User talk:Roy Brumback

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Roy Brumback, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Trevor macinnis 21:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

==Please Use Edit Summaries== Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging dispute

Please make use of the talk page to try to come to a resolution over this dispute. Protection is the absolute last resort, not the first. · Katefan0 (scribble) 03:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of AD in front of years

As regards your Mark 6 and Luke 3 reverts, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Years, decades, and centuries, and you will see that my edits were correct.

Restore the correct version.--Semioli 12:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manual of Style on the use of "AD"s

If you read (and I mean follow the link and read) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Years, decades, and centuries, you shall see that AD (or CE) is never used, even for low years with low numbers.

If you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras (which is probably what you read first), you see that even if "both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable", "normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range".

If you reflect one moment, instead of reverting like a mad, you will realize that this means:

  1. both AD and CE are acceptable (when needed)
  2. never used AD in front of years
    except when you are writing an interval spanning over the change of era

Note also that "but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era" does not mean "when the article is about an event spanning over the change of era", but means "when the interval spans over the change of era".

Do you understand now?--Ahrarara 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras. Fine. Are you going to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Years, decades, and centuries too, or everything that goes against your POV is filtered out by your eyes?--Ahrarara 21:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You are wasting my time. You must apply all of the Manual of Style, not only the parts you like most. When I write "year 1" it is year 1, whatever part of the world I live in. Otherwise why are you omitting to write "year AD 2006"?
You claims are biased and unconsistent.--Ahrarara 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you not applying all the manual of style, as you seem to tacitly admit my argument beats yours? And there are two years 1, so is it year AD1 or 1BC? And what is biased and inconsistent about arguing for the use of eras in article, which is easily in accord with the MOS? And if one did not know anything about Jesus, how would they know whether these events occured in the AD or BC era? Roy Brumback 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. "Why are you not applying all the manual of style, as you seem to tacitly admit my argument beats yours?" This wrong twice, since I am applying all of the MoS, and I am not admitting your arguments beat mine, since I feel it is the opposite.
  2. "And what is biased and inconsistent about arguing for the use of eras in article, which is easily in accord with the MOS?" Because what I would like to make you understand (and it is very difficult, trust me) is that it is not a matter of Eras, but of years, so you should apply that section of MoS. To explain it better, I am not removing ADs because I support CEs or whatever, but because they are not needed in the context of those articles.
  3. "And if one did not know anything about Jesus, how would they know whether these events occured in the AD or BC era?" (1) because the year is linked, and if you follow the link (try with this: "year 1") it goes to AD 1 and not to 1 BC; (2) because even the most stupid reader understands that "year 2006" is not 2006 BC, even without AD in front, and thus even the most stupid reader is aware of the convention that a year missing AD/BC is infact an AD year.--Ahrarara 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I reported you in WP:AN/3RR for your reverts to Mark 6 and Mark 13.--Semioli 11:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 12 hours for 3RR violations. Sasquatch t|c 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanking

I did not understand if your mesage was ironic or not. In the latter case, I would like you to know that there are no problems on my behalf.

--Semioli 10:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historicity of Jesus

I'm not trying to be difficult, but this statement you reverted does not meet Wikipedia standards (see both Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). Please provide a detailed reason for your inclusion, rather than leaving a vapid edit summary; dispuited items like this should be discussed on the talk page, responding to previous discussion, as per Wikipedia guidelines. If you feel I'm wrong, I don't want an edit war, and I'd be happy to put this up for mediation. Also please note the statement you added should have been on the talk page, as it wasn't a referenced statement, and was instead inclusion of a personal rationale. Please see the added discussion on the talk page. Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 07:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just FYI, regarding comments

I don't think you did so intentionally, and I am unconcerned about it, but you should know that, even on your user page, you are not permitted to erase the signed comments of others. This is actually considered vandalism. You can always archive your old messages to keep the page clean, but there are people who will warn you for that (this is NOT such a warning, merely my trying to be friendly, and let you know). I would suggest that you revert the old comments and archive them. Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 20:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, ESPECIALLY since I noticed that you have blanked comments, warnings, and even administrative blocks before, I would highly suggest you revert everything and archive it, or you are very likely to be blocked for that. --Chuchunezumi 20:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you do...simply because they have to be easily accessed by anyone who views it, and the page history isn't an easy way to see what has happened before. This is true especially for warnings and administrative sanctions; everything has to be collected together, so you can see the history. If you'd like me to, I'd be happy to do this for you (though I'll need your explicit consent). I need practice with such things anyway, heheh. :) Anyway, thanks for taking my comments in good faith, as they were intended! I look forward to working with you on Wikipedia in the future! Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ryulong is a user I remembered who also archives all the entries from his talk page, if you'd like to see an example of how this can be done (and done well). This level of presentation is of course optional! Cheers!--Chuchunezumi 22:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historicity of Jesus

There is a talk topic for discussing the most recent revision of the article. If you have specific points you would like to discuss, please bring them up there. There is no need to revert the entire article, especially since so many improvements would be lost in that process. Lostcaesar 07:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luke 4

What bothered me most was the way it was written. Could it be re-written without the rhetorical questions, which are rather unencyclopedic in tone? Carl.bunderson 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we say "perhaps" their copies were in a different order? Roy Brumback 21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good. How about "...correct; perhaps their copies of Q were in a different order? This difference in orders..." And thanks for your consideration of my concerns, Roy. Carl.bunderson 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ontological Argument

I'm sorry, but I'm upset about what happened here. There was no reason to delete every single addition I contributed on the 16th. Many of my arguments were not original (the predication argument underneath "Existence as a Property" was Kant, and the ninth argument of Miscellaneous, that of divine simplicity, was partially Aquinas, partially Plantinga, (ironically for both) and also various modern philosophers). As well, much of the page (the lengthy Miscellaneous section, for instance) neglects to cite anything, whatsoever, including the ontological argument responses to criticisms. I revised the page, again, editing my own comments to remain as neutral as possible, but I didn't cite sources. If it's absolutely mandatory I cite a source for every sentence (which is completely inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of the page), then I'll be doing this in the future. However, much of the rest of the page should also be removed then, such as, "Defenders of the ontological argument have replied to this objection that its conclusion does not follow from its premise," etc. Just deleting everything is not the appropriate way to handle such additions; first try modifying them. Second, remove only the unnecessary, frivolous, unfounded, and seemingly original comments (note: they can't all have been one of these). Finally, start a discussion (and if you have, please direct me; I missed it). I worked hard on those additions, and indiscriminately removing them ALL was careless and unjustified (at least to an extent, if nothing else). If you reply to me in the discussion, I will certainly consider/include any of your objections/comments in my contribution. Thank you.

Don't be upset. You're right, a lot of the page is unsourced, but I didn't have time to reedit it all, but I'll get to it in the future. You can't point to another error to justify yours. All content in Wikipedia must be verifiable, and you're edits were not. Plus, is seemed many were simply your own arguments, and that is not what this site is for. Wikipedia is not our personal debating club or a place to publish original research. Any argument for or against it you add must come from a verifiable source from reputable philosophers. Kant's argument about existence not being a property is already in there. It just needs a cite from that page of Critique of Pure Reason. You do not need to cite every sentence, but you do need to cite every point. I'll go over your new edits on that page. Roy Brumback 06:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ontological Argument Cont.

Thank you for your cordial and expedient response. If you would, I have continued the debate in the article's discussion page. I'd appreciate your input. :)

[edit] Ontological Pt III

Btw, I'm only writing in your discussion page because I want to be sure I've drawn your attention to my newest comments. If this is unnecessary (and I can be assured you'll notice/won't forget to check my responses), I'll stop posting here. But yes, I've updated the discussion page, again, with responses to your own. Thank you for your time and input.  :)

[edit] Mark 3

Well, 'twelve' might have some significance, but seemingly not enough to be considered worthy of a mention in the Twelve Apostles article, which is where any such possible significance should surely be mentioned and explored. It seems a very tenuous connection to me. Colonies Chris 15:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there was 12 apostles is mentioned in the Twelve article. 12 might mean nothing, but also might have numerological significance. It's linked so the reader can think about it themselves. Roy Brumback 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death and Resurrection of Jesus

You removed the sentence "It is important to note that no historical account of the resurrection exists outside of religious texts.". As far as I can establish this is a wholly accurate statement that is needed for balance and to maintain NPOV. Please explain you reasoning for removing it. BlueValour 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, why is it important? According to who? You. Cite needed for a conclusion about importance. Secondly, it's an argument from silence, you could reinsert it, and I could then label it as a logical fallacy, but that seems a little silly. And then you label all the books that do mention it as "religious" texts. They are certainly used religiously, but Luke for instance clearly says his work is a book about history, what really happened. So what you are really saying is in all the history books that don't talk about the resurrection of Jesus, Jesus' resurrection isn't mentioned. I suppose that you could say that Tacitus for instance talked about Jesus' death but didn't mention Jesus' resurrection, which might show he didn't know about it or didn't believe in it, but again we're now reaching conclusions about Tacitus, and those conclusions would need cites or agreement among most editors. Roy Brumback 01:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for this reply. You, and others, have made some excellent points that I have endeavoured to take on board in my latest edit. BlueValour 03:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/y/User_talk%7ERoy_Brumback_c1f6.html"