User talk:Jorbian

Israel

Please be aware that on pages related to Jewish topics, we use CE/BCE. Please refrain from changing this. I saw your edit on Israel and your postings on Talk:Common Era. --Daniel575 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use the Gregorian calendar. See Jewish calendar. Judaism has a very bad history with Christianity. Christians have always tried to 'Christify' Judaism, and Jews have often been burned to death etc. because they refused to become Christians. Thus, when we HAVE to use the Gregorian calendar, such as on a secular encyclopedia, we write it like that: Common Era and Before Common Era. We do not want to be reminded of J.C. all the time. Forgive me for already coming to you now with this, but I could more or less foresee that you would be starting to change all instances of CE/BCE in all articles concerning Judaism. So, please don't. --Daniel575 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been extensive discussions on this topic. We have decided that both are acceptable. So did many scientific publications and other publishers. So, don't start changing things. This is the way we do things at Wikipedia, and I have to warn you that we will not tolerate edit wars about these things when it comes to Jewish topics. Someone else also warned you against that on Talk:Common Era. Please keep this in mind. --Daniel575 | (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 67.128.15.135 expired.

Request handled by: Netsnipe ► 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello Jorbian! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Netsnipe ► 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Date style

I reverted this page to the revision from before you blanked it. According to WP:DATE#Dates, both BC/AD and BCE/CE are acceptable styles. According to WP:STYLE#Disputes over style issues, "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Our personal preferences don't count as substantial reasons.

In addition, in this edit you changed the sense of the text by changing the text "ca 128 CE" to read "128 AD"; what was previously an indication of an approximate date is now presented to the reader as being definite.

I happen to think that CE/BCE is a pointless and confusing waste of time motivated purely by political correctness, but please don't start edit wars just because you disagree with the particular style which other editors have adopted. Thanks. -- MarkBrooks 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSk template

Hello, I have recently created a template which can be used on their user pages by those, who contribute to the Slovak Wikipedia as well. If you do and if you are interested, you can have a look at Template:User wikisk. Jan.Kamenicek 22:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I caution you to read WP:NPOV. Your continued insistence to add categories that only meet your POV is viewed as vandalism. Should you continue to revert, you will will violate the WP:3RR; results may not be to your liking. Please stop until you gain concensus for controversial edits on the discussion page. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Jorbian:

Continued from BoM discussion

What I was saying is: there are religions like the nation of Islam which claim history that is completely unsubstiated, and on this encyclopedia is labeled as pseudohistory. Why does Mormon pseudohistory get expemted from it? And I can provide information on the societies of ancient America, try me, though I am not proffesional, this is my faviorte thing in history to study. Even if it is pseudohistory, that shouldn't change your belifs, you have that "burning in your bossum" and your "testimoney" that is more then adequetly making the book of Mormon true for you. This does not make it true in reality by any stretch of the imagination, but you can belive whatever you want. There are wackos that belive that the white race was created by a man named "Yakub" though they don't respect me, I respect them (though I am glad that they are not present here in SLovakia). My point is, you can belive this, but it has no historical value. This is not a POV, it is a fact that stands the historical value of the book of Mormon from a purely historical value is zero, none what so ever. That is why it should be tagged as such, or if we are going to get into this objective truth nonsense the category of pseudohistory should be done away with. Why should we stop at allowing this to be passed off as history? I think that this is a true NPOV, looking at only the facts, and not just at the fact that there are enough people with a "burining in their bossum" that edit this website to use that as evidence for it being treated differently then other pseudohistory. This is a true NPOV. --Jorbian 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, just because something is done elsewhere does not make it applicable everywhere. I have looked at the category and based upon all of the other topics listed, this topic does not belong. Second, the "objective truth nonsense" is not understood. If you mean t say that truth is relative nonsense, I would agree with you, but I don't know how that would be applicable to the current topic. My POV is that truth is not relative, truth is absolute. However, Wikipedia is not concerned with truth, just reporting facts as supported by worthy references. Third, religion is not objective; it is subjective. You mentioned that the history of the Bible can be supported by archeology; 40% of the stated cities mentioned in the Bible are known to have existed. Does that mean that 60% of the Bible is false? Also, the Bible states that Jesus Christ healed the sick, brought the dead back to life, was crucified and on the third day rose from the dead and that he sits on the right hand side of the Father today. Can that be proven? Should then it not also be listed as pseudohistory?

The problem is that you are applying objective science to religion. You can not do that on Wikipedia. As I said earlier, you would have to apply the same category to all books of scripture. Please try it with the Bible and Quran first and tell me how far it gets you.

Lastly, my burning bosom has nothing to do with anyone. Based upon your comment I would guess some affliation with an Evangelical church; I have always found them to be the epitomy of Christian behavior. I would recommend reading Matt 16:15-17. What did Christ say to Peter? Who revealed it unto him? Is it a recommended process for finding truth? When it does come to truth, I will take that burning bosom crap any day of the week. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that you had continued your conversation elsewhere. Have you had a chance to check out my Book of Mormon "pseudohistory" discussion comment? I believe that there is a way to remain neutral without playing the faith v. evidence card. Comment is below. Regards--Rojerts 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. There are a whole lot of exclamation marks being thrown around here, so I hesitate to enter. But, I think I have something worth offering. Religious Studies hold that sacred books are neither history or pseudohistory.

For example, if we look at the Bible, we find several disputed areas where there is no historical evidence to back up its time line or facts, especially within the first 12 chapters of Genesis--but even the Exodus is troublesome in terms of history. Yet it is still contextually meaningful regardless of what can or can't be dug up to verify the event. These types of books are written with less emphasis on historical fact, and more upon instilling faith and showing God's hand at work among his people. In Religious Studies, this is called a Sacred history. The Bible, Book of Mormon, and the story of Yakub would all fall under this category.

A Sacred history article on Wikipedia has not yet been written. I am happy to contribute to it, and welcome participation. What are your thoughts? Is a Sacred history tag for this article and others (versus either a history or pseudohistory tag) an acceptable move? Regards,--Rojerts 16:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Slovakia, an attempt to build and maintain a large and neutral database of Slovakia-related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the members section of WikiProject Slovakia.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Stargate

Hello, Jorbian! Your username, as well as the usernames of other members of Wikipedia: WikiProject Stargate, has been moved to the inactive members list, as part of a process for update the activity of the wikiproject. If you would like to continue to be an active member, please follow the instructions on the top of the participants page to add your name to the active participants list.

Thanks! – sgeureka ^t•c 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP AH

This user wants you to join
WikiProject
Alternate History.

Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here