Rush4hire

Welcome!

Hello, Rush4hire, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 09:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Three Angels' Messages

Hi Rush4hire, I just wanted to explain why another editor (it wasn't me, but I support the decision) may have reverted your recent changes to the Three Angels' Messages article. One Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:No original research. Your material is "original research", because you did not provide any citations. Please reference the most authoritative figure possible. All major points of view must be described. Wikipedia does not allow anyone to simply provide their own opinion, but rather to document existing (usually published) opinions of authoritative persons. It also appears that you deleted some of the material in the article and simply replaced it with your own. If the material needed deleting, then of course this is justified, but otherwise it doesn't give the impression that you are showing good faith towards other editors and trying to cooperate to achieve a neutral point of view. Please read the links provided above, as they describe some of Wikipedia's policies. It may be that much of the material you provided can be salvaged. If you have any further questions, I am happy to assist. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 09:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Noah

I was unwilling to inaugurate your talk page with this disucssion earlier, which is why I replied in my own. But the more usual way is to post replies on the other person's talk page. (Some people do it differently depending on their preferences, but this is more common.)

A "strawman" is where one side in an argument misrepresents the position of the other in order to have something that can be refuted more easily. If that post was, as you say, directed to me, then you did not represent my true position, nor that of most who do not take the Flood story literally. You read the Bible and decided for yourself that it was all supposed to be literally true as stated and that this is the only faithful position to take. You therefore represent those who do not take it literally as lacking somehow, either in faith or morals, and ascribe the reasons for accepting the evidence of our own eyes instead to that. This is a strawman. You cannot have gotten that from anything I actually said at Talk:Noah's Ark. It is also a pretense to mind reading; how do you know that this is what anyone else is thinking? Thus you ascribe false motives, claiming knowledge you do not in fact have. I refer you to the ninth Commandment. You clearly have not considered there may be other motives, such as those actually given out.

Even in this latest post you do this. "We're too brainy to believe this," you place in the mouths of those who never said it -- and as far as you know, never thought it. I grant that there may be some who do, but you don't know who they are unless it actually comes out of their mouths, and you should not tar everyone with that brush.

But let's be honest. You don't really take Genesis literally. If you think you do, then I submit you do not properly understand passages like Genesis 1:6-8.

"Not interested" means that I find arguments such as this wearisome, as it's been my long and painful experience that people who begin a discussion in a certain way will almost never actually engage anything I say. This is an exercise in futility to which I do not wish to subject myself.

The discussion on Noah's Ark didn't wear out; it ceased abruptly when CS was blocked. He was the only reason it was happening in the first place.

And no. This is nothing like the debate between Cain and Abel. That's an absurd comparison. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, just mildly irritated. As I am now. I cannot fathom why, after I told you above that I find these arguments futile and wearisome, that you chose to burden my talk page with that tome of yours, which as far as I can tell -- and I admit I haven't taken the time to read all 125KB(!) of it -- is composed entirely of arguments that are either logically fallacious (you open with a barrage of ad hominems, for example) or factually incorrect. Most of it is off-point. It would have been much more readable had you focused on your topic and not chosen to preach me a sermon on any topic that popped into you head. This is exactly the kind of thing I don't want to deal with. I could take the trouble to respond point-by-point, but why bother? Even if I ignored your heresies on other subjects and just stuck to the literalism on the early part of Genesis (which is not a heresy, as it's perfectly justifiable as a religious belief absent knowledge of natural history. It's merely wrong) it would be a lot of work and it wouldn't change your mind. So why bother?

And please don't place non-free images in user space, even when you mistag them to make them appear to be free content. That's another irritant, as I'm going to have to list all those for deletion and it's a PIA. Unless you'd be kind enough to tag them {{db-author}} yourself and save me the trouble. It says right on that downlink page "ALL MATERIAL (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED) IS COPYRIGHT © 2007 CSE MINISTRY". If you want your tags to be believed, you need to link to where it is "otherwise stated" for these videos. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that when I told you I'm not going to engage you in this that you persist, insulting me as you go? I told you that I'm not interested in your case, but you come back and "reiterate" it. Is there something wrong with your brain? And will you please stop replacing blatant copyright violations that I remove from my talk page? It's against Wikipedia policy to put fair-use images into user space. When I remove an image like that, I expect it to stay removed.

Your trouble is that you fail to realize that you refuted nothing. Your facts are incorrect, and your arguments are fallacious. And you're still attacking a strawman. The fact that you're doing it in more detail is no help. Despite being told otherwise, you persist in representing that everyone who does not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the first part of Genesis is engaged in some evil program to bring down Christianity. I have already told you this is not the case, so you know better. I actually told you they weren't doing something far more mild than that. Going beyond it as you do here is totally unwarranted. I therefore feel comfortable in calling this a lie. Please stop lying. The facts are very much otherwise. Early scientists took Genesis as a given and made every effort to fit their observations into that framework. As the body of observations grew, this became more and more difficult. They were eventually forced for the sake of intellectual integrity to abandon that approach. This happened very slowly, with great reluctance, over the course of several centuries. It was abandoned not out of hostility to God, but from the evidence of their own eyes.

You would be wise to not pick and choose definitions to fit your needs. I didn't say "history", I said "natural history" which means something entirely different. If you take the trouble to understand what others mean instead of hearing from them what you want them to mean, or what is most convenient for you, then you will not be taken seriously. It's also a dishonest way to argue.

You obviously know nothing about my church, or what it teaches or why. I am a Christian but not a Roman Catholic or any variety of Protestant, even counting those who do not associate themselves with Protestantism, and the various fringe groups such as the JWs and Mormons who are only Christian by a considerable stretch of the definition. It would therefore also be wise for you to avoid arguments against "the church" when you don't know if they're even relevant.

The Bible isn't 6,000 years old. It can be read in such a way that it talks about events that long ago, but by its own testimony it was written thousands of years more recently. The Torah was written by Moses, who lived centuries after Abraham, and therefore even more centuries after Noah if you read it literally; he was not recording events contemporary with himself in Genesis. It's no more than 3,600 years old at the outside, and there are plenty of written records older than that. Writing barely existed 6,000 years ago, but we certainly do have records from that time and much earlier in the form of art and artifacts. There are plenty of written records from between then and Moses. You don't accept that dating because you don't (and won't) understand the basis for it, but it's there nonetheless.

Is the Bible scientific? Of course not. It wasn't written by scientists, and its purpose is not to be a science textbook. To read it that way is to demote it to the level of secular literature. It has far more to say than that, of far more permanence in import.

Do not burden me with any more of this until you can show that you can engage the facts honestly, that you know what you're talking about, and can write without insults. I wasn't offended before, but now I am. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your images

You tagged them all {{db-author}}, which is a request for them to be deleted. The website states "ALL MATERIAL (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED) IS COPYRIGHT © 2007 CSE MINISTRY", so they are copyright. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 08:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As I asked you to do, since it would save me the trouble of listing them for deletion myself as I very plainly stated. Why were you surprised by this? Did you look at the tag before you placed it? TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Helltruth-bnr-3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Helltruth-bnr-3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Testimony of Jesus

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Testimony of Jesus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. EALacey 12:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Please do not post unhelpful comments and conspiracy theories on article talk pages. Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User Fan AmazingFacts

A tag has been placed on Template:User Fan AmazingFacts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Fredrick neechee

I have nominated Fredrick neechee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)