User talk:Rbrohm

License tagging for Image:Theatrestageknowing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Theatrestageknowing.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Knowing as a theatre stage.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Knowing as a Theatre Stage.jpg. The copy called Image:Knowing as a Theatre Stage.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 07:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

edits and bias

I already warned you about your constant bias and unnecessary complaints, and this matter was discussed already. Not necessary. Especially after the re-wording and context. No list of "unreliable sources" for the sources in question, man.... It needs to stop already. You're the only one who does this, I notice, with this type of ref. So, keep doing it, keep getting reverted. Seriously...... Wikipedia does NOT list any WT books (past or present) as "unreliable", though you, in your silly bias and emotionalism do so. This thing was already discussed, a while back. Keep putting idiotic unwarranted tags for that, keep getting them deleted. It's that simple. Stop edit-warring, due to unreasonable and obvious hate and stupid biases. Seriously. Stop the uptight silliness on this already. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

On the Authorship of Hebrews page

Feel free to delete this message, but in your response to "do we really need all these sources," since the text is talking about consensus, three seems about the right number of authors to have—not a lone wolf, not just a pair, but more than that. Certainly I agree that 10 would be too many, but these three aren't bad. Thanks, though, for refining the formerly ugly Google Books citations!

reliable sources and edits....and edit warring

Hello. Show me a specific line or phrase in actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines that say that Watchtower literature or sources or Bible study aids and expositions etc are "unreliable". You're imposing your idiotic hate, bias, and nonsense on to this. And you're seriously out of your mind if you think I would put up with it. This has already been discussed, and you're just plain wrong with your corny tags, because you don't like Jehovah's witnesses. lol. But sorry, Wikipedia is not the place for your rude unreasonable bias and impositions. Yes, I agree that sources need to be reliable. And they are here, and you're a edit-warrior in constant violation. NOWHERE in WP policy does it discount WT sources as "unreliable". Especially in context. Your bias and trolling and warring are irrelevant...and moot. You really need to stop this. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If I can mediate a bit, it seems that the sources most recently marked and unmarked for replacement are not primarily JW-authored, but rather articles from websites; perhaps the editor thinks books or scholarly articles would be better, regardless of author? --Akhenaten0 (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

On the Crucifixion Darkness edit made by you

I find it interesting that your edit seems biased and as such I will expect you to return the items of my contribution onto the page you edited. The reason you gave, "deleted apologetics" needs to be supplemented with an actual reason as to why you seem to think that a natural explanation for the darkness is apologetics, especially as the piece in question is fundamented with current scientific data.. If you do not revert your edit, it will be done for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremias19 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your continual refusal to include the information I provided on the grounds that it is "original research, unsupported by citations and reflecting a fringe position" is unsupported, not only have I given citations but one of them is taken directly from a research paper published and in the public domain.

Citations used: Lorenzo Dow's Journal, Published By Joshua Martin, Printed By John B. Wolff, 1849, on pages 344 - 346.p,

The escaping “pneuma” – gas of ancient earthquake concepts in relation to animal, atmospheric and thermal precursors by Prof. Helmut Tributsch

The wording is accurate and not interpreted by me, it is mainly direct quoting from the research paper and from the direct witness statements of those in the 1811/12 New Madrid Earthquake, supported by the research paper itself. The rules of Original research are clear: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

As can be seen this is not original research it is quoting from research available in the public domain. Another aspect to consider, the title of the subject is "Naturalistic explanations", listed a re a number of naturalistic theories that try to explain said darkness, none are considered the answer, but "possible answers", you have no authority to determine if a possible answer should or should not be included, unless said answer is indeed unsupported by citations (not the case) or it is false (not the case).

Helmut Tributsch is a Professor of Physical Chemistry at the Free University of Berlin . Tributsch is doing research on the behavior of animals and their potential capabilities of earthquake prediction. I will continue undoing your edit until you legitimately justify your removal of this information from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremias19 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Very well, the Theory can actually be found it, seems, in a Commentary by Charles John Ellicott, called "Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers". This connects the Earthquake directly with the darkness:

Darkness over all the land.—Better so than the “earth” of the Authorised version of Luke 23:44. The degree and nature of the darkness are not defined. The moon was at its full, and therefore there could be no eclipse. St. John does not name it, nor is it recorded by Josephus, Tacitus, or any contemporary writer. On the other hand, its appearance in records in many respects so independent of each other as those of the three Gospels places it, even as the common grounds of historical probability, on a sufficiently firm basis, and early Christian writers, such as Tertullian (Apol. c. 21) and Origen (100 Cels. ii. 33), appeal to it as attested by heathen writers. The narrative does not necessarily involve more than the indescribable yet most oppressive gloom which seems to shroud the whole sky as in mourning (comp. Amos 8:9-10), and which being a not uncommon phenomenon of earthquakes, may have been connected with that described in Matthew 27:51.

This is a published and reputable source for the Theory and the connection of the two events in question, the darkness and the earthquake. Just as the other theories also have their proponents even if they have no merit, but are allowed space on the board because the theories are in print, so then this theory can also be found in print and cannot be labeled original research by yourself or anyone else. The fact that I also provided a modern day science paper where the link between the darkness and other meteorological phenomena are precursors to earthquakes makes this a viable addition to the main page.

What are you going to do now? Jeremias19 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)