User talk:Adam Davis 83

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If^[1] you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 29 January 2021 16:21:56 (UTC)

Let me spell out your choice very clearly: you either comply with WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:NOR, and WP:FRINGE, or you will be booted out this website. Choice remains yours. If you insist with spamming our articles with vanity press, admins will show you the door. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for Bible conspiracy theory POV-pushing. Take such WP:SOAPboxing to your own blog or your own wiki. This is not a pulpit for your beliefs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no beliefs. The publication you took a personal emotional dislike to is written by a qualified historian. Do not engage with me again as your conduct is one of an emotional and derogatory tone. Adam Davis 83 (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Read that article. Bible conspiracy theory is extremely WP:FRINGE, and therefore banned from articles upon mainstream subjects. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I am fully aware it is banned by Christians because of emotional belief. Do not engage with me again or I will block you. Adam Davis 83 (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You are going to block tgeorgescu"? How? Omnipotence? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If I cannot block then I will ignore both of you. Adam Davis 83 (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Adam Davis 83, welcome to Wikipedia. Please use explanatory edit summaries, especially if you're going to do something controversial such as adding a self-published fringe source, or re-adding it when it has been removed. Note that Tgeorgescu, in removing the book, explained their reason by citing specific content guidelines (WP:FRINGE and WP:ONEWAY) in their edit summary. Did you read those guidelines before reverting? Also, marking controversial edits such as yours with "m" for "minor edit" is seriously a no-no. Since you're new, I'm going to assume good faith that you didn't use the "m" deliberately to mislead, but please don't do it again. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Bishonen | tålk 11:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC).

Hi @Bishonen Thanks for clarifying the minor edit issue. I chose minor edit as I thought just adding a book was a minor edit. Now I can understand why that was incorrect. I did not appreciate the way @Tgeorgescu conducted himself, mainly by calling me a conspiracy theorist. I will not add the book to the Josephus page, instead, I feel the best approach is to create a book page for that title? Thanks Adam Davis 83 (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If you want to try your luck, start at thread about that book at WP:RSN. Both me and Bishonen know how that will end. It's elementary: if we would allow you to WP:CITE that book, Wikipedia as a whole would go to the dogs, since it would apply to every other book, ever published. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean you want to create an article about the book, Adam? It would never fly, you know. It's published by the Independent Publishing Network, which means it's self-published by the author. See Wikipedia:Notability (books). Bishonen | tålk 10:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC).

@Tgeorgescu Sorry, but please do not continue conversing with me, as I will ignore your messages, as I find your comments aggressive and not professional. Adam Davis 83 (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bishonen Yes, that is what I meant, sorry I should have been clearer. If that is unacceptable, ok, can you please tell me how I go about removing the Ceasars Messiah page?, as the current book (since 2011) is self-published. Thanks Adam Davis 83 (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please indent your responses with colons per WP:INDENT, Adam. (I've been doing it for you.) There is no article called "Ceasars Messiah". I have no way of knowing what you're talking about unless you give the article name exactly correctly and spelled right. Preferably give it as a link, with double square brackets around it; that way, you will be able to see if the name is correct (in which case it turns blue) or not (then it will turn red). Bishonen | tålk 12:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen, Apologies about the indent. The page I am referring to is this one [] Thanks Adam Davis 83 (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Uh.. did you look at WP:INDENT? You're not doing it right. Anyway, the article Caesar's Messiah is a weird thing. (If you look in the edit window, you'll see how I made the name link to the article, with double square brackets.) It was nominated for deletion in 2008, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar's Messiah and deleted. Then recreated in 2016, in much fuller form. Fullness doesn't make it notable, though, and the book is indeed self-published. You may want to list it at WP:AFD. Or perhaps you'd like to, Tgeorgescu? Adam Davis is new, probably doesn't have Twinkle or know how to use it, etc, so AfD will be kind of daunting for him. Bishonen | tålk 13:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC).

@Bishon Sorry, is this better? Adam Davis 83 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

LOL, just one more colon, please! Count the colons the person you're responding to used, and add one. Bishonen | tålk 14:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC).

Ok, thanks, I understand now.Adam Davis 83 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

See how pretty that looks! :-) Bishonen | tålk 17:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC).

Yep, got there in the end :)Adam Davis 83 (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:brd and WP:ONUS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Slatersteven, what is your objection? Adam Davis 83 (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

PLease make a case at talk, then others can chip in as well.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@@Slatersteven How do I make a case at talk? I have not done that before? ThanksAdam Davis 83 (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Go to the articles talk page [] and make a case, just as you did here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Please consider also contributing to the RationalWiki article: Nazareth §. Archaeology. Some Wikipedia articles suffer from well known bias. --2db (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Typically, Wikipedia presents fringe and marginal perspectives only in contexts where there is substantial reliably sourced scholarship or coverage of that perspective. In instances where these opinions receive coverage, we typically follow reliable sources in characterizing the perspective as fringe or marginal. Your edits on Gospels and The Origins of Early Christian Literature seem to go against this standard. Please feel more than welcome to continue contributing in this subject area, but keep that standard in mind. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

My edits in no way shape or form go against the reliable sourced scholarship or coverage perspective. Substantial coverage does not equal reliable. I will provide two sources published by respected academic institutions, Cambridge and Harvard. Please do not revert my edits a further without providing evidence that the sources I cite are not reliable. 2A00:23C5:E920:8001:D7D:21FE:852B:970F (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting what I said. I'm not saying that the material is necessarily coming from an unreliable source, but that it's such a marginal opinion that this should be explicitly reflected in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that it is a marginal opinion within Classical Studies that complex literary works can only be the product of the educated elite. Until you do, my sources are valid. It is a marginal opinion in NT studies, hence why Walsh's book is controversial in THAT field. Adam Davis 83 (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Gospel, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

My edit is valid as per Wikipedia impartiality WP:IMPARTIAL and so I have reinstated it and will continue to do so. Adam Davis 83 (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gospel. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Pbritti (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)