User talk:Rholton/archive03

Bible and who wrote it

Thanks Rich. When some one asks me what is the Bible; I always begin by telling them it is an ancient collection of books written by pre-scientific people. When we read these books we interprete, from the present, an ancient world seen through their eyes. At best, we can only imagine what their world was like, and we should be cautious. 13 Apr 2005 Charlie

Existence of God merger

I'm attempting to develop a consensus in favor of merging the Arguments against the existence of God and the Arguments for the existence of God articles. A beta version of the resulting article is available at Existence of God. To date, there seems to be consensus in favor of this merger on the "for" talk page, I'm now trying to get a consensus together on the "against" talk page. Please visit Talk:Arguments against the existence of God to weigh in. I'm copy-and-pasting this message to everybody who has contributed to that talk page. crazyeddie 05:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your profile

Translators are dumb, as are their teachers and students. Dictionaries are filled with wrong translations. "anthropos" does not mean man, but onlooker. A short look into the particles in Strong's Concordance will tell one that. lysdexia 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lysdexia. I'll take your comments under advisement. -Rholton 04:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teelin

Teelin has been rewritten - please have a look. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but...

Hi Rholton, thanks a ton for your work on Sania Mirza. It is much better, esp. with references (though it was also mentioned in the reference article on India Today, having more articles doesn't hurt). While I understand the need for consensus, it should not be at the cost of veracity. Shalwar Qamis is a non-standard spelling where as Salwar Kameez is a standard spelling. The former generates 139 hits while the latter generates 7,00,000+ hits on Google. As Wikipedia is increasingly being viewed as a credible resource, we should be careful in not perpetrating spellings that are not widely accepted. Which is the reason why I feel that the redirect was uncalled for. I have also made some related comments on Talk:Sania Mirza. The anon IP who had been using this non-standard spelling on Sania Mirza has been doing so for other spellings also - e.g. in Asaduddin Owaisi, where other editors have also reverted him. I believe "Shalwar Qamis" is a very non-usable spelling because it has only 139 hits. Even a mis-spelt "Abraham Lincon" has 25000 hits on google. Though this matter is simply related to a spelling and may appear to be trivial, I believe that consensus should not be at the cost of credibility. Thanks once again for your time, --Gurubrahma 06:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I noticed the anon IP 198.96.86.4 changing the text as usual. This time, I've left a message on his talkpage. Anyways, good that you are also keeping a watch. --Gurubrahma 06:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting...

Any particular reason why you're reverting all this vandalism on WP, seemingly by tracking it with a feed? Having just read some of the articles on here, the amount of poor quality prose suggests that WP is a mess anyway - reverting petty vandalism is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Just a suggestion. --HighHopes 14:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that you say it...

Thanks for your message - can I please get my account wiped for good, user page and history and everything? If I keep it I'll only use it to wind people up lightheartedly, so if you're an admin, you have my explicit approval to delete my account etc - I'd very much appreciate that. Let me know if there's something else I need to do. Thanks, --HighHopes 20:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the above was totally sincere, in case you were ignoring what you suspected was sarcasm - please can you delete me from Wikipedia. I'd appreciate that. As before, let me know if there are other things I have to do. --HighHopes 10:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FELA KUTI

RHOLTON- I'm a bit new to editing anything on Wiki but use it frequently as a resource. Any reason you reverted the recent changes I made to the FELA KUTI entry? I was correcting factual errors and you've reverted to a version that now has info that is flat out wrong - the spelling of Sandra Izsadore's name; the fact that "his parents" sent him to London (kinda tough since his dad was dead by then); and the reference to the "Berlin Festival" which was actually the Berlin Jazz Festival. Unless there was a good reason to revert it, I think you ought to revert it back.

Ya got me learning more about Wiki tho (and the "user talk page":

Found this on the help page:

Explain reverts Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face— "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back". However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting. What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.

Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, eg, "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert"

I have reverted my revert. You are correct, there was no good reason for me to revert it. I'm afraid I saw simple vandalism. I plead temporary insanity (or working off too little sleep). Please accept my sincere apology. I was wrong, plain and simple. I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia.

Just as an aside, you can sign your posts (on talk pages and such) by using four tildes (e.g. ~~~~). If you're going to continue edit (as I hope), then you should consider getting a user account. It's simple, requires no personal information at all, and allows people to communicate with you more easily. Of course, there is no requirement for you to have a user account to contribute. It's just a suggestion. -Rholton 04:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I plead temporary insanity (or working off too little sleep)." I'm with you on that - been there, done that. Am in the process of setting up a user account. thanks.

Thanks

I appreciate you moving my misplaced message. Cheers. PJM 23:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested articles

Thanks for the "Requested articles" (sub-)sub-pages you created. A very good idea. --Edcolins 16:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]