User talk:Sardonicone

Reversions to Historicity of Jesus

Let me try to explain why I've reverted your edits.

The statement that the non-existence theory is supported by "a small minority" of biblical scholars and historians is now referenced. If you wish to change it, please cite a reliable source in support of your preferred version. But as far as I can tell, even the proponents of the non-existence theory accept that they are in a minority.
As SOPHIA has pointed out, "mythical" is not interchangeable with "fictional". "Mythical" is more appropriate here (cf. Jesus as myth).
The sentence you have been adding to "Greco-Roman sources" about "hearsay" is not merely "pointing out facts supported by the article itself". It is a fact that the authors mentioned were born after the date at which Jesus was supposedly crucified, but the addition uses this to support an argument (the unreliability of these authors' remarks on Jesus). Unless we cite a reliable source that makes that specific argument, the sentence qualifies as original research. It may well be possible to find a source arguing that the date of the sources harms their reliability, but I doubt that any competent ancient historian would argue that a writer can "of course" provide "at best hearsay" on any events before his birth.

Also, before editing the page again, please note Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. EALacey 19:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sardonicone 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)If they (the other historians) don't cite THIER sources, then one could make that argument. I however can see that this can be construed as taking a non-neutral stance.[reply]

As for the mythical vs. fictional changes, I did not do that. That edit must have been done by someone else.

I will endeavor to do a better job of citing sources from here on out.

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the article as it stands could do with more citations; that said, the first paragraph under "Greco-Roman sources" is a summary of the following paragraphs on individual authors, which are better referenced. As for "fictional"/"mythical", I think that SOPHIA corrected "fictional" to "mythical" between other edits and it was reversed accidentally during reverting, so there's no real issue there.

I know Wikipedia can seem unwelcoming when people revert your first edits, but I hope you'll continue to contribute. Anyone who takes the time to work on articles is appreciated. EALacey 22:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zezima

I have a user subpage for rallying support for making a Zezim article, can be found Here

There doesn't seem to be any other support for this article. You may want to see if you can't drudge up other members to participate, otherwise this iniative is dead.Sardonicone 05:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Please do not feel sighted, I just reverted it to a version before the (almost solo edit mix mash). I had no intent of discrediting your work and it was also not intended to be reverted to my own edit of the article, it just happend to be the last one before the editing spree. So I took the short cut, in stead of going and checking all different edits, I reverted. Teardrop onthefire 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

Hi. I really would like to suggest you to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). In a section called "The problem with in-universe perspective" it's written that "Problems associated with an in-universe perspective include: A fictional character article or section written like a biography". Fictional characters appear in book or shows but are not born or die. Of course, when writing a character's background you can mention that according to the plot the character "was born in ..." etc. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC) ps This week I'll seldom online due to real life work. If you feel like replying please do it in this page but I may not be able to see it for a long while.[reply]

It's better answering to your Talk page and not mine. Please read the manual of style. The character appears in a show. Put the born/dead information in his profile and not in the leading section. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, and no where does it say "characters..are not born or die" of course they do. Again, you're interpretation is not an aboslute one, and thinking as such is absurd Sardonicone (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sardonicone. This message is just to make sure you know about the three-revert rule (3RR). I don't think you've violated the three-revert rule at Rex Van de Kamp, so this is just a friendly message to make sure you know the rule. Users are not allowed to revert the same page more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. Users can be blocked for editwarring even if they don't violate 3RR. Please try to work out disputes using discussion on the article talk page and if necessary, dispute resolution. I'm not an administrator; I just help at the 3RR noticeboard sometimes. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision to Proxima Centauri

During your revert of the Proxima Centauri page, you asserted that it should be consistent with the Barnard's Star article. I believe that the latter is in error, and so I left a message on that article's talk page. I believe a stronger citation is needed before the statement in the Barnard's Star article is accepted as correct. In light of this I believe it is appropriate to revert your modifications. Do you concur? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]