User talk:AoV2

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, AoV2! I am User name one and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

username 1 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Template talk:Tooltip/testcases"

A page you created, Template talk:Tooltip/testcases, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, you removed all content from the page or otherwise requested its deletion.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Zhang He (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit section

I know that you probably know this already, but I can't help but noticing that you are editing whole pages and not relevant sections. Next to each section, there is a [edit] link (on right side of page level with section name)which allows you to edit that section only . It also shows the section you edited in the history (Thus enabling people watching the page to filter out which edits they want to see and which they don't). For example, the section edit for the section you were editing on WP:VPT is this. Section editing might be disabled in prefs. Go to Special:Preferences, under the "Editing" tab, check the box next to "Enable section editing via [edit] links. Let me know if you have any questions regarding section editing. Thanks, ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 14:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this, it'll be really useful... ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 01:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, please do! --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)‎‎ are always interesting but if you used section editing (or manually added the section title as "/* Section heading */ Edit summary text"), it would be a lot easier to understand the context of your replies in watchlists. Wikipedia also provides an anchor link from the watchlist to the relevant page section if a section heading is included in edit summaries in this way.

For example,

/* Edit section */ Please include section heading with edit summary

appears in the watchlist as

(→ Edit section: Please include section heading with edit summary)

The "→" link is also useful to users of Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups.

— Richardguk (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Chiara Massini

Hello AoV2, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Chiara Massini has been removed. It was removed by RayAYang with the following edit summary '(deprod, add source)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with RayAYang before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Molly Beth Malcolm

The article Molly Beth Malcolm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Codf1977 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature help

A p3rson ✉ haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

Thanks for the CSS sig help.

What's the meaning of this comment of yours?

[1]--Deusdemona (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my paranoia, but Brunodam had 5 accounts blocked just this week. My apologies.--Deusdemona (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

table of contents – hide the bullet numbers

First of all, thank you very much. What do you think, how difficult it would be to create a template? --Hæggis (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes

Can I ask for a bit of guidance? You did an edit today to a page on my watchlist, 1976 Argentina rugby union tour of England & Wales, changing some dashes between a score (19-17) and a date (1977-78). I don't understand the difference between the short & long dashes - what is the difference, and which ought I to be using? Thanks for any help you can provide.--Bcp67 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CMT Poll

In the on-going poll at the Christ myth theory's talk page you said that you oppose inclusion of the category on the grounds that "To call this pseudo-history is to take for granted that Jesus existed" If this is your concern I'd like to encourage you to reconsider your vote. I've taken the liberty of reproducing just a few quotation from the [Talk:Christ_myth_theory/FAQ|page's FAQ] below:

There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.

Richard A. Burridge, Jesus Now and Then, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, p. 34

Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question... The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.

Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, pp. 14 & 16

No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings.

James H. Charlesworth, "Preface", in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, pp. xxi–xxv

Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. xxiii

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, New York: Scribner, 1995, p. 200

I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest.

N. T. Wright, "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", in Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Vargese, There is a God, New York: HarperOne, 2007, p. 188

[Robert] Price thinks the evidence is so weak for the historical Jesus that we cannot know anything certain or meaningful about him. He is even willing to entertain the possibility that there never was a historical Jesus. Is the evidence of Jesus really that thin? Virtually no scholar trained in history will agree with Price's negative conclusions... In my view Price's work in the gospels is overpowered by a philosophical mindset that is at odds with historical research—of any kind... What we see in Price is what we have seen before: a flight from fundamentalism.

Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008, p. 25

The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church.

Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993, p. 8

There's no serious question for historians that Jesus actually lived. There’s real issues about whether he is really the way the Bible described him. There’s real issues about particular incidents in his life. But no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person, really living in Galilee in the first century.

Chris Forbes, interview with John Dickson, "Zeitgeist: Time to Discard the Christian Story?", Center for Public Christianity, 2009

I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008

What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this.

Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007

If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible.

W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", History News Network, 2004

Richard [Carrier] takes the extremist position that Jesus of Nazareth never even existed, that there was no such person in history. This is a position that is so extreme that to call it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship.

William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?", debate with Richard Carrier, 2009

[T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected.

G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988, p. 218

Please reconsider your vote. Eugene (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to remove the extra space between the columns-of-bullets and the lower bullets?[2]

Hmm, the space is still there.174.3.123.220 (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Soccer icon3

Template:Soccer icon3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nonumtoc

Template:Nonumtoc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

⛄ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ⛄. Since you had some involvement with the ⛄ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. N Y Kevin 20:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gedanum listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gedanum. Since you had some involvement with the Gedanum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tooltip listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Tooltip. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Tooltip redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 04:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]