User talk:Swift as an Eagle

My Home My Talk My Workshop   Your Watchlist   My Contributions Email Me

Talk To Me... (Leave a new message)     Archived Messages:   Speedy deletion of Swift as an Eagle/Workshop Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Passportguy (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Book of Joshua "Can you add a source for the "compilation" belief?" Not really - I was only editing what was already there, I didn't actually write it. I think that whole section is too long. We only need to describe ideas, not prove them. But I'll have a look for something. PiCo (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Here's something - comes from a book review: "Modern historical-critical research discerns basically the following three stages in the process of literary formation of the book of Joshua (120). The three stages are a basic Deuteronomistic reformulation of pre-Dtr narratives (DtrH) followed respectively by nomistic (DtrN), and Priestly (RedP) redactions." This is apparently called the "Gottingen school" model. I have no idea if it's the dominant model, but the reviewer (or the book?) implies that it is. The book is Michael N. van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 102. The review is by Steven L. McKenzie in the RBL (2005). See on the RBL website. The reviwer is basically saying that the book is weak, and I gather that the Gottingen School is not the last word on the subject. WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - June 2009 WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009 John Carter (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Deuteronomy We seem to be in danger of getting into an edit war on this article. I have no objection to your essential point, namely that conservative scholars uphold Mosaic authorship, I'm simply trying to keep the lead as short and simple as possible. Perhaps the talk page is the place to go? PiCo (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC) talk page, sure. just so you know my opinion, and i get it from reading Bible dictionaries and such, is that all start off mentioning the "traditional" view of authorship (for every Bible book), then they get into the "current" view. I prefer to the use of "modern critical scholarship" for this view -- the "official term" for modern bible scholars who hold to a "critical" view of the original texts. cheers, SAE (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your note on the Talk page. I don't have time to respond this weekend, but I will next week. In the meantime I thought it would be a courteous gesture to thank you :). PiCo (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC) WP:ANEW notice I have place a notice on WP:ANEW. Dlabtot (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Blessing of Moses copyvio Hi there. I've just removed the speedy deletion tag that you added to this article. Can you let me know what you believe it to be a copyright violation of, thanks. GedUK  16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - August 2009 Happy Holidays Ret.Prof (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages. 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) Justification You need to justify why you don't like it please. Ben (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I did on my previous edit summary. No consensus is yet reach = we need to be very careful in editing this article right now. SAE (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) What are you talking about? If you're trying to enforce some lock down of the page you're way out of line. Ben (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC) hmmm... so you're saying that I can take "myth" out of the opening then???? SAE (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I'm asking you to justify your revert. I'm not saying anything. Less games, more explanation please. Ben (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC) That's funny. I was going to ask you what game you were playing by making these bold edits to the article. But I thought that I wouldn't accuse you of games... yet. But now since you have brought it up. The intro is pov. You are making it even more pov. We need to move the other way. SAE (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Hi, you're both welcome on my talk page. I'm trying to reorganize this a bit to see what the real consensus actually is. Thanks. Also, I'm trying to organize it so that there isn't any argument -- simply a catalogue of what the options and pros and cons are. We've been arguing so forcefully we're not all clear exactly what and why there is an argument.EGMichaels (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Genesis creation myth: closing of a controversial requested move Yes, I realized that it was a controversial discussion. Relisting in my opinion was not likely to result in a consensus. There was ample discussion and opinions and having more of the same was not likely to result in a clear consensus. As I said, in my opinion both of those names have problems and it would behoove all to see if there is some way to achieve consensus on some name. I almost went with a keep position based on the strength of the strength of the arguments. I'd wait for a week or two and then start a discussion to see if there is some form of the name that can win consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Ok, thank-you for your reply. I will not question your reasoning, but I did want to know why. SAE (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Vegas -- I'd appreciate any ideas that you have. There's some good brainstorming on my talk page, and most of the folks have the same concerns with a truly neutral title. It may be that we need to step back and come up with something completely different. Perhaps we're too close to it.EGMichaels (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Hello. By your recent edits I see that you have an interest in the Book of Genesis article. As you may have seen, an editor has added deluge myth referring to the story of Noah's Ark, which I have reverted. I have written on the article's talk page that it was unacceptable to do that without discussing it first. Perhaps you would like to comment on it as well.Mk5384 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I'll take a look. Cheers, SAE (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Re: Genesis creation myth If you have a problem with the term creation myth, please bring it up on the NPOV notice board. I believe you'll be disappointed with the results, however. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I like your recent edits to GCM Book of Genesis. Question: Why is "Jewish" preferable to "Hebrew"? Genesis is in the Hebrew Bible. Just wondering. Thanks for being WP:BOLD. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I assume you meant meant my edit to the Book of Genesis. Hebrew is fine, maybe better, than Jewish. I never thought of that part to be honest. I focusing on the other part of the sentence. SAE (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Yep, Book of Genesis. Sorry. They're beginning to merge together in my mind. I agree that Hebrew would be better in that spot. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Mediation Case A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not. Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details). Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission. Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk) Reply From Talk Page File a thread at Admin Notice board for univloved admin to close it, due to "Nominator Withdrew" Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC) My last reply I take no offense to anything. I am beyond offense. Thanks for the funniness. Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Joseph (Biblical figure) Hi, are you looking at the same dif I am? Because the edit I reverted changed the bibleverse to a verse from the book of Andrew, and changed Joseph from the 11th son to the 9th. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC) haha. i don't know what i was looking at. you're right and i was not thinking straight, or something. SAE (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC) No, that's fine, I've done weird edits before from looking at the wrong version; I think everyone who edits for any serious length of time has done it. I just wanted to make sure we were looking at the same thing before it turned into an edit war. Glad to hear it was just crossed wires! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC) myth/narrative Please refrain from changing "myth" occurrences in main text of articles to "narrative". Do only modify the links if you really must (not necessary either as Genesis creation myth now points to genesis creation narrative. "Myth" is equally valid and supported by RS and in fact more encyclopedic than "narrative". People will think you are censoring Wikipedia and being overly hypocritical by not changing also all other faiths (extinct or otherwise) creation "myths" instances to "narratives"--LexCorp (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I think it's better to have the wiki link as it stands, what have you against it unless you are pushing pov? SAE (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC) That's funny because I think you are implementing faith based censorship and sacrificing encyclopedic standards.--LexCorp (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Clear consensus changed back the title of Genesis creation narrative. Common sense leads one to see that the wiki-links are changed too -- since they were change before right? Your edit summaries show that you are out to push a certain pov. I am just fixing wiki links and stopping what is increasingly looking like vandalism and censorship SAE (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC) That is consensus to change and article name NOT the main body of every instance of myth to narrative. As a matter of fact consensus in the creationism page is to use myth so please do not go around changing myth to narrative. Do change the links if you must but leave the body of the articles intact.--LexCorp (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Now you're making stuff up. I did not change every instance of the word myth and that is a lie. I went and changed only the wiki-links to the article that had it's title changed. That is normal. Please do not insinuate that I am doing more here than I really am. SAE (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC) If you can point out a place to me where I changed the word "myth" to "narrative" and it actually wasn't a wiki-link to the article Genesis creation narrative, then I will go now and change it back, so you don't have to break 3rr. But if not, please don't accuse me. SAE (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC) if you want to change the wikilink of Genesis creation myth to point to Genesis creation narrative you do so by using [[Genesis creation narrative|Genesis creation myth]]. This points to the correct link without changing the body of the article. What you are doing is removing myth references from articles which are equally valid and are in fact supported by RS. Who is been disingenuous here?--LexCorp (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I changed only the wiki-links that were clear links to the title name. I've search some of the history and these links were clearly changed a few months back to reflect the old title of Genesis creation narrative. Therefore, I now changed link to reflect the current title. I have done nothing wrong. It seems you are trying to censure a title you don't like. SAE (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I greatly doubt this. I monitor creationism pages and greatly doubt your history search save face tale for creation science and creationism pages. In fact there was a lengthy discussion on the creationism page as to what term to use and consensus was to use myth so your edit goes against the consensus of the editorial body of the creationism page!! That is why you should ONLY modify the wikilinks as per my above comment. You are changing pages which are highly controversial without consensus thus disrupting wikipedia.--LexCorp (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Well, that's the exact page that I was talking about. As soon as the Genesis creation narrative had it's title changed to Genesis creation myth that title was plugged into the Creationism page. Yo So it has been "Genesis creation Myth" for probably multiple years now. As a devout Christian and a grammar nazi, I emphatically consider "myth" the correct term. Only earlier today, it seems, was it changed to "narrative" (which I highly doubt will last more than a month), and I just got back from vacation. Hence, I saw a change to "narrative" and naturally concluded it was an incorrect change, never thinking for a million years that the ridiculous pov pushers over at that article would actually convince someone to change the article. (I already know they're recruiting people on outside forums to help push their agenda, a violation of WP:MEATPUPPET, but whatever) The point is - my mistake, which I hope you understand to be a reasonable one. Just don't expect the Genesis creation narrative article to stay so named for long.Farsight001 (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Paul of Tarsus Perhaps you have sources for your comment regarding Paul. As far as I know, Paul never met Jesus. His conversion to Christianity, based on a vision/voice of Jesus, happened after Jesus' death. I admit that the possibility exists that during the persecution of Christians that Paul could have theoretically seen Jesus at some point. However, that is speculation, and as far as I know, there is no biblical record (or otherwise) that Paul every met or talked with Jesus. So, I welcome the theory that this may have happened in the article, if a source for that can be cited. History says that He only met with the Disciples of Christ a few times, years after his conversion. He spoke very little about Jesus because he did not know Jesus, and knew very little about him. He writes only about the Lords supper, and did not claim to have been there. I note that the article itself says "There is no explicit written record that Paul had known Jesus personally prior to the Crucifixion." Paul says in Galatians that he learned the Gospel through a revelation. There is no biblical evidence that Paul ever met Jesus. [1] Atom (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, thanks for talking here. I left a reply on Talk:Paul of Tarsus under your question there. SAE (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks Don't help my head expand anymore ... bad idea. :)Griswaldo (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC) FYI. Your name was just mentioned "Nor am I suspect User:Melissadolbeer, User:Swift as an Eagle, User:Bearnfæder nor User:Matruman. I am a good faith user who believes in Wikipedia policy." on Talk:Gospel of Matthew. Presumably you earned this distinction by daring to post this. Congratulations :).In ictu oculi (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Ichthus: January 2012 ICHTHUS January 2012 In this issue... From the Editor What are You doing For Lent? Fun and Exciting Contest Launched Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here