User talk:FutureTrillionaire

Boston Marathon

I see you've readded the Boston Marathon bombing to Domestic terrorism in the United States. Thanks for not adding names, and especially for not outright saying they did it, but don't you think calling this a domestic terrorist attack implies guilt on an American, despite nobody being convicted? And how do we differentiate terrorism from "mere" murder without knowing the motive (or at least having it laid out by prosecutors)? If you can see the BLP problems here, I'd appreciate it if you reverted yourself. Not telling you to. Just telling you why you might want to. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

A final request

Please do me a favor and delay the FAC request on Jesus for a little while. I have good reasons for that. The GA went through because both reviewers just happened to have brains. A very different story on FAC where every imbecile with a modem will type something. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

@History2007: Lol. Don't worry. I don't think this article is ready for FAC yet. There's a lot of ref and prose issues to fix. This might take a few weeks. I agree that the FAC review will definitely not be easy. To make the review less frustrating, I think we should request all the reviewers to read the FAQ before commenting.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That assumes that all those who comment can even read... Or are sober. I have seen people type after 12 beers. I actually have several FAQs to update in the next 3 weeks or so, for the historicity, historical, Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Christ etc. I don't think you have seen the edit wars (someone crossed the 11RR line on Josephus) etc. Looking through the archives will be eye opening. And a few users were banned and indeffed in that process, say here and here, among others. So the last topic ban and sockpupetting was mild compared to the previous ones. I will guarantee that people will argue about Josephus etc. as part of any FAC. So the other FAQs need to be there as backup. And if you are to go for it you need to read and know the pages on Historicity, Josephus and Tacitus. Should not attempt it without knowing the topic in detail. If you start it and are less than knowledgeable about the topic it will backfire for sure and set the GA itself in jeopardy. And the requests for changes on GA were mild. On FAC due to the highly emotional nature of this topic there will be so many conflicting suggestions that page quality may actually go down. History2007 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

@History2007: I see. I understand that we need to be very well-prepared if we choose to take the article to FAC. Do you think a successful FAC is even possible? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

These crowd sourced processes are inherently haphazard and non-deterministic. Depending on who happens to look at it etc. it could take one of many, many directions. The only certain part is the very, very long discussions with many users, some intelligent, many brainless. And again remember that many people are emotionally opposed to the idea and will go out of their way (even subconsciously) to create obstacles. This is not an article about a boring bridge somewhere. It is an emotionally charged topic. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

List of massacres

I created a new article here List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. Check it out. EkoGraf (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Words and works

RE: "not sure why a citation about parables is used here" it is about words and works, and the concept is that they relate. I have generally checked over 90% of those references carefully and you can double check them always, but I am pretty sure they are by and large accurate. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

@History2007: I was confused why the Pentecost source, the page of which cited is about parables (no mention of miracles), is used to support a statement about Jesus's combined use of miracles and teachings, when there is already another source (Twelftree 95) that actually discusses Jesus's combined use of miracles and teachings. I wasn't concerned by the accuracy. I just don't see why the Pentecost source was necessary for that statement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I usually use two or three sources in case in the future users do not have access to one of them, and they can always check via one of the others - spare tire concept. And the fact that the book is called "words and works" shows the significance of the term. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Huon and myself checked the Christ page now, and nominated it for GA as well. So both pages should be in good shape. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit message

It is pretty easy to change the edit message, just go to edit the page and you will see a small link on the top right. But only an admin can save it. So you need to contact your favorite admin to do it for you. And should be easy given that the RFC link is clear. I fixed the link to the RFC in the archive. Most questions like this are now linked in the FAQ in case people wonder about these. History2007 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually he changed it already. But I suggested adding a gray or beige background. History2007 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, regarding the "later Perean" etc. as I said the details are all in the articles that link too with Main. And the same was the case with the 33 vs 34 date for Newton - it is in the edit history. It is explained in more detail in the chron article. I think if you read those other articles, and put them on your watch list that will help. I will go away (away, away) next Monday, so if you need anything, please ask before then. But all the details are in the sub-articles. So it will be good if you watch the Historicity of Jesus page and Josephus on Jesus, Chronology etc. because they go to support this article. And they are very, very stable now. Also if you add your name here you will see discussions on those over the next months from June onwards. Anyway, if you read through the page and need anything please ask by then. Also note that I did a GAN on Christ, Huon improved it but is pending. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As you saw this just happened on the "April 23" typo issue. The longer chron article mentioned St. George's day, and could just answer it. So those articles cab be consulted for answers. History2007 (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter

By the way, I noticed you are not on this list. From June 2013 there is a new "in focus... " format, book reviews, Christianity-DYK, etc. that refer to some articles of interest. Please just take a look at the June issue (should be released soon) and see. June focuses on this article which is a key supporting issue in some of the discussions we had, and would be great if you could watch it. To subscribe, you just need to add your name to the list here. They are also offering a 3 month money back guarantee deal next week. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I've subscribed. I'll keep my eye on the articles focused.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great. They form two groups in fact:

• Historicity: [1] [2] and [3]

• Activities: [4], [5] [6] and [7]

These form the base that supports the main article. There are also a couple of incidental/peripheral articles such as this which were however still missing key facts like this after 7 years and were yapping about other things. But they are mostly fixed now. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)