Bobwiley22

August 2012

Hello, I'm Saddhiyama. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Dionysus that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Saddhiyama (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Saddhiyama. It wasn't a test. I was trying to swap it with an editted (modest-ized) version of the same picture. It didn't work. Due to the fact that I am not confirmed yet, it appears I cannot upload images yet.

I see. Sorry for the warning then. I suggest you upload your pictures at our image service Wikimedia Commons, I don't think they have any restrictions regarding confirmation. And perhaps this guide Wikipedia:Uploading images will be of help. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Plagues of Egypt, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Ian.thomson. I'm not sure when you sent this, but I appreciate it! I think I can heartily agree with much of this! I'm not sure if this was in response to something specific I posted or edited. It also seems to express a belief in Old Earth Creationism, and to be in language that presumes I am a Young Earth Creationist. I do not know what created this opinion, but it is not one I have a strong opinion on. I simply don't know. The genealogies and even the counting of days do not begin until Genesis 1:3 and 1:4. The earth was clearly in place before this, and there are no time-markers or even day-markers given. So I have no certainty. I can imagine a world created in a state of maturity, as well as one created and allowed to mature naturally (letting star light take its time to reach the planet, etc). Although admittedly, for a being capable of manipulating molecules, this would seem an awful waste of time, but perhaps I am too American!). Also, I'm not sure it's fair to say that most Christians outside America believe in theistic evolution. As someone who has lived in multiple Christian communities in Asia and Africa, I would have estimated it to be the other way around. I might have guesstimated it to be 1% of Christians globally, actually. At any rate, I want to thank you for reaching out! The current evolutionary community, from what I have seen, does not seem to want to "play" with intelligent design believing scientists, which is sad. When the scales were turned, the intelligent design community (which dominated science), was willing to interact with the evolution-community. But when the evolution community gained the majority hold, it seems as if they began putting the "squeeze" on intelligent design colleagues. Perhaps you have had a different experience. Isaac Newton and even Einstein (while no biblicist) certainly and explicitly believed an intelligence was responsible for our universe. But today if you do so, it seems harder to not immediately be labelled and have the community refuse to peer review your articles. Stephen Meyer & Michael Behe come to mind. They refuse to peer-review their articles, and then cite the fact that they aren't peer-reviewed as reason for not taking them seriously. Seems like simple "boys tree-fort club" tactics. Have you noticed something different? Anyway, thanks again for reaching out! Cheers!Bobwiley22 (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not censorship. Even in Darwin's time (before publishing his book), creationism had no scientific explanatory power. It was a theological explanation added on top of natural science in order to bring comfort to believers. Even in those times, creationism played no empiric-analytic role. So, Darwinism never competed against creationism, it competed against Lamarckism. So, in order to win, it had to outperform Lamarckism, since creationism wasn't part of the competition anyway. That's why it isn't censorship: creationism does not explain anything about the natural world, it is simply a meta-narrative which fundamentalists seek to impose upon science. So, yes, it is rejected from scientific journals because it does not have anything to do with science, i.e. with the empiric-analytic model. It is the ideology of "God did it", which explains nothing from the natural world. Explanation meaning making empirically testable predictions about reality. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

February 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gospel of Luke‎, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Epinoia (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Epinoia, I've added some citations. I have a degree in this field, and some of these things I assume to be common knowledge, but appreciate the encouragement to add citations! I've gone back and done so. Cheers!Bobwiley22 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

July 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tower of Babel, you may be blocked from editing. Since you have already been warned more than once not to present religious narratives as facts, you should be aware of how utterly inappropriate it is to change the introduction of the article in the manner you did. bonadea contributions talk 20:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Herod the Great. See WP:RS/AC. It's binding. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)