User talk:Sophia/archive6

Thanks

Thanks for the nice smiley a day or so back. I might have said this before, but I wanted to just repeat it!--Filll

Crucifixion eclipse

I agree with you about the established stability of G2V stars. I have seen only one paper about a G2V dimming - it was caused by the perturbations of a companion. But, the compilation of historical accounts by David Le Conte (1998), promulgated by the MrEclipse.com web site indicates there may have been additional solar blackouts. The practice of neglecting the length of darkness to assign an event to the nearest calculated total solar eclipse may be obscurring a significant trend in photopheric dynamics. I am referring to:

October 29, 878 AD: A hour long solar blackout had been attributed to a total solar eclipse. According to Espenak, 879 AD was void of total solar eclipses.

August 2, 1133: A half-hour solar blackout was accompanied with a great and loud earthquake. Many stars became visible after the Sun had suddenly lost its light. Le Conte cited the accounts from England, Augsburg, Heilsbronn, and Salzburg.

April 11, 1176: A two-hour solar blackout. The stars were visible and the Moon was seen near to the Sun. Livestock and people were disturbed by the darkening.

June 3, 1239: The cities of Toledo, Arezzo, Cesena, Coimbra, Florence, Siena, Split, and Montipellier recorded a three-hour blackout. Livestock and wild animals were very disturbed by this event. Birds and beasts were caught with ease. Writers recorded the visibility of the stars, the planet Mercury, and the Moon. People in Coimbra, Portugal, rushed to their church.

Note (1.) that several cities cited the phenomena. And, (2.) associated phenomena were symptomatic of heliophysical effects. The above historical accounts share several characteristics with the crucifixion eclipse. Subsequently, such documents deserve additional validation research. Tcisco 15:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did cite the 7 min. 31 sec. theoretical maximum for total solar eclipses in the article. I will have to check to see if someone had deleted it. Also, I made a mistake about the paper on the dimming of a G2V star. The journal was about a G7III perturbed by a companion. Skepticism, not scorn, should be applied to determining the validity of historical accounts. Matthew's record is not easy to dismiss. Comparative analyses of the Magdalen papyrus and fragments from Qumran (58 AD), the Herculaneum ((79 AD), Masada (73-74 AD), and the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus (65-66 AD) that were conducted with an epiflurescent confocal laser scanning microscope indicates the Gospel of Matthew was completed before 62 AD. That fact implies Matthew's sources were first hand accounts. Associated phenomena of the crucifixion blackout and others cited above, such as earthquakes and disoriented animals, are symptomatic of intense magnetic fluctuations. Heliophysical aspects give the unusual accounts additional credence. A global sunspot storm was suggested with understandable skepticism. Large starspots have been studied, but none of them, to my knowledge, have caused a severe drop in luminosity like the ones depicted in the literature. Primary and teriary sources have reported solar blackouts. Their veracity needs further testing. Tcisco 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was 'why should we try to scientifically explain the crucifixion eclipse.' The answer is that it will increase our understanding and the solar blackout will happen again, more dramatically. Revelation 6:12-17 makes since astrophysically. Use an open mind to perform a thought experiment. Assume the photosphere will suffer an intense global sunspot that greatly diminishes the emission of visible light. The surges in the interplanetary magnetic field would trigger earthquakes. Subsequent "solar wind" storms would cause the Moon to luminesce in red ligth, the auroral displays in the night sky would become intense and deadly. Avionics, aircrews, and passengers on commercial aircraft would become severly impaired. And, people would hide beneath cliffs and in dens (prepared underground shelters). We may never know how God triggers it, but the subsequent heliophysical effects will cause global migrations to shelters. Revelation 6:12-17 is just a global, physical sign that ushers in a horrible period. Revelation 6:12-17 is not the end, but a sign for the beginning of a very horrible period. For example, the first half of Revelation 8:8 was depicted well in the motion picture Deep Impact. That prediction was treated as nonsense in the 17th and 18th century. During the close of the 20th century, that scripture was included with other scientific arguments demanding the creation of programs to save humanity from future devastating meteroid impacts.

Also, I will have to dig up the reference that describe the activities of the people who left their graves to witness in Jerusalem. There are other writings that support Matthew's account. Tcisco 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the division entitled Christ's Descent Into Hell in the Gospel of Nicodemus for a description of the concurrent resurections.Tcisco (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion article

There's some discussion here about the accuracy of the first paragraph of the abortion article, and you're invited to participate.Ferrylodge 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of Jesus: Jesus as myth section

Hi Sophia. I'm very puzzled by your assertion that 'all but one are priests'. To my knowledge very few are 'priests'. I grant JD Crossan is a 'de-frocked' (well nearly, read his account in 'The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue' (2006)) priest but I'm not sure that counts. Similarly I think Géza Vermes would be rather astonished by your classification! The following are all academics and are not and never were (as far as I can ascertain) ordained Paula Fredriksen, WR Herzog II, Daniel Wallace, FF Bruce etc. I am also posting an edited version of this on the discussion page. Mercury543210 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist, the movie

Possibly because of the easy available of computerized production tools, and the availability of the internet as a distribution channel has created more and more conspiracy theories. One recent example is Zeitgeist, the movie. I just finished watching it. I have to admit, it is pretty amazing. Some elements of truth are in it, but there are some bits of pure nonsense. Presenting in a compelling way, for sure. Contains some material relevant to Jesus myth hypothesis. --Filll 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus myth in lead of Jesus

I know you participated in the construction of the 2nd paragraph at Jesus, and there is a proposal to remove the sentence that previously had consensus (and the proposal also compares Jesus mythers to Nazi sympathizers). Just thought that you may be interested in the discussion. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killer rabbit

Thanks for the cookies! I love the killer rabbits on your user page (where is the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch when you need it?) The comment about the tomato is memorable, too. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back

I may be a bit late for this, but I've watched your editing to Flute for a while and wondered why you didn't have a user page until I looked in the history. :) There's something on the article I found rather strange, by the way, and I've left a comment at Talk:Flute if you want to look at it. — $PЯINGrαgђ 15:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jesus

Please note [1] ? aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

Vassyana has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! I haven't run across you in a while, but your kind demeanor and cluefulness remain remembered. Just wanted to say hello and deliver some cheer. By the by, still no chance you'd go for an RfA? ;o) Vassyana 07:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Is this standard practice?

Hi, I left a couple of comments recently on the historicity of Jesus talk page (I signed with IP). I'm new, but now I'm registered here. I was wondering, is it normal what I see [here] and then [here]? This section is that one that is really fighting with my logic. I explain why so in the talk section. By the same token, I might become an historian and say: The theory of relativity was common knowledge decades before Einstein. The proof is that Einstein talks about the theory of relativity, and many physicists have described it after that. Am I missing something? Is it possible that no scholar has pointed out this obvious fallacy? I think that there should be external resources that are not cited. Of course it may very well be true that these ancient creeds were established (of course that they prove the historicity of Jesus is another more difficult question). However, the argument in their favor must have been misrepresented in the article. As it is now described I would have refuted it in primary school. --Gibbzmann 17:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

You're a very decent person. Just wanted to say that. I was going through Category:Requests for unblock, and came across User talk:Jamiepgs, but would never have been interested enough to do the research that you did. :-) ElinorD (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: that image

My opinion on that image is that putting it through IfD is the best solution. There are people contesting the speedy deletion in good faith, and their argument against deletion is well structured, so I think IfD is the best solution, here. I'm not enough of an expert on United States copyright law to be able to tell you definitively whether it is legitimate fair use or not. --Deskana (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self revert

Sorry, I decline - I think it is self-evident. Not everything is spelled out in good fiction, and this one is not a stretch. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but nor am I going to self-revert, because I believe the original text that I reverted to was correct. You do whatever you think best. Tvoz |talk 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you refuse the sysop bit ...

... maybe you'd be willing to help with further cleanup, cut down and referenced expansion at early Christianity instead? :oD Vassyana 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon vs. Andrew c

I was never informed that Andrew wanted me to stop posting. Further, I was only posting in response to his own posts on my page. Andrew has been warned and dealt with. Please do not attempt to warn me without proper cause, especially since you responded well after the situation was dealt with.24.20.48.231 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop a note to say that I wasn't asking the anon not to post on my talk page, but instead to "STOP TOP POSTING". Top posting is when you place your reply content at the top of a page. Wikipedia's standard practice is to bottom post (thus when you hit the plus sign tab to "Start a new section on this discussion page", the new post automatically starts at the bottom of the talk page). I appreciate you keeping an eye on things, but I hope you understand that I have restored the post at the bottom of the page, and added a signature. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Article

There is an extremely biased article on a news event posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_vs._Buckle It seems that there have been some biased (ie sensationalistic) news articles in some mainstream press agencies however whoever wrote the article is in fact slandering the victim of an assault by using another biased source. Reading over some of your comments elsewhere I find you to be very fair. Could you please look into this. Thank you. Anti Anti Anti 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Jesus seems to be rectified

Well, apparantly, Steadman Averted. I think the people working on Jesus can get back to work now. Thanks for the thanks. =) --Avery W. Krouse 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

Sophia, one must not consider "negative evidence." Anyone can choose to say something he/she wouldn't "normally say." It's refraining from reflexively sounding like oneself when one isn't thinking about it which is difficult.Proabivouac 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"you now need to couple that with the humility to accept that your judgement will be challenged."

That's good advice, Sophia. Thank you for giving it. I apologize for coming across as unpleasantly as I did in our conversation last night.Proabivouac 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, thank you for your gracious follow-up. Re your earlier objection that, contra this summary, Alienus would not use the imprecise and lowbrow term "stuff," I forward these examples which show that Alienus has indeed used "stuff" in edit summaries in conjunction with "cite/citation," per the aforementioned summary.[2][3]Proabivouac 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus myth hypothesis

Please see new developments at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#A_technical_problem, which are IMO in danger of running in circles again with the title. Incidentally, I hope your writing project went well. ... Kenosis 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfCU

If it goes forward, what do you believe it will say?Proabivouac 08:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jesus, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I added your name to the party list because you contributed substantially to recent discussion on the date topics at Talk:Jesus. As I noted here, if I misjudged your involvement in this content dispute, please feel free to remove your name from the list. If you are involved substantially however do not wish to agree to mediation, feel free to follow the normal course of action and note your disagreement in the relevant section of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jesus. Cheers, Daniel 07:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jesus.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

There is a huge debate going on concerning the future of the NOR policy Wikipedia talk:No original research. I think you understand what is at stake, and hope you will participate. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Pagels etc

Hi Sophia,

You've identified Pagels as a proponent of the Jesus Myth in the past, (and a couple of other academics IIRC). I've got a some weeks free now (have just got a new job, but have to wait for a CRB check to start) and would love to look into the more academic proponents of the myth (I'm very close to an academic library that I could easily and cheaply join as a graduate of its university), and quite likely edit the article accordingly. Are there any specific books by Pagels, and any other proponents that you might want to name, that you recommend I try and read? (I am hoping to read quite a lot over the next few weeks, so feel free to give a fair list!) TJ 12:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss You

Hey there. Miss you. What have you been up to lately? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brights

I've emailed Paul Geisert to find out where to confirm my membership publicly. In the meantime my email address is charlier 'at' richmondsounddesign 'dot' com Charlie Richmond 10:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Geisert has replied to me:

___________________

I assume this is an "official" Wikipedia reviewer. What she is stating is that there is a Brights' policy that no one can say a person is a Bright without permission or evidence. In this case, she is saying that you could be listing a Bright on your Wiki without his/her knowledge. The way they assure you are a Bright is that your email must be cited with the name.

Personally, I am very happy to see that someone on Wikipedia is looking out for the Brights' Net's interest.

Why don't you simply provide your email with your name, like she is asking?

____________________

I have already provided my email address and am now wondering why you have not reverted your changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlierichmond (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have drawn Paul's attention to this state of affairs and hopefully he will clarify what he wishes now. Thanks for you assistance! Charlie Richmond 23:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you around

I just wanted to say it's good to still see you kicking around. :) Has anyone talked you into the sysop bit yet? Vassyana (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - it's good to have a little bit of time over the holiday's but I'm afraid my wiki activity is so low these days I'd not be much use as an admin. Thanks again though and Happy New Year. Sophia 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see how it is, grabbing the broom but not the closet key. :o) Someone will talk you into the sysop bit one of these days, years, decades, or something. *chuckle* Be well! Vassyana (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request

Hello. I did nott get a chance to notify you on the page as it being frantically archived within seconds, but I approved your request. Regards, El_C 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis‎

I've created a request for mediation. Please list if you agree or disagree to participate on the article. If you want to discuss/expand anything related to it, please put it on the talk page. Thanks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said; if you would like to participate, then Agree at the mediation request, or you can observe/comment on the talk page. As I haven't listed you as being directly involved; its not necessary for you to Agree. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

request for blocking

I'm requesting that you block or admonish the IP address 79.68.244.238 for its recent vandalism to the article Bearded Lady. Swordman182 (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark energy star

Care to take a look? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to Weigh in?

I'm having an ongoing discussion with User talk:Jchurchward that I'm hoping you can comment on. I know you are not a big fan of Acharya S, so hopefully he will see you as neutral. It has to do with his addition of a self-published link regarding his great-grandfather on Acharya's page and elsewhere. Thanks. ^^James^^ (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sophia, the issue seems to be resolved. ^^James^^ (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus-myth hypothesis

To my knowledge, the article does not reference bede.org, and if someone added that in, I would revert it.

Please do not falsely accuse me of being a POV pusher. I am no more that than you are.TJ (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time you reverted me there were at least two references to bede.org which I subsequently removed. I thought there was still one left that needed careful rewriting to remove but it seems to have gone now. Someone else must have got that one. I dislike the term POV pusher and did not accuse you of that - if you wish to stretch interpretation of my edit summary in that direction then that is your choice and it saddens me. The article will never be any good when there is so much emotional investment in it. Sophia 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars survey

Hi Sophia. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I felt that I should contact you to apologise for my attitude towards you over the past day. I'm in quite an emotional state, I've realised today - I'm in the middle of moving house, city, and job, so it's been a stressful time lately, and I've also been quite upset by my aunt's suicide - which I didn't quite realise had affected me so much until today. It's such a distant relationship, I am surprised by how it's upset me.)

I've not re-read what I or you have said, so I don't want to comment on whether or not I had any kind of grounds for criticising you, as that's not clear in my head. Regardless of this, though, I was clearly out of order in the way I addressed you. My circumstances don't excuse it, but I suppose they do provide mitigating circumstances.

I've resolved to take at least a week or so's break from wikipedia and such things, partly because I'm not helping, and partly because I doubt I'm being helpful. TJ (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]