Bobn2
Welcome, Bobn2!
Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,318,341 users!
Hello, Bobn2, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Sillybillypiggy, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. In fact, you can create your own right here. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your userpage. August 2022
edit
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Historical reliability of the Gospels seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I only picked this up. I can't remember what edit I made, but I can't see where I was 'less than neutral' The question was about whether the NT in its entirety is a 'primary source' in the historical sense. It clearly isn't, that's a matter of fact. I suspect what has happened is an equivocation error. The article says 'primary source' and links the article on 'primary sources', and when you read that it's very clear that the ET in its entirety doesn't qualify. Remove the link, it's better, but I think what's happened is that someone has used 'primary source' in the sense of 'most important source' and someone later has added the link, or the original author added the link not quite knowing what the article linked said. I can't see at all how trying to stick to the historical definition of 'primary source' is 'less than neutral'. In fact, I'd think it very neutral. Bobn2 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)