User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

NH Highways

The NH highway stub looks good. There isn't a WikiProject for NH roads, but maybe we should create one. I am not sure how we would go about that. I know DanMS has contributed to a lot of the NH highway pages. Let me know if you are interested, possibly you could provide some guidance on creating a WikiProject. Assawyer 18:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Archived

The discussions on my talk page are now archived, but are clearly marked if they are ever needed. I don't do a separate archive page. I just delete stuff and then record the diff in the Archive section on my talk page. BTW: You're welcome. BlankVerse ∅ 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Texas Highways

No. I haven't started a WikiProject. I seem to be the only one working on Texas Highways at the moment. If anyone expresses an interest in it, I can look into setting one up. Bellhalla 15:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales to Attend San Diego Meetup on October 18 2005

Hello, Jimbo Wales will be in San Diego to attend OOPSLA and has agreed to come by and visit with the San Diego wikipedians. If you are interested, you will find more info on my talk page. Johntex\talk 00:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Routeboxint

Please only put comments in other users' talk pages if they actually apply to them... it becomes an issue of confusion and irritation otherwise. Thanks!

California County Route stub

Looks like they're trying to delete this now too. I noticed you stated it should be singular, but it already is, it's the category that is plural which is correct as there are more then one in a category.Gateman1997 02:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks, Rschen7754, for your support of my RfA! You've always been supportive of my activities around here. I promise to do a good job using the keys to the janitor's closet. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for stubs!

Thanks for adding the Mass state route stub to my Mass state route articles... I see though that people want to delete it? I also see you've added a stub for NH state routes as well.

As you've probably guessed, I'm a road geek and license plate collector living in Massachusetts.

Tckma 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

NH Highways

Copying California's project would be fine with me. I am happy to help out in any way for the Wikiproject. I have included some links you and others may find helpful. The following link is for NH RSA's Title XX: Transportation, which describes the highway system in the state. NH RSA 229:5 sets out the classification of the highways in the state.

Thanks for setting up the project. I have started putting up images of the route signs and hopefully will get them all. I am doing them by a naming convention of NHrouteXX.png. Assawyer 17:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you!
Enlarge
Thank you!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd(?!?) 18:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Quick Reference Page

  • Go ahead and copy whatever you like off my user pages; if it can be any help to others I'm willing to share :) Scott5114 21:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Bots

If there's an existing script in the framework to do what you want, it isn't that hard to set up. The meta page explains the setup process pretty well; setting up is basically downloading all the files, setting a few options and then figuring out what scripts do what you want. One problem is that the rest of the documentation isn't necessarily complete, and often has a few errors (generally minor) in it. If you want the bot to do something more complicated, or run on a fixed schedule, that'll likely require abit of programming. What is it that you want your bot to do? --Mairi 05:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding templates ought to be doable, but I don't know if there's a script that does that. There are atleast two scripts for adding categories (makecat.py and category.py), and one for resolving disambiguation links (solve_disambiguation.py). --Mairi 04:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Missouri WikiProject

Thanks for offering to help! I started going through and putting the template on the talk pages for the highways and hadn't put the stubs on because I could do the one quicker with "paste". If you can populate the stub category, I would appreciate it. I did get some stubs on, but not many. Thanks!Rt66lt 23:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I also added the MO 366 image to the stub, the original is gone. Rt66lt 23:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ypur welcome

Your welcome. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 05:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Missouri stubs

I would call a stub anything that doesn't have information beyond endpoints and a list of towns on the highway. Missouri State Highway 13 has enough information to not be a stub, but Missouri State Highway 1 is definately a stub. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I was out of town for a few days. Thanks.Rt66lt 22:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I did a handful of stubs, but not all of them. Thanks. Rt66lt 22:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Stubs and templates

Hi again, you said I could contact you here, so I hope I came to the right place....Just wondering if you saw the alternate stub I created (the {Massachusetts-road-stub} one). It's the same thing as the current one, except I added the MA highway shield to it. I'm not sure who to talk to about what's "official" or not, or what will end up being the final product, but from what I've gathered, you're one of the most informed wikipedians on the road/highway subject. So I guess if they want an "entry" for MA highway stubs, that will be my contribution. If not, and it gets deleted, I certainly understand.

Also, FYI, there are a few other states I created templates for (besides NY). Massachusetts (obviously, being my home state), Vermont, Florida and Hawaii. I think Vermont and Hawaii will be fine because they're not too big (they do have majority red links which I'm hoping will turn blue when people see them and decide to create articles for the highways). Massachusetts will probably be borderline. I'm going to work with the row sizes and try to get it as space efficient as possible. Florida I'm sure will be too big, so I won't link it to anything. Maybe just keep it in its own place for as a reference point for those who wish to "check off" the unwritten links. It doesn't really matter, if somebody wants to use them, go ahead. The only one that's important to me is MA for obvious reasons. Ok I think I wrote enough! Sorry you had to read a novel! Thanks again for keeping me informed and if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. ---Jeff (wikicali00)

Thanks

Thanks again for getting back to me, I'll just leave it up to what's decided. I agree, the Florida template is way too big. It takes up more than a page...

FSH

FYI, I proposed the Florida State Highway template for deletion. I would normally just delete it since I created it, but wanted to see if anybody wanted to do something with it (although unlikely). wikicali

Belated thanks...

... for supporting my RFA, which I thought was particularly gracious given my merciless campaign to delete (or mostly just rename) your assorted road-stubs. Aside from the way-too-small ones most of these are actually sensible and useful, I'm just troubled by the issues to do with naming and scope (as already rehearsed on the various stub project pages). Sorry about your wiki-stress: hope it isn't too related to my merciless campaign to delete -- etc, etc. Alai 05:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Left Behind series

I agree that all of these books do deserve articles, but leaving sub-stubs with no real content simply annoys readers looking for information. If you ever want to expand them, it is fairly easy to revert to the pre-redirect version. - SimonP 22:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Highway Caps

Is there a new smaller debate going on? Gateman1997 19:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

California State Law text

Hi, it's that guy who's trying to mess up all the Cal state highway articles. I am in the midst of trying something out I hope you will like. I have taken all of the text of the Cal state Highway law and put it into wikisource, with headings so that it can be addressed individually by highway, like so

California State Route 3.

I've only done up through Route 140 so far, but the rest won't take long-- tomorrow should be no problem. Let me know what you think when you get a chance.

Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 02:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Route 1 looks fine to me. I'll go add this link after I finish this message.
PS. The same sort of thing could be done with the other codes (expressway designations, etc.) but I might ask for your help putting it together, if you're interested.
One more thing-- I'm a complete novice over at wikisource, so for all I know they might boot the article out for violating some standard they've got that I don't know about-- this isn't a sure thing yet. But it seemed worth a try. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
You wrote "We don't have to have the state law section now... as long as we change the routebox template link." --Yes, I see that you can do it that way. The advantage to the wikisource approach is that you can take the user straight to the paragraph of the law that you want them to see, using the section label. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I finished the three law articles at Wikisource. They are

Each one consists of the corresponding code, reformated, with headings for each separately designated route. I'll work further on how best to use them-- I tried integrating them with a modified copy of your template. It is on the Route 2 article now, but it may need work.

Later, Mwanner | Talk 18:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And I wrote two new templates, modelled on yours:

They take "route" as an argument as well as "sec", and use it to link to the Wikisource law section. I tried them out at California State Route 2.

My thinking is that we would use your templates on the roads that are defined in 253.1 and 263.1 ("in their entirety", i.e., they don't have their own section), and the "Alt" templates for the rest.

I hope you like this approach. I won't do any more until you've had a chance to play with it. Let me know if you've got issues...

TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 20:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "Well it looks good now but I havent had the time to fully examine it. I'm interested in putting the whole hwy code on Wikisource... but anyway... it might just be easier to have your template and trash the one I created"

The whole hwy code (or at least all of it that I'm aware of) is on wikisource, as above. And I think we need your original template for the roads that are included in their entirety. I'm going to start doing a few more this way-- let me know if you see a problem. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Progress...

OK, I think things are coming along. I tinkered with the templates some more, and went back and tried to make sure that earlier articles worked well with them. I've changed the articles up to CA route 9 (skipping 8).

There is one thing I'm puzzled over-- when we use these templates on Interstate and US routes, the Image:CA-blank.png looks out of place. We could either have two more sets of templates to deal with the problem, or we could pass the Image name to the template as an argument. I guess I lean towards the former approach. Any concerns? -- Mwanner | Talk 01:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Templates

The difference is that mine (the Alt versions) go to the Route section in the wikisource doc, while yours go to the #Section_253.1 or #Section_263.1. The idea is that we can use the Alt versions for cases where the route has a specific part of the law that applies to it, like CAFES for Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 16, etc.

Your templates can be used for Routes that are included in their entirety, like 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, etc. where there is no specific Route section of the law, just the big list at Section 253.1 (for CAFES) and Section 263.1 (for CAScenic). Actually, I guess we could hard code the section, rather than pass it as an argument, since it's always the same, no?

And yes, I agree, it probably makes more sense to pass the image name for the shields. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

One set of templates

The problem with just having one set of templates is that the "Alt" versions tack the route parameter on to the end of the wikisource call, which takes it to the paragraph for that route:

[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/California_Streets_and_Highways_Code_Section_250-257#Route_{{{route}}} Freeway and Expressway System]

But routes 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, etc., don't have their own paragraph in the wikisource law articles-- if you use the Alt templates with those highways, it just takes you to the start of the wikisource doc.
The original version uses "sec" instead of "route", which does exist for these routes:

[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/California_Streets_and_Highways_Code_Section_250-257#Section_{{{sec}}} Freeway and Expressway System]

Here's the difference:
 Route 7 is part of the Freeway and Expressway System, as stated by section 253.1 of the California State Highway Code.
Route 7 is part of the Freeway and Expressway System, as stated by section 253.1 of the California State Highway Code.
They look exactly the same, but check the link: the first one takes you to section 253.1, which lists all of the routes included "in their entirety." The second one (the Alt version) tries to take you to the section for Route 7, which doesn't exist, so it goes to the top of the article, instead. I imagine there might be some way to make one template handle both cases, but I certainly don't know enough about template programming to do it.

BTW, I added the shield parameter to all four templates, and it works fine. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

California_State_Route_15

Since California_State_Route_15 no longer exists, shouldn't the legal definition section be deleted? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 21:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

US 6 (templates)

It's all good...Whatever you think would work best is fine with me. Having multiple templates does make the articles huge (I did notice that on I-95 come to think of it). -- Wikicali00

Capitalisation, copied from Gateman's talk page

This debate has been moved to /Highway Capitalization. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Section Numbers

Oops! Sorry about that. Well, I was thinking it would be good to revisit all for a double check-- this will make something else to do along the way. Thanks for letting me know. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

About adding {{{sec}}} to the Alt templates, I think it's fine (and easy enough to reverse if need be) but I have to look at it, and I'm packing it in now for the day... more tomorrow. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

shield icon size?

Do you feel the shield icons on the new state law templates are too large? I feel we could make them a bit smaller....

atanamir 06:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

do you have a photograph of the scenic highway one naywher? If you do, i can whip a better looking one up in illustrator for you. I also tried searching for FHS sgins but i don't think olne of those exists for CA. I've noticed some Historic Route signs on the routes sometimes... do you think we should integrate those in as well, since we're going scenic routes and FHS routes? Seems fitting...

Man the CA/SR project is so different now. too many people =P

atanamir 06:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

capitalisation

Hey.. hm, i'm one of the people who think it should be all caps (the way i learned for titling things), but after that entire debate about california state highway 17 vs. california state route 17, i realised that there's no way to make everyone happy about that sort of minutia.. so i generally just stay away from the debates and let them pass. California state route or California State Route? Either way won't matter if the content of the article isn't well written, right? So let's focus on that instead, i say =)

atanamir 16:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

California State Route 86S

What do you know for sure about California State Route 86S? We have an article that claims it exists, but the state law doesn't mention it at all. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

^^ atanamir 18:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

California State Routes

Well, I think I'm done! Thanks for catching and helping to clean up my errors. It's been good working with you. Good luck with the roads! -- Mwanner | Talk 20:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 22:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My failed RFA and do you want one

Dear Rschen7754,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 03:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Also I noticed you are doing good work on the road articles here and so do you want me to nominate you for adminship. --Jaranda wat's sup 03:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand, why not sharpen up these skills and I would nominate you in Christmas Day Ok. Thanks for your responce --Jaranda wat's sup 03:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Here ya go Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rschen7754 Go on and accept ;) --Jaranda wat's sup 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I-95

We won't; I made Interstate 95 in New Jersey and that has the box. Anyway, the boxes are much smaller than the huge boxes that some states have. On the other hand, I-78 is short enough that it doesn't need to be split. --SPUI (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with using the {{routeboxint}} template, as it is way too long for an infobox. I will instead write that sort of thing in text. --SPUI (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

route vs highway

was there a debate already was to why the template routebox on Pomona Freeway is "highway" instead of "route"?

atanamir 08:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Highway 6, especially in Colorado

I've been trying to put the major route junctions for US 6 in Colorado, and considering how many there are for the same freeway (Interstate 70), I need HELP. US 6 as a whole is disastrous to write in itself. Can you please help me, Rschen7754? (California highways are easier than this, ha!) --Geopgeop 13:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

re: new jersey shields

yeah sure i'll make them. I'm home for the holidays now (usually i'm at school in irvine), so i don't have that PSD file with me. But i'll try to whip sometyihng up tonight. I just noticed a competing set of images:

Route 77 (New Jersey). Should we submit deletion for all of them? SVG doesnt seem to be a very normal image format anyways. Should we also try to move those articles to new jersey state route 77? I don't want to satrt big fights over it though.

atanamir 21:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

To some degree it makes sense, if you compare to the precedent set with the interstate articles. We don't have California Interstate 280, we have Interstate 280 (California). So I don't know which opinion I take. Only point of contention is if the state refers to them as Highway x or Route x. What do you think? atanamir 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/U.S. state highway naming conventions

I've started this page to discuss naming conventions; please weigh in and help. --SPUI (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

asdf

i'll make those shield graphics now atanamir 05:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

    • done. atanamir 05:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This type of censorship makes me sick

Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads project

If you ever need any help with Minnesota State Highways, let me know. I have a blank State Highway Shield and have created the page for Minnesota State Highway 16. I am just beginning with the Wikipedia, so I haven't gotten the code down yet.

Station Attendant 00:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 05:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Congratuations, you deserve it! -- Mwanner | Talk 02:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Congrats! From me too. Yes you do deserve it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats I knew I made a good choice! --Jaranda wat's sup 08:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat belated congrats! HGB 15:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Wikiproject standards"

So-called standards are never an excuse for idiocy. I will continue to improve the article as much as the 3RR allows. --SPUI (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Discuss it where? I prefer to be bold and just improve the articles, but if you start a discussion somewhere, I will contribute. I probably won't go into it with high expectations or an assumption of good faith, however, despite knowing that I probably should. --SPUI (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you mind starting the discussion and linking me to it? I guess my problem is that this seems so obvious to me; I don't know where to start. Maybe you can explain exactly why these things are useful, and not just because they're "Wikiproject standards". --SPUI (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ollie McGill

Hi, you deleted this fellow's stub article even though it says he plays with the Conglomerate, which has an album released by MGM. I undeleted. Harry James Angus, too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to add Oscar Bell...

but you beat me! It was funny! BCorr|Брайен 22:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, a historical reconstruction

I spent seven years developing this website.

It is:

- not a spam

- not a personnal page, but a study where I "abandoned" myself in favor of the evidence

- not commercial in any way, not trying to sell anything

- low-key concerning the author, therefore not self-promotional

- presented only as A reconstruction

- fully researched and utterly documented

- the size of a small book

- covering many related topics affecting our understanding of Jesus

- posted on about 20 websites, some Christian, others not

- strictly about Jesus, the one credited to start Christianity

- under "historical Jesus", on the top 10 on Yahoo! and Google for years

- without hate against anyone

- hotly recommended among some of my readers (see below), including a few scholars (from different sides).

- offering a different approach, between "historic" and fully fictional earthly Jesus

Here is the link of the front page: judge for yourself: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html

I also noted on the link list a posted website called the "Jesus puzzle", which is highly controversial, and against the existence of Jesus. It is strongly promotional towards the author, who uses it to sell his own book (I do not). Another link "Overview of the Life of Jesus' advertises book for sales (I do not) and carries Google ads (I do not). Another website selling stuff is "Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ" (I do not). Several sites promote a religious faith or atheism (I do not). So I am very perplexed about the criteria used for rejection or acceptance.

One posted website has "Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth". Go figure, this one is not deleted. Other posted religious sites are hardly about the historical Jesus, but use wikipedia to propagate their beliefs. Go figure, those are not deleted, but mine is. Maybe it is time to sort out what websites should remain posted on that page and not kick out automatically the last one to come. That seems to be the major criteria for some deleters.

On the positive side, I am glad that Andrantus, OwenX, Mr Adequate, KHM03, EI_C, Johann Wolfgang and possibly Izehar are favorable to it. Actually three of the aforementioned put the post back in.

Now here are excerpts from my readers (complete texts in "my best review" and "... readers' comments" pages)

"Congratulations! ... easily the best documented & most objective piece of Jesus research that I have found on the internet in almost a year of surfing. ... independent evaluation of the historical evidence that you demonstrate so well. ... such historical clarity ..."

"I really appreciate your efforts to your homepage. It's great and informative."

"I am fascinated and impressed ... This is a fantastic effort."

"You have done a very thorough job researching your material."

"You are to be commended on your extensive study of these matters."

"I have just stumbled across your work, and have spent a few hours reading it. Most impressive!"

"I was researching some information ... and sifted through 10 or 20 documents before finding yours. The others were not helpful in the slightest, and your site was clearly and concisely organized and had the information I needed."

"I have visited your website on the historical reconstruction of Jesus and I have found it very interesting. You have done an excellent work on it ... Your website has helped me understand a great deal of Jesus and life of early Christians."

"Your work is impressive, and valuable to those like myself ... but have immense difficulty accepting all the add-ons ... Again, thanks for your work, and for sharing it with others who care to explore the truth of religious matters."

"This is where your rational approach is most helpful ... by using historical research and factual information. It really takes a careful eye to spot these things, some of which are buried under layers of "over-familiarity". This is not a criticism, rather more a compliment, but I do want to say that your site is demanding careful attention."

"Good Work. I have been reading your account of the life of Jesus, and I find it very insightful."

"I have just finished reading Jesus a historical reconstruction ... What I found in your online book is something very believable ... Thank you very much for your dedication to these matters."

"You have an excellent site. It's obvious you have put a lot of work/thought/effort into its construction."

"Bernard D. Muller provides a beautifully presented picture of the historical Jesus ... he brings to the table, mostly, a lot of common sense. It's a deep site, with a lot to think about and ponder over. Highly recommended ..."

"Your history of Jesus is fascinating! Very thorough and impressive. I was just surfing through the net and came upon your site, and I must say, I spent a lot of time going through everything you wrote ... Again, congratulations on your work!"

"The author clearly writes with a great deal of knowledge ... Furthermore, Bernard does not break any academic rules ... The amount of valuable resources available at the site is exceptional and should not be ignored ... this website should not be overlooked in any study on Jesus."

"I recently found your site and I am very impressed, you did a lot of work! I never read about the events at Cesarea before and I can see how they could inspire John the Baptist and Jesus to do what they did. ... I find your reconstruction very believable ..."

"... the eloquent cases you make for a later (and real) 'Q', 'Thomas' and the like have given me pause over taking John Crossan's opinions as the last word ... I really think you are closer to disentangling the NT mess than most."

"I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."

"... what I found most refreshing about your work is its objectivity and impartiality. I've been searching for some time for someone who could help fill in the gaps and mostly have found Jesus bashers full of the same sort of hate and prejudice I see in the world religions. These people are no better than those they criticize. Thank you for bringing me closer to the truth without inciting bad emotions. And thank you for providing such a gold mine of information. Your site is at the top of my bookmarks! ... Keep up the good work."

"Here he does a good job of logically reconstructing the life and ministry of Jesus. It's a fascinating read whether you are a Christian or non-believer."

(Mullerb 05:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

From Mullerb

I got your last message. Apparently, the rule is to have another person to post your website. Somebody else already did try to post my site (twice) but was deleted regardless. That does not seem to work either. And I personally think it is a bad policy; this is why:

- Almost anybody can find someone else to do that. So what's the point?

- Religious organizations can find masses of faithfuls to do just that. So what's the point?

- Anyone can go to the library, an internet cafe, a friend's place, from work, and do that from another computer. So what's the point?

- Somebody with money to spare can hire somebody else to do that. So what's the point?

But when somebody, openly, under his own name, propose his valued and extensive website, oh no, you cannot do that. Instead, you have to sneak around and hope for the best.

By the way, I am not a celeb trying to draw publicity on me.

(Mullerb 06:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/s/c/User_talk%7ERschen7754_Archive_2_db98.html"