); the material is to short for a regular hardbound book, although it can, and did, get subsequently published, with a preface and/or introduction, in pamphlet or booklet form; the whole book is in the Russian language of course.
 * (c) In 1920 this matter gets translated in all the major languages of the world; and in the English language it takes at and by this time, all three forms: (i) journalistic/newspapers, (ii) pamphlet/booklet, and (iii) hardcover.
 * (2) Accordingly, this is not a neat, single book event. In fact, it's more like the Bible, which is a complex literary compilation over a spread of years. But unlike the bible, we do not much more precisely when the various literary events occurred. And certainly, all three years above are significant, and must be included. The editor, User:Rossnixon, who insists on picking the earliest date, 1903, is simply mistaken, and we must REVERT his REVERSION.
 * Since the text was published in newspapers in 1903 and 1919, I've not put these dates in as book publication categories.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the expert Ludvikus. Put what you think is best. I will not revert you. Obviously all those dates belong in the article, I'm just not sure how the categories work. rossnixon 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Polonium
I realized you are a creationist so I just thought you might be interested in reading my rebuttal to talk origins on my myspace blog. /nothingwilldie. There doesn't seem to be many creationists around here, yet you seem to have been here a long time. I'm new to wikipedia, so sorry if I broke any rules.EMSPhydeaux 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The End Time Page
I'm disputing some of the wording in this paragraph, contained on the End time page:

Most fundamentalist Christians anticipate that biblical prophecy will be fulfilled literally. They see current world and regional wars, earthquakes, hurricanes and famines as the beginning of the birth pains which Jesus described in Matthew and Mark. They believe that mankind started in the garden of Eden, and point to Megiddo as the place that the current world system will finish.

First off, I see that you, as I, am a christian. I would have to say, however, living in the United States and having had dealings with Calvinists (see Dave Hunt's Book listed on my userpage) that it would be better to say 'Some' which I had originally put in. I have found that at least at one Calvinist church, they teach Covenant Theology, which is really 'Replacement Theology'. They may also be Amillennial in their outlook. I'm going to change some of the wording back to 'some christians' as, let's face it, if you're Dispensational in your thought, then you have to see a creeping Apostasy, as do I here in the States.--MurderWatcher1 16:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have changed some back to most. As far as I know, Calvinists are a smaller grouping than other fundamentalists, most of whom accept a plain interpretation of the Bible. The creeping apostasy became evident since around the times of Charles Darwin. rossnixon 01:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your Comment
Thanks for the 'learn'. YOUR COMMENT: (rv to MurderWatcher1 - The Tanach was qritten without vowels)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MurderWatcher1 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that 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 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. — DIEGO  talk 01:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added an edit summary and also a note to the talk page. If my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines is incorrect regarding vandalism of talk pages, please advise me, thanks. rossnixon 01:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR is a policy, which trumps a guideline (even if you weren't completely wrong about the guideline). WP:VANDALISM doesn't apply in this case. If you want to restore the material, don't edit war, but discuss why on the talk page (i.e., why the material is constructive and appropriate for a talk page discussion) after your impending block is lifted. — DIEGO  talk 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism
Your comment to:
 * Dispensationalists tend to be energetically evangelistic, with special interest in the Jews because they are "God's chosen people". Dispensationalist beliefs are rejected by Messianic Judaism, but accepted by Hebrew Christians who are often confused with Messianic Jews.

Well, from my experience, this may be true. If you check out www.RaptureReady.com, you may find articles dealing with same; also try www.thebereancall.org (NOT the DOT COM as this is a completely different website).--MurderWatcher1 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits on Global warming
Edits like this are singularly unhelpful. Please comment on the material without flinging accusations at other editors. (For the record, I am by no means a "climate alarmist.") Raymond Arritt 01:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Noah, the god El, and a hair of the dog
Ross, I thought I'd share with you this very strange story that I came across. It comcerns the god El getting drunk and having to be carried home by his sons - shades of Noah! Even more interesting is how El deals with the morning after. Here's the account of the tale from the archaeologist in charge of translating the tablet, which comes from Ugarit:

''...a brief story about the great god El becoming drunk at a feast and having to be carried home by his sons. This atypical myth is followed by a prose recipe for alcoholic collapse that features the first known connection between drunkenness and the "hair of the dog": "What is to be put on his forehead: hairs of a dog.''

I find this most impressive: hair of a dog has an ancestry stretching back to Bronze Age Ugarit!

The site where I read this is here. PiCo 01:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispensationalist theology page
I'd like you opinion on the above Dispensationalist theology. Now I don't know if you're dispensational in your thinking (I am) but this page is very poorly put together and confusing in my opinion. Have a look-see.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I know enough about it to do any major edits, sorry. rossnixon 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll just go back over my booklist and, if you're interested, take a look at my userpage, which has a book listing on the bottom.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ABC
Hi, Rossnixon. I'd like to take the time to thank you for offering compromises on the wording of Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. I appreciate your efforts. Here's the thing about your suggestion of "fringe"; it basically means "rejected". I think "rejected" is more neutral than "fringe" mostly because for a short period of time there was some question of there being a correlation. But as methodology advanced, the science clearly refuted a correlation (and therefore a causal relationship) between abortion and breast cancer. What are your thoughts on this? Phyesalis (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Rejected" implies no one believes it. One definition of "fringe" is "A social group holding marginal or extreme views". If you still disagree with fringe, I think we should look for another word again. Thanks. rossnixon 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Just because a theory has been rejected doesn't keep people from believing it. "Rejected" in the context of the article means that no reputable scientist or reputable cancer/gynecological organization accepts the theory. Please read Weed and Kramer's discussion of how Brind's assertion of causation is "a leap beyond inference". Or Jasen's lengthy historical overview of how Brind is more interested in using ABC as a tactic of his pro-life agenda than he is in actual legitimate science. These are peer-reviewed sources. I'm sorry but I don't think there is a word more suitable than "rejected". It's documented with reliable sources: Jasen, Mooney, Weed and Kramer, the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform, the ACOG, the RCOG, Netherlands Cancer Institute, NCI (US), ACS, the list goes on and on. I'm afraid a few acknowledged pro-life activists don't carry enough weight to warrant subverting documented rejection. I'd like to ask you to stop changing the wording on the associated pages. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian Answers
One of the articles I started needs a bit more material to flesh it out to keep it. I would welcome your assistance.--Filll (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Walt Brown (creationist) as well.--Filll (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)