User talk:Luke 19 Verse 27

Justin Martyr revert

Hi, no you're right, I see I didn't give a reason for revert in edit summary. Here it is: Because (i) Nishidani's source, Yadin, does use the word "Palestinian thinker", and (ii) because I respect Nishidani as an editor. And (iii), if I'm honest, because of your awful violent user name I suppose, yes yes counter WP:AGF and all that, but then that user name wasn't chosen to generate AGF was it? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your desire to follow sources, but RS is only RS when it is used in context. The article already says he was born in Palestine in the second sentence of the body. There is no additional need to insert "Palestinian" into the lede. This is redundant and may be confused with an ethnic term.

I had misgivings about my username. I'll take the quote off my userpage.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most people won't recognise it, I did. But you can ask an Admin to change it, to 19:17 or 19:37 perhaps. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekial 23:20 maybe? I went on the assumption that anyone who could recognize the verse, like you, would also know the deeper meaning. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Yassin

Just a small thanks for making sane and neutral improvements on an article I earlier have contributed to. --Caygill (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. He's a fascinating character. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

You should spend some time on this article Parable of the talents or minas. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This actually means what it says

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Yes, you do have the right to respond, but not on a closed archive. If you're serious about asking a question and not just trying to have the last word, go to a talk page, as directed above. Marrante (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made a personal attack in your final comments. As per civility, I have a right to respond. Let the archive stand, it will just go away, and so will you. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, the Lord giveth, aye, and He taketh away.

A Haiku,

Seas are eternal

But words on Wiki are sand

So dont get butt hurt

Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...

Falsely claiming that I had left personal attacks on this page or that anyone had left personal attacks anywhere usually does not go down well. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barts1a&diff=486716889&oldid=486707954 . Also: On your userspace you are entitled to remove messages without responding if you so desire. In fact; removal of a message without response is seen as having read it. There is no need to reinsert it. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack was calling me racist.

I reposted on your talk page because it was inappropriate of you to delete my comment and then post here. But I'll let you have your bottle. Now, will you tell me where you get off telling me verifiable info needs seven days of talk before it has your approval? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The racist commentary is NOT verifiable. The 7 days of discussion was to ensure that you had consensus to insert the racist POV commentary before you did so. Bear in mind that should you reinsert it at all -consensus or not- you will probably find yourself blocked for POV pushing. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barts1a, calling it "POV pushing" is probably accurate, but calling it "racist" indicates you don't understand the sarcasm behind it. L19V27 is not being racist, he's making fun of people who think like that. The article isn't the place to do it, of course. But perhaps you can better understand his annoyance at being incorrectly called a racist. That's generally something you really want to be careful about calling someone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]