User talk:Bill the Cat 7/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

DnD

How do you know that it's 74 and not 75 in your edit "1974 Origins 1 convention." in Tomb of Horrors? Not that I don't believe you, but I took that article through GA so I watch it since then. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone would notice that, since I didn't mention it in my edit summary.  :) At any rate, it's on page 3 (Introduction section) of the Tomb of Horrors, version 3.5 (2005). It reads:

The original version of this module was first used for the official ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® tournament at Origins I in 1974. Next it was published as Dungeon Module S1 in 1981 using the 1st edition rules. The module was later expanded in Return to the Tomb of Horrors in 1998 using the 2nd edition rules. However, the original tomb was never actually updated—it was reprinted as it originally saw print. Now, twenty-one years after its first appearance, the original module is finally being updated to the latest incarnation of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® rules (3.5).

You can download the module here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm undecided about the new colour

Wow. Maybe I'll get used to it. I was thinking this might look good on you: Bill the Cat. Too much? Anthony (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...too gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that. LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No no. Nothing. Plunder my user page. Anthony (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Underdark

Yes, it is true that the first sourcebook called Underdark was written in 2003 by Bruce Cordell, Gwendolyn Kestrel, and Jeff Quick, and was set in Forgotten Realms. However, the concept of what was later called the Underdark has existed in the game since at least 1978, and it is my understanding that the name "Underdark" was first officially applied in 1986 in the setting-generic book Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (possibly, the name was used before then, but I am not sure). The Underdark was a fixture of the Greyhawk setting, and when the Forgotten Realms setting went into print, its use of the Underdark eclipsed that of the other setting until the name "Underdark" became synonymous with the Forgotten Realms. However, non-setting specific materials continued to use the concept of the Underdark, and it was never officially restricted to the Forgotten Realms. It is my understanding that the 4th edition Underdark supplement is once again not specific to the Forgotten Realms, or any setting? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The 4e Underdark book is set in the PoL cosmology, and therefore designed to be mostly generic. --erachima talk 04:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality at Belgium

Dear friend, it has come to my attention that the article Belgium does not reflect the consensus among unbiased non-'Belgium' scientists that Belgium does not exist. Your assistance in requested in (1) abusing those dogmatic editors that believe Belgium exists and (2) edit warring our collective personal opinion, also known as the scientific mainstream, into the article. Thankyou --Ari (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That was funny!

Goodluck

Hi Bill, goodluck with the CMT article. SlimVirgin has taken to (again) filing a phony 3RR report to get me blocked from editing the CMT. It seems that underhand tactics instead of consensus building and discussions are the norm on that article. --Ari (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What a joke. I agree with your assessment above. Although I'll continue to watch the CMT page, I don't have any plans of contributing much, if anything, in the foreseeable future. I'm out numbered by extremists and I am therefore concentrating on other articles. I expect all the Jesus-related articles will say that he was a non-historical gay lumberjack and pro-abortion activist in the near future if certain people are given free rein. Oh, well, like I say to all of my friends, "Never trust anything on Wikipedia unless it's something unimportant (like who was in the cast of a movie) and even then, make sure you check the references." The really well-written and neutral article on a topic that attracts so many fringe elements is unheard of on Wikipedia, as far as I know. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FAQ

It should be Charles E. Carlston on your Studying the Historical Jesus cite.

Fixed. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Send an email this way Arie4 break so spam bots don't find it at gmx.com regarding Belgium and the moon landing fraud.

A request

There have been many requests made over several months and longer that the Holocaust denial comparisons on the Jesus pages end, including requests from uninvolved admins on AN/I. If you continue to make the comparison I will consider asking for a topic ban. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain why such comparisons, if valid (as I honestly believe they are) are forbidden and thus make a person subject to a topic ban? A link to an appropriate WP policy article would be great. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Strictly speaking, the comparison is not so much to Holocaust denial itself, but rather to the motivation(s) for it. My point is that anyone can level the accusation of bias against a group of people (and God knows that the Jews have had more than their "fair share" of that), but unless someone has incontrovertible proof, such accusations should be summarily dismissed at the very least. I hope that clears things up for you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll note here for future reference that your response was to make the comparison again. [1] I'm going to go through your edits at some point and collect a diff for every single time you've made that comparison, for the almost inevitable day when I request a topic ban, so it's up to you whether you want to increase the number. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

SV, I'm honestly trying to work with you here. But it seems that every time I try to start a conversation with you, you either ignore me or threaten to ban me. It's unnecessary, really. Regarding the threat of a topic ban, do what you feel is right. Should that day come, however, it would be appropriate and courteous to explain why it makes you (and some others) "go ballistic". All I've heard in the past is that it is "offensive", but being "offended" without providing a valid explanation (per WP policies) is as much of an explanation as "just because", and can be interpreted as bullying.

At any rate, I'm very willing to comply with your request but I need to know if it's hurt feelings, against policy, or a bit of both. The comparison, as I've said before, is valid and IMHO powerfully makes my case. If it's simply a matter of hurt feelings (i.e., having nothing to do with WP policies), perhaps because you think that the comparison in some way minimizes the horror of the Holocaust, you have my word of honor that I will immediately and forever cease and desist. In other words, even if WP policies don't prohibit it, I will stop as a sign of good faith as well as an extension of an olive branch, in spite of it being a powerful argument. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill, people have explained it all before. If you read that AN/I thread, it's explained there again. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I only glanced through it and I didn't see a reason other than a kind of "just because". Since I'm getting ready to go to sleep, I hereby put a temporary restraining order on myself regarding this issue. Sometime tomorrow, I'll read all of the ANI link you gave above to see what I missed and we can continue. By the way, thank you for your quick responses today. I think we are making great progress—I hope that doesn't come across as implying that we are in some kind of marriage counseling.

Noting that the self-imposed restraining order didn't last long. [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can mention it, why can't I? Besides, that was informational only. And just for the record, I've decided that I will use other analogies in the future, just to keep the peace (i.e., I will only provide information regarding the quote in case someone asks for clarification). I hope that you can acknowledge this (at least privately, if not publicly) as an act of good faith and reasonableness. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be much appreciated, and I certainly would see it as an act of good faith. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Bill, please stop appearing at the Jesus articles to revert. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop appearing on my page to complain without providing at least a somewhat cogent reason why. I'm open to reasonable arguments and am willing to compromise. Better yet, just a apply a 1RR to the articles in question and the problem will most likely solve itself. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It's not an "extreme position" unless you think that the vast majority of scholars hold to an extreme position. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you revert more than others; I haven't looked but I'm guessing that a very large percentage of your edits to these articles (and perhaps to any articles) are reverts. And you often appear only to do that. Today was an example: no edits for almost 24 hours, and suddenly there you are reverting. I mentioned the same thing to you before, if you recall. In the interests of dispute resolution, I'm asking you again on your talk page that you consider not doing this anymore. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you often make such baseless accusations? It seems as if you enjoy it. It would be wise to check my edits before making such silly comments. Look SV, I tried reaching out to you but all I got was a bitten hand for the effort. Now you're very close to the line between honest dialogue and harassment. If you want to continue to talk with me, do it on talk pages, because I'll just follow your lead and delete comments on my Talk page without a response. And if you really care (I doubt it), most of my edits recently have been edits to Talk pages, some edits on Dungeons & Dragons, and an odd article here and there where I have found spelling/grammatical mistakes. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, look, it's up to you. The dispute-resolution process tells us to try to sort things out with the editor on his talk page as a first step, so I'm doing that. If you like I can look through your 226 edits to articles to work out what percentage of your edits to the Jesus articles are reverts. Just glancing here, all your edits to those articles in August, July, and June are reverts. You made a few minor edits in May. April and March are all or mostly reverts. If you think what I'm saying is baseless perhaps you could take a look yourself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The dispute-resolution process does not involve threats, explicit or implicit, and frankly I'm now bored with them. So, if you want, go ahead and work out the %'s of reverts, the %'s that are reverts of someone else's revert, and the %'s of time that only one revert was made. Then compare them to others who have been editing Jesus-related articles recently. If I'm not at the bottom, let's say for the last couple of months, then I'm pretty close to it. (Also, please point out which of my edits were made in bad faith and/or were indicative of edit-warring.) Perhaps you can put the results in a spreadsheet (or Wiki's equivalent) and then we can compare how you, me, and others stack up. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Notable" edit

Found it using WikiBlame, looks like you inserted it yourself :-) [3] Cheers. --Crusio (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's just a link, as I found out, rather than putting myself in a category. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, look closely at what the page at that date looked like. The category is not visible in the list of "Useful and/or Interesting Wikipedia pages", but you see that the user page has been added to the category because it shows up at the bottom... I guess you intended to put it there as a link, but to do that, you have to put : before the word Category. --Crusio (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, fixed it. Thanks for the tip. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Kalam Cosmological Argument (Book)

I started a new article on the WLC Book, The KCA. I will need some help, I am lacking some privileges as to upload an Image of the book and such. And I have no idea how to edit the title of the page once created. Currently it is "The kalam cosmological argument", It should read "The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Book)". Thanks for your help. Efiiamagus (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. That page was deleted as G7. I will start a new one with the correct Spelling and Capitalization and add the hang on template with an explanation. As to the porpouse of the article. Efiiamagus (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I started this http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Efiiamagus/The_Kalam_Cosmological_Argument_(book). Feel free to edit and contribute. In the next day or so I will be submitting it. It needs the pic (I dont have upload priviliges yet). And revison and expansion.Efiiamagus (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination

An article you contributed to is currently being consider for Good Article Status: 2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting. Supertouch (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi. This is a courtesy notice that I edited your comment to comply with WP:BLP and WP:NPA. Even when quoting another user, please be careful to comply with these core policies. Thanks. --John (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comments again. It may ruin the context, and purpose, of my reply and, at the very least, wastes my time. However, thank you for the notice. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Eugene

As it's a side issue, I thought I'd respond here to your comment on Eugene's page. I have no position either way on the historicity question. I like good articles, and not being insulted and lied about, and not watching other editors being goaded, ridiculed and dissed. Anthony (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you still around?

I really enjoyed this, though it's a bit cruel I suppose. [4]. I hope you're okay. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Bill the Cat 7. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Peter Hancock's book

You've started something now. I attempted to buy a copy of the Kindle edition for my sister, who lives in the US and has a Kindle. But because I don't have one myself, I can't! Weird, isn't it? You are supposed to be able to do it through amazon.com (option not available through amazon.co.uk) and I have an amazon.com account, but it still won't let me do it - I can't even get as far as adding it to the shopping basket. Will have to ask her to put it on her wishlist, then maybe it'll allow me the privilege of spending some money! Deb (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Deb, I let him know you will be buying the kindle for your sister and you would like the signed hard copy. Send him your mailing address here: Peter Hancock <Peter.Hancock@ucf.edu>. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of you (and him), but I won't approach him until we've succeeded in purchasing the book. Deb (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's cool. And you're very welcome. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for info, my ruse to attempt to buy the Kindle edition didn't work so I have had to send her a voucher to buy it herself. I knew Amazon could be inflexible but I didn't realise how bad they were at selling Kindle books. (No wonder mine haven't sold.) There'd be no harm in you passing on that information to the author - we have to stick together to teach these multinationals about customer service! Deb (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. In response to your query, I have been in touch with him and he's promised to send me one. Thanks for your help. Deb (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have been on holiday for a week and the book was waiting for me when I got home. Shall probably start reading tomorrow. Thanks again. Deb (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Btw, did he sign it for you? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he very kindly did. Deb (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading matter

Just to continue the thread above, you may have noticed that PV hijacked my response to you on the Eleanor Butler talk page, assuming it was directed at her, so I reproduce it below.

Deb, if you run across anything in Hancock's book that contradicts that, please let me know, because when it comes to history, no author can be certain of anything. I finished reading Hancock's book a couple of months ago and I don't remember Hancock being sure or dogmatic about anything. I would be surprised if Hancock does that.

PV, what I think you're missing is that Hancock (and probaly JAH) is merely offering what he thinks MAY have happened and he offers evidence (not "proof") to back up his reconstruction, so I'm still not sure why you're so angry. I have no problem with people being passionate, but Deb is right regarding your tone. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You're correct about that, Bill. In fact, one of my problems with Hancock is that he hedges his theory about with so many ifs and buts that you start to wonder if he has anything really worth saying. I don't exactly blame him - the only surefire way to get a book published these days is to come up with some outrageous theory (look how well it's worked for Dan Brown), and that's also one of my problems with the whole Ricardian lobby - they are so full of theories about what might have happened to the Princes in the Tower that they fail to notice that most of those theories are mutually exclusive. Only one of them can be true, and no single alternative theory is as strong as the theory that "Richard did it" - sorry to be so blunt! What is good about Hancock is that he is going down less well-trodden paths. Unfortunately, he is not a strong enough writer to drag me away from Donna Tartt or even from wikipedia, so I haven't finished the book as quickly as I anticipated! Now, if you want something really interesting to read, something that is way ahead of its time, you could do worse than read Commines (in the original, of course - LOL). Deb (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to follow that up by saying that (whether or not you've read Commines or wish to), another writer I really recommend is Helen Castor, whose book She-Wolves is a masterpiece of English as it should be written, as well as highly informative and well thought through. At the Chalke Valley History Festival last year, she was part of a panel discussion which also included Thomas Penn (the Henry VII man) and I spoke to her briefly afterwards - very charming, modest lady. Deb (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha! It's funny you should mention her but I was checking out her book called Blood & Roses a few weeks ago because the last book I read on the Paston's was boring. I'll now add both of her books to my reading list, including Commines. By the way, can you recommend a Commines book? There are a lot of them out there and really would like to get a good edition. Thanks Deb. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me you can read Commines online to get the flavour - even (shock horror) among the Richard III Society's "assets": here (I'm assuming you want it in English.) There's an enduring Penguin edition: (do you do Goodreads?) Must get "Blood and Roses" now. Deb (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How does Archive Box work?

I'm trying to create an archive box, starting with Archive #2, that will automatically archive my talk page every 90 days. I've read the article on the Archive Box, but I can't seem to get it to work. Can someone give me the code needed to do this? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Archive box}} doesn't do the automatic archiving itself, you need to ask a bot to do it. As you can see on my talk page, I have bot code, I have modified it for your talk page. Simply copy and paste the code below to the top of your talk page and MiszaBot will start automatic archiving. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 21:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize      = 2500K
|minthreadsleft      = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo                = old(90d)
|archive             = User talk:Bill the Cat 7/Archive %(counter)d
|counter             = 2
}}

This will archive threads 90 days old - not every 90 days, let me know if this is a problem, it shouldn't be though. Also see User:MiszaBot/config for an explanation of the above code. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 22:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Patchy1, I'll try the above code and then check the link you provided for MiszaBot. Thank you very much for your help. It was greatly appreciated. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wars of the Roses

Sorry I have been so inactive in the sandbox. Got sidetracked. I do intend to contribute.Deb (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I've been sick for the last week so I haven't done anything either. I'm planning on taking a copy of the latest WOTR article for the sandbox as there have been a couple of minor changes recently. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wizard wheeze, Jennings! Deb (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Howz this getting on? Deb will vouch for my talent if I can help. Basket _Feudalist 15:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't gone far, unfortunately. Deb has been very busy and I've been sick since last Thursday. I will most likely start work on it this Saturday and then hit Deb and you up for input. I'll need to update the sandbox with the latest edit since it has changed since I created the sandbox. Thanks for your interest. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hancock

Just to let you know I finally finished reading the book. I was disappointed with a few aspects of it:

• Rather confusing layout - it was annoying to have to keep flicking back and forth between footnotes, source material and narrative.
• Clumsy prose in places, including some of my pet hates such as the misuse of "may", eg. "Hastings may have helped Richard at the Battle of Bosworth" - no, he didn't, but he "might" have if he had been still alive!
• Some arguments based purely on secondary sources

However, I do agree with him that Stillington may well not have been the priest involved in the marriage ceremony - personally, if I wanted to keep something quiet, I would ask a very obscure, junior priest to do it, not the Keeper of the Privy Seal. Also, I think he is probably correct about Catesby, though the one possibility he doesn't explore is that Catesby, knowing of Eleanor's relationship with the king, just made up a plausible story about a pre-contract. Anyway, one mustn't look a gift horse in the mouth! Deb (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources Electronic cigarette Orc (Dungeons & Dragons) Bullywug Cyclops (comics) Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons) Paul Murray Kendall Cleanup Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) Arthur Drews Mark Allan Powell Expand Phantasy Star Online 2 Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) Psionics (Dungeons & Dragons) Unencyclopaedic Criticism of Muhammad John Dominic Crossan Judaism's view of Jesus

Wikify Enemy Mine (novella) Larcena Pennington Page Mark 6 Orphan Battles in the Narnia Chronicles O. Carl Simonton Cholermus Merge The Christ Myth Jesus in the Talmud Hollow World Campaign Set Stub The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror Michael Hicks Charles Ross (historian) Smithfield High School M. J. Simpson Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverting a talk page

I see you reverted my edit on a talk page, in which I was trying to introduce material for discussion on reaching a consensus. Just wondering what your motives are?Greengrounds (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk page revert

I've reverted your action at Talk:Jesus myth theory. The other editor's decision to redact his own copy-and-paste of old article content in order to deal with a specific section is much more reasonable than the very longwinded section of text. The editor did not remove any other editors' comments, and no responses had been made.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds reasonable for now. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus

Why did you remove the contamination principle from the jesus article? You don't understand it or you don't agree with it? The source says he flew in the sky like a zombie spaghetti monster. You don't see how that is a problem with what is historical in the source and what is myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't call any type of pasta a "monster". Pasta is sweet, innocent, and pure. And it goes well with beer, ale, and wine. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I find your response insensitive to monsters.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hope you're well. Deb (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus‎

Loved your reply to BaSH PR0MPT - "you weren't very clear about how you feel" - priceless!

Being who I am, I of course felt the need to challenge him - probably why I get yelled at alot...Ckruschke (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thank you!! But don't worry about being "yelled at". It's par for the course on articles such as this one. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

A content dispute resolution process has been started at [5]. Please participate and contribute to a resolution. Wdford (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Christ myth theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit

How the Lane Craig page exists is an offence to the very idea of wikipedia. It was previously nominated for deletion but I guess they only lacked my abhorrance of this hypocrite. If you want to maintain the Craig page then please do not sell that man as anything other than an offense to common sense. Markdask1 (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Historicity of Jesus". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 August 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Historicity of Jesus, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Your GA nomination of Richard III of England

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard III of England you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you that I have failed the article because it repeatedly fails the criterion of WP:VERIFIABILITY. Details on the GA review page. If you decide to take the article to peer review before making a second nomination, I hope you will let me know, and I will gladly offer comments there. Tim riley talk 19:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard III of England

The article Richard III of England you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Richard III of England for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Historicity of Jesus. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Weasel Words

Before beginning an argument, have you read WP:WEASEL and do you know what weasel statements are? Feedback 20:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Feedback:, you have not explained your edit on the talk page despite claiming to do so. First do that, then we can discuss further.Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Citing WP:WEASEL should be enough for an experienced editor to understand the problem with the statement "virtually all scholars". The argument is made clearly on the guideline. You can't just remove a tag because you don't understand the guideline or don't agree with it. Feedback 20:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A bit more modesty could be good, not insisting that everybody who disagrees knows less. WP:RS states that The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. That is exactly what we follow here.Jeppiz (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Feedback: Hi Feedback, I've read it before but I read it again just a few minutes ago just to be sure I wasn't missing anything. Here the the citations I was referring to.

• [T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected.

G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218

• It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed.

G. A. Wells, "The Historicity of Jesus," in Jesus and History and Myth, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986) p. 27

• "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain"

Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006) p. 1179

• "Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant' [to engage the Christ myth theory seriously]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."

Earl Doherty, "Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism, Part Three", The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?

• Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii

• In the last analysis, the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence. Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question. For me to adopt such a pretence would be sheer intellectual dishonesty. I know I must, as an honest man, reckon with Jesus as a factor in history... This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence.

Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) pp. xxxiii & 54

• The defectiveness of [the Christ myth theory's] treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence... The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus' earthly career and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question.

Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912) pp. 76-77 & 269

• If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible.

W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", George Mason University's History News Network, 2004

• [The non-Christian references to Jesus from the first two centuries] render highly implausible any farfetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be the part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score.

Christopher M. Tuckett, "Sources and Methods" in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (London: Cambridge University Press, 2001) p. 124

• [A]n attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by G. A. Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins of Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better. For of course the evidence is not confined to Tacitus; there are the New Testament documents themselves, nearly all of which must be dated in the first century, and behind which there lies a period of transmission of the story of Jesus which can be traced backwards to a date not far from that when Jesus is supposed to have lived. To explain the rise of this tradition without the hypothesis of Jesus is impossible.

I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (rev. ed.) (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004) pp. 15–16

• A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the aurthors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese.

N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 48

• A school of thought popular with cranks on the Internet holds that Jesus didn’t actually exist.

Tom Breen, The Messiah Formerly Known as Jesus: Dispatches from the Intersection of Christianity and Pop Culture (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008) p. 138

• I feel that I ought almost to apologize to my readers for investigating at such length the hypothesis of a pre-Christian Jesus, son of a mythical Mary, and for exhibiting over so many pages its fantastic, baseless, and absurd character... We must [, according to Christ myth advocates,] perforce suppose that the Gospels were a covert tribute to the worth and value of Pagan mythology and religious dramas, to pagan art and statuary. If we adopt the mythico-symbolical method, they can have been nothing else. Its sponsors might surely condescend to explain the alchemy by which the ascertained rites and beliefs of early Christians were distilled from these antecedents. The effect and the cause are so entirely disparate, so devoid of any organic connection, that we would fain see the evolution worked out a little more clearly. At one end of it we have a hurly-burly of pagan myths, at the other an army of Christian apologists inveighing against everything pagan and martyred for doing so, all within a space of sixty or seventy years. I only hope the orthodox will be gratified to learn that their Scriptures are a thousandfold more wonderful and unique than they appeared to be when they were merely inspired by the Holy Spirit. For verbal inspiration is not, as regards its miraculous quality, in the same field with mythico-symbolism. Verily we have discovered a new literary genus, unexampled in the history of mankind, you rake together a thousand irrelevant thrums of mythology, picked up at random from every age, race, and clime; you get a "Christist" to throw them into a sack and shake them up; you open it, and out come the Gospels. In all the annals of the Bacon-Shakespeareans we have seen nothing like it.

Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare,The Historical Christ, or an Investigation of the Views of J. M. Robertson, A. Drews and W. B. Smith (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2009/1914) pp. 42 & 95

• Today only an eccentric would claim that Jesus never existed.

Leander Keck, Who Is Jesus?: History in Perfect Tense (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2000) p. 13

• While The Christ Myth alarmed many who were innocent of learning, it evoked only Olympian scorn from the historical establishment, who were confident that Jesus had existed... The Christ-myth theory, then, won little support from the historical specialists. In their judgement, it sought to demonstrate a perverse thesis, and it preceded by drawing the most far-fetched, even bizarre connection between mythologies of very diverse origin. The importance of the theory lay, not in its persuasiveness to the historians (since it had none), but in the fact that it invited theologians to renewed reflection on the questions of faith and history.

Brian A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) pp. 231 & 233

• It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed...it cannot be doubted that Peter was a personal disciple of Jesus...

Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2 (2nd ed.) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000) pp. 80 & 166

• We do not need to take seriously those writers who occasionally claim that Jesus never existed at all, for we have clear evidence to the contrary from a number of Jewish, Latin, and Islamic sources.

John Drane, "Introduction", in John Drane, The Great Sayings of Jesus: Proverbs, Parables and Prayers (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 1999) p. 23

• By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.

Rudolf Bultmann, "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels", Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research, Rudolf Bultmann & Karl Kundsin; translated by Frederick C. Grant (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962) p. 62

• Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.

Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Scribner, 1958) p. introduction

• It is the nature of historical work that we are always involved in probability judgments. Granted, some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed and really was crucified, just as Julius Caeser really existed and was assassinated.

Marcus Borg, "A Vision of the Christian Life", The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, Marcus Borg & N. T. Wright (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2007) p. 236

• To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200

• I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest.

N. T. Wright, "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", in Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Vargese, There is a God (New York: HarperOne, 2007) p. 188

• Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1996) p. 121

• The historical reality both of Buddha and of Christ has sometimes been doubted or denied. It would be just as reasonable to question the historical existence of Alexander the Great and Charlemagne on account of the legends which have gathered round them... The attempt to explain history without the influence of great men may flatter the vanity of the vulgar, but it will find no favour with the philosophic historian.

James Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 7 (3rd ed.) (London: Macmillan, 1919) p. 311

• We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few highly motivated skeptics who refuse to be convinced), that he was a Jewish teacher in Galilee, and that he was crucified by the Roman government around 30 CE.

Robert J. Miller, The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 1999) p. 38

• [T]here is substantial evidence that a person by the name of Jesus once existed.

Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997) p. 33

• Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel.

Will Durant, Christ and Caesar, The Story of Civilization, 3 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972) p. 557

• There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity.

E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Allen Lane, 1993) p. 10

• There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.

Richard A. Burridge, Jesus Now and Then (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) p. 34

• Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question... The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.

Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) pp. 14 & 16

• No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings.

James H. Charlesworth, "Preface", in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) pp. xxi–xxv

• [Robert] Price thinks the evidence is so weak for the historical Jesus that we cannot know anything certain or meaningful about him. He is even willing to entertain the possibility that there never was a historical Jesus. Is the evidence of Jesus really that thin? Virtually no scholar trained in history will agree with Price's negative conclusions... In my view Price's work in the gospels is overpowered by a philosophical mindset that is at odds with historical research—of any kind... What we see in Price is what we have seen before: a flight from fundamentalism.

Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) p. 25

• The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church.

Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993, p. 8

• There's no serious question for historians that Jesus actually lived. There’s real issues about whether he is really the way the Bible described him. There’s real issues about particular incidents in his life. But no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person, really living in Galilee in the first century.

Chris Forbes, interview with John Dickson, "Zeitgeist: Time to Discard the Christian Story?", Center for Public Christianity, 2009

• I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008

• What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this.

Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007

• Richard [Carrier] takes the extremist position that Jesus of Nazareth never even existed, that there was no such person in history. This is a position that is so extreme that to call it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship.

William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?", debate with Richard Carrier, 2009

• The alternative thesis... that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him.

James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985) p. 29

• This is always the fatal flaw of the 'Jesus myth' thesis: the improbability of the total invention of a figure who had purportedly lived within the generation of the inventors, or the imposition of such an elaborate myth on some minor figure from Galilee. [Robert] Price is content with the explanation that it all began 'with a more or less vague savior myth.' Sad, really.

James D. G. Dunn, "Response to Robert M. Price", in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009) p. 98

• Since the Enlightenment, the Gospel stories about the life of Jesus have been in doubt. Intellectuals then as now asked: 'What makes the stories of the New Testament any more historically probable than Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairy tales?' The critics can be answered satisfactorily...For all the rigor of the standard it sets, the criterion [of embarrassment] demonstrates that Jesus existed.

Alan F. Segal, "Believe Only the Embarrassing", Slate, 2005

• Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.

F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (6th ed.) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) p. 123

• Jesus is in no danger of suffering Catherine [of Alexandria]'s fate as an unhistorical myth...

Dale Allison, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) p. 37

• An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis.

Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, translated by John Bowden et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) pp. 435–436

• In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by 'the village atheist,' bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Paul L. Maier, "Did Jesus Really Exist?", 4Truth.net, 2007

• The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. On such logic, history is no longer possible. It is no surprise then that there is no New Testament scholar drawing pay from a post who doubts the existence of Jesus. I know not one. His birth, life, and death in first-century Palestine have never been subject to serious question and, in all likelihood, never will be among those who are experts in the field. The existence of Jesus is a given.

Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007) p. 32

• While we do not have the fullness of biographical detail and the wealth of firsthand accounts that are available for recent public figures, such as Winston Churchill or Mother Teresa, we nonetheless have much more data on Jesus than we do for such ancient figures as Alexander the Great... Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus. Today innumerable websites carry the same message... Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio.

Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) pp. 8 & 23–24

• You know that you can try to minimize your biases, but you can't eliminate them. That's why you have to put certain checks and balances in place… Under this approach, we only consider facts that meet two criteria. First, there must be very strong historical evidence supporting them. And secondly, the evidence must be so strong that the vast majority of today's scholars on the subject—including skeptical ones—accept these as historical facts. You're never going to get everyone to agree. There are always people who deny the Holocaust or question whether Jesus ever existed, but they're on the fringe.

Michael R. Licona, in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) p. 112

• If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption. I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.

John Dominic Crossan, "Historical Jesus: Materials and Methodology", XTalk, 2000

• A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.

Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) p. 168

• When they say that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, I think you should laugh. Then look at them wide-eyed and with a big grin, and exclaim, 'Do you really believe that?' Act as though you've just met a flat earther or Roswell conspirator.

William Lane Craig, "Question 90: Jesus and Pagan Mythology", Reasonable Faith, 2009

• Finley: There are some people in the chat room disagreeing, of course, but they’re saying that there really isn’t any hardcore evidence, though, that… I mean… but there isn’t any… any evidence, really, that Jesus did exist except what people were saying about him. But… Ehrman: I think… I disagree with that. Finley: Really? Ehrman: I mean, what hardcore evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed? Finley: Well, this is… this is the same kind of argument that apologists use, by the way, for the existence of Jesus, by the way. They like to say the same thing you said just then about, well, what kind of evidence do you have for Jul… Ehrman: Well, I mean, it’s… but it’s just a typical… it’s just… It’s a historical point; I mean, how do you establish the historical existence of an individual from the past? Finley: I guess… I guess it depends on the claims… Right, it depends on the claims that people have made during that particular time about a particular person and their influence on society... Ehrman: It’s not just the claims. There are… One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust?

Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008

• The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust. For some it's simply too horrific to affirm. For others it's an elaborate conspiracy to coerce religious sympathy. But the deniers live in a historical dreamworld.

John Piper, Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006) pp. 14-15

• I just finished reading, The Historical Jesus: Five Views. The first view was given by Robert Price, a leading Jesus myth proponent… The title of Price’s chapter is 'Jesus at the Vanishing Point.' I am convinced that if Price's total skepticism were applied fairly and consistently to other figures in ancient history (Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, Cleopatra, Nero, etc.), they would all be reduced to 'the vanishing point.' Price's chapter is a perfect example of how someone can always, always find excuses to not believe something they don't want to believe, whether that be the existence of Jesus or the existence of the holocaust.

Dennis Ingolfsland, "Five views of the historical Jesus", The Recliner Commentaries, 2009

• The Jesus mythers will continue to advance their thesis and complain of being kept outside of the arena of serious academic discussion. They carry their signs, 'Jesus Never Existed!' 'They won’t listen to me!' and label those inside the arena as 'Anti-Intellectuals,' 'Fundamentalists,' 'Misguided Liberals,' and 'Flat-Earthers.' Doherty & Associates are baffled that all but a few naïve onlookers pass them by quickly, wagging their heads and rolling their eyes. They never see that they have a fellow picketer less than a hundred yards away, a distinguished looking man from Iran. He too is frustrated and carries a sign that says 'The Holocaust Never Happened!'

Michael R. Licona, "Licona Replies to Doherty's Rebuttal", Answering Infidels, 2005

• Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming.

Graeme Clarke, quoted by John Dickson in "Facts and friction of Easter", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 21, 2008

• An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth.

Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002) p. 164

• An extreme view along these lines is one which denies even the historical existence of Jesus Christ—a view which, one must admit, has not managed to establish itself among the educated, outside a little circle of amateurs and cranks, or to rise above the dignity of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare.

Edwyn Robert Bevan, Hellenism And Christianity (2nd ed.) (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1930) p. 256

• When all the evidence brought against Jesus' historicity is surveyed it is not found to contain any elements of strength.

Shirley Jackson Case, "The Historicity of Jesus: An Estimate of the Negative Argument", The American Journal of Theology, 1911, 15 (1)

• It would be easy to show how much there enters of the conjectural, of superficial resemblances, of debatable interpretation into the systems of the Drews, the Robertsons, the W. B. Smiths, the Couchouds, or the Stahls... The historical reality of the personality of Jesus alone enables us to understand the birth and development of Christianity, which otherwise would remain an enigma, and in the proper sense of the word, a miracle.

Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1926) pp. 30 & 244

• Anyone who talks about "reasonable faith" must say what he thinks about Jesus. And that would still be so even if, with one or two cranks, he believed that He never existed.

John W. C. Wand, The Old Faith and the New Age‎ (London: Skeffington & Son, 1933) p. 31

• That both in the case of the Christians, and in the case of those who worshipped Zagreus or Osiris or Attis, the Divine Being was believed to have died and returned to life, would be a depreciation of Christianity only if it could be shown that the Christian belief was derived from the pagan one. But that can be supposed only by cranks for whom historical evidence is nothing.

Edwyn R. Bevan, in Thomas Samuel Kepler, Contemporary Thinking about Paul: An Anthology (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950) p. 44

• The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position.

Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) p. 9

• Whatever else Jesus may or may not have done, he unquestionably* started the process that became Christianity…

UNQUESTIONABLY: The proposition has been questioned, but the alternative explanations proposed—the theories of the “Christ myth school,” etc.—have been thoroughly discredited.

Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) pp. 5 & 166

• One category of mythicists, like young-earth creationists, have no hesitation about offering their own explanation of who made up Christianity... Other mythicists, perhaps because they are aware that such a scenario makes little historical sense and yet have nothing better to offer in its place, resemble proponents of Intelligent Design who will say "the evidence points to this organism having been designed by an intelligence" and then insist that it would be inappropriate to discuss further who the designer might be or anything else other than the mere "fact" of design itself. They claim that the story of Jesus was invented, but do not ask the obvious historical questions of "when, where, and by whom" even though the stories are set in the authors' recent past and not in time immemorial, in which cases such questions obviously become meaningless... Thus far, I've only encountered two sorts of mythicism."

James F. McGrath, "Intelligently-Designed Narratives: Mythicism as History-Stopper", Exploring Our Matrix, 2010

• In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime. Even if we assume for a moment that the accounts of non-biblical authors who mention him - Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and others - had not survived, the outstanding quality of the Gospels, Paul's letters and other New Testament writings is more than good enough for the historian.

Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus, Man or Myth? (Oxford: Lion, 2005) p. 23

• To describe Jesus' non-existence as "not widely supported" is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, "It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened." There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method.

John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) 22-23.

• When Professor Wells advances such an explanation of the gospel stories [i.e. the Christ myth theory] he presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the gospels.

Morton Smith, in R. Joseph Hoffman, Jesus in History and Myth (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1986) p. 48

• Of course, there can be no toleration whatever of the idea that Jesus never existed and is only a concoction from these pagan stories about a god who was slain and rose again.

Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (New York: Menorah, 1943) p. 107

• Virtually all biblical scholars acknowledge that there is enough information from ancient non-Christian sources to give the lie to the myth (still, however, widely believed in popular circles and by some scholars in other fields--see esp. G. A. Wells) which claims that Jesus never existed.

Craig L. Blomberg, "Gospels (Historical Reliability)", in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight & I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992) p. 292

• In the 1910's a few scholars did argue that Jesus never existed and was simply the figment of speculative imagination. This denial of the historicity of Jesus does not commend itself to scholars, moderates or extremists, any more. ... The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today.

Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament‎ (New York: Ktav, 1974) p. 196

• Dr. Wells was there [I.e. a symposium at the University of Michigan] and he presened his radical thesis that maybe Jesus never existed. Virtually nobody holds this position today. It was reported that Dr. Morton Smith of Columbia University, even though he is a skeptic himself, responded that Dr. Wells's view was "absurd".

Gary Habermas, in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1989) p. 45

• I.e. if we leave out of account the Christ-myth theories, which are hardly to be reckoned as within the range of serious criticism.

Alexander Roper Vidler, The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) p. 253

• Such Christ-myth theories are not now advanced by serious opponents of Christianity—they have long been exploded ..."

Gilbert Cope, Symbolism in the Bible and the Church (London: SCM, 1959) p. 14

• In the early years of this century, various theses were propounded which all assert that Jesus never lived, and that the story of Jesus is a myth or legend. These claims have long since been exposed as historical nonsense. There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived in Palestine in the first three decades of our era, probably from 6-7 BC to 30 AD. That is a fact.

Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1976) p. 65

• There is, lastly, a group of writers who endeavor to prove that Jesus never lived--that the story of his life is made up by mingling myths of heathen gods, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, etc. No real scholar regards the work of these men seriously. They lack the most elementary knowledge of historical research. Some of them are eminent scholars in other subjects, such as Assyriology and mathematics, but their writings about the life of Jesus have no more claim to be regarded as historical than Alice in Wonderland or the Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

George Aaron Barton, Jesus of Nazareth: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1922) p. x

• The data we have are certainly adequate to confute the view that Jesus never lived, a view that no one holds in any case

Charles E. Carlston, in Bruce Chilton & Craig A. Evans (eds.) Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1998) p. 3

• Although it is held by Marxist propaganda writers that Jesus never lived and that the Gospels are pure creations of the imagination, this is not the view of even the most radical Gospel critics.

Bernard L. Ramm, An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1999) p. 159

Please check

You probably want to check this edit [6] as you've hidden several comments from several users, not just the different quotes as you no doubt intended. Half the discussion became hidden. No worries, mistakes happen but please correct it.Jeppiz (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Please allow me to point out the iron of this edit summary. You wrote "Stop edit warring", but by reverting Mark Miller (whom you were accusing of edit-warring), you actually perpetuated the edit war. Please don't do that. I've just blocked MM for a 3RR violation and another party for a borderline violation. Much as I'm loathe to block good editors, edit-warring is incredibly disruptive and reverting is never a substitute for discussion, so if necessary I will continue blocking editors who fail to maintain the requisite standard of decorum. Please consider this fair warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point but in my defense, let me say that I was simply restoring the article to a semi-stable state. The edit MM made had no consensus and was against WP:BRD. Not sure if it has been done yet but the article needs full protection for a few days to let things simmer down. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration, Historicity of Jesus

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I was thinking that I haven't seen you around lately. Are you well? Deb (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Deb: Hey Deb, it was kind of you to ask. Actually, I wasn't well recently. I had the flu/cold for about 10 days and only now am feeling better. Over the weekend, I was reading the R3 talk page and I was planning to chime in, but not really sure what the argument is. I'll keep an eye on it until I figure out what's going on.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Did you even look at my edits? "100 authors still means fringe" does not warrant reversion of all my edits - do it again and I will report you.14:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll elevate this to administrators, thanks for the 2nd UNDO.14:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Then put them back in without that part" you say. No, it's up to you to selectively remove what you think is wrong. Are you saying that Robert M. Price is not a noted scholar? John M. Robertson? John Remsburg? Joseph Wheless? Thomas L. Brodie, Richard Carrier?? Please contribute in an intelligent way, not wholesale and random.14:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

These aren't "claims". It's a fact. But if you want to report your attempt to whitewash the CMT, go ahead. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, take this to the CMT talk page. It's more appropriate there. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus arbitration case - proposed decision posted

This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).

Thanks Back

Hey, thanks for the gratitude. We both know that Wikipedia can be a frustrating experience. Any chance you can help me add a few citations to the B-theory of time article, and maybe help watch it? I fear it is going to be attacked soon.--TMD Talk Page. 03:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

6) Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors.

7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) from editing Historicity of Jesus.[7] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

BRD

It is primarily the responsibility of the person who has been reverted to follow BRD ~ not those who revert. Afterwriting (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. TheRoadIsLong made an edit (moved to the WLC talk page) on the 31st and TMDrew reverted. Check for yourself. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bill_the_Cat_7 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: ). Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Your recent editing history at William Lane Craig shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The policy is BRD. You were bold, TMD reverted, now it's time to discuss. Please familiarize yourself with this policy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of the policy and I am discussing it on the talk page are you? Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Then I'm not sure the purpose of this section, other than to cast aspersions. At any rate, moving to the talk page. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have once again removed the section. It does not have consensus (regardless of how long it's been in the article as this is not a valid reason to keep it) and appears to be a very clear violation of MoS principles. It simply cannot be included in the article in its present form and must be removed. Also, BRD is not a required policy but a suggested process. The process is Bold (add material), Revert (remove material), Discuss (discuss material and seek consensus). It is not "Bold, Revert, Restore". If something has been reverted on MoS grounds then it is should stay reverted until a consensus is achieved through discussion. If you have any reasons which you think justify the inclusion of the section as it is (on MoS grounds only, not anything else) then you are invited to discuss them on the article's talk page. Otherwise you are simply being an unconstructive and disruptive editor. Afterwriting (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What part of "moving to the talk page" don't you understand? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Simple. That would be the part where you first restore the disputed material before then "moving" to the talk page. Which parts of BRD don't you understand? Afterwriting (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not post to my talk page again. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at William Lane Craig shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, enough with that. He is trying to protect the page from destructive editing.--TMD Talk Page. 21:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul Barlow

Gosh, I had no idea. I didn't know him in real life but I see from his Facebook page that it's true. One of our best. How I will miss him! Deb (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bill the Cat 7. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I need your help!

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but here goes.

I'm looking at an article that might be a good candidate for a delete or merge (Argument from inconsistent revelations), but I'm not sure how to initiate the process (be it discussion of merge/delete, or merge/delete itself). How do I go about this? Thanks. -BabyJonas (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've never been involved in anything like that so I can't help.  :( Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bill the Cat 7. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to come down on you, but...

Your comments in the latest thread at historical Jesus could come across as quite misogynistic. The threeway link in particular, is exactly the sort of thing that's often held up as an example of sexual harassment. I wouldn't blame Jen at all if it made her very uncomfortable to participate in a thread with two men, where one of them was joking about a MMF three way, especially given her prominently expressed religious beliefs, beliefs shared by a lot of people who are not comfortable with any sort of sexual joke.

I'm not trying to call you a misogynist, I'm assuming you're just joking around. I'm just trying to tell you how it looks and say it might be a good idea to take it down a notch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work:I understand and now I feel like crap.  :( In the future, I'll be much more careful. It won't happen again. Thank you for a very proper reprimand. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well don't sweat it too much, I think you did exactly the right thing by removing them with a simple apology. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bill the Cat 7. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rich

That's a rich overview of quotes; feels like I'm simply repeating the work other editors have done before... All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan Feel free to use whatever you like. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Quotes on the historicity of Jesus}}

For convenience sake ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, also take a look at the FAQ. the CMT article has been missing one for a long time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Actually, it's a pity that all those articles seem to center on just one point of contention: did Jesus exist? There's so much more to the story! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You've been here long enough to know that no personal attacks is Wikipedia policy. Especially given that you made it in an edit summary, this personal attack against me is unacceptable. It's also a false accusation - I did not accuse him of genocide. If you can't discuss content without turning it into personal attacks and accusations like this, maybe you're too invested in the topic to deal with it in a dispassionate manner, and should find some other area to edit. Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

See the WLC talk page for my response. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Squatch347 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

DRN thread

Hi there, I'm a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (and a long time veteran of dispute resolution on Wikipedia generally) and I'll be re-opening the discussion there on William Lane Craig. Can you please leave a comment at the noticeboard (I have put a section there for you to do so) to note that you are happy to participate in the discussion. I'll take things from there. Cheers. Steven Crossin 16:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. Are you still around? Deb (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, what's up? Hope everything is going well with you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Under the circumstances... :-) I was just thinking I had not seen you around for a while. Good to know you are still here. Deb (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Extremely busy. Two deaths in my family in less than a year. Pretty messed up situation. No time for Wiki. 107.210.134.33 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

October 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I provided an RS, which apparently you didn't agree with. We can discuss it on the talk page should you wish, but I honestly believe you are the one who is "edit warring". Let's take this up on the Talk page. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)