Hello AcuteInsight, I'm putting a Welcome template below, please spend some time with its links, but first take a good look at WP:No original research, perhaps the most important Wikipedia policy there is. Your edits (example here) to The Miracle of the Sun espousing an expanding sun theory are pure uncited speculation on your part. You need to find a reliable source saying exactly what you're adding to the article and I doubt if you'll find one, or find one using the speed of light to support the duration of the event. Please don't add such scientifically unsound material, it reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. I think there are other, lesser, problems with your additions to the article, but I'll leave them for another day or another interested editor. -- CliffC ( talk) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi CliffC, I was attempting to point out the fact that the witnesses testified the miracle had a duration of 10 minutes. The time it takes light from the sun to travel to the earth is also 10 minutes. There may be significance to this. John Haffert compared the events of this miracle to a prophesy from Akita, Japan “fire will fall down to the earth”. There was a show on the Discovery Channel “Savage Sun”, that described huge solar flares from distant stars (observed via the Hubble Telescope) large enough to scorch inner planets. It hypothesized about our sun exhibiting similar behavior. No big deal, but thanks for the info.
Welcome!
Hello and
welcome to
Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!
NW ( Talk) 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Stationary Engineers operated "Stationary" steam driven equipment as opposed to Locomotive Engineers. Thats why they are called "Stationary Engineer", not because they stay in a control room —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapn80 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I reverted your recent edits to
Atheism and
Intelligent Design. Edits need to be cited to reliable sources, and the website you used would not be considered such. Generally we're looking for books, magazines, newspapers, and academic journals. For the full details of what constitutes a reliable source, check out
WP:RS. If you have any questions, the
WP:TEAHOUSE is a friendly place for questions about editing. Hope that helps!
Garamond Lethe
t
c
06:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The ID perspectives category lists 7 sites (including 2 personal blogs). It is difficult to imagine that ArguingWithAtheists.com, a project initiated by Diocesan Judge Deacon Thomas Rich, D. Min., J.C.L. under supervision of Bishop William Murphy of the Diocese of Rockville Center, NY. with permission of Cardinal Timothy Dolan does not meet Wikipedia Standards. The site is edited by two Roman Catholic Doctors (Dr. John Palmer & Dr. Tony Ciuffo), who host the most popular Catholic Radio show in the tri-state area of NY, NJ & CT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcuteInsight ( talk • contribs)
The Links Page mentions the two editors Roman Catholic Doctors (Dr. John Palmer & Dr. Tony Ciuffo), and one of their radio shows details the history of the site with Diocesan Judge Deacon Thomas Rich as the guest. The back shows are on http://www.Listen-Up.net. The site is also edited by Rabbi Uri Yosef. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcuteInsight ( talk • contribs)
What are the press releases to the other 7 sites, including the 2 personal blogs?
Undue weight? That statement is illogical, as the "Further Reading" category is "ID Perspectives"; sites supporting ID. It is followed by "Non-ID Perspectives"; sites not supporting ID. Naturally links in either category are expected to be subjective.
Notwithstanding that this is the third time the goal posts were moved for including the Catholic ID perspective, at least we arrived at the heart of the real obstacle. This last hurtle is untenable, as the Catholic ID perception is at complete odds with the creationists who appear to dominate this Wikipedia page. Observably, no creationist site would be willing to endorse or link to views incongruent to a 6,000 year old earth. The Catholic Church is unique among the Christian denominations, in that it abandoned challenging sound science. It learned from its mistakes, such as adopting the Flat Earth model during the Hellenistic period and espousing the celestial sphere orbs theory developed by Aristotle (in these celestial models, the stars and planets are carried around by being embedded in rotating crystal spheres moving around the Earth), so it is not limited to the young earth ideas. I mistakenly considered these insights good for further ID reading, since the Catholic Church is the largest denomination in the world with more than a billion followers, more than all 41,000 Christian denominations combined. My hope is that one day a Wiki editor who doesn’t believe that cavemen had pet dinosaurs would be able to make sound science based edits on this page.
Some of these sites do not reflect views of Pope Benedict XVI: "In the beginning the creative Word - this Word that created all things, that created this intelligent design which is the cosmos - is also love": http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20051109_en.html
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)
14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello AcuteInsight, I'm putting a Welcome template below, please spend some time with its links, but first take a good look at WP:No original research, perhaps the most important Wikipedia policy there is. Your edits (example here) to The Miracle of the Sun espousing an expanding sun theory are pure uncited speculation on your part. You need to find a reliable source saying exactly what you're adding to the article and I doubt if you'll find one, or find one using the speed of light to support the duration of the event. Please don't add such scientifically unsound material, it reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. I think there are other, lesser, problems with your additions to the article, but I'll leave them for another day or another interested editor. -- CliffC ( talk) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi CliffC, I was attempting to point out the fact that the witnesses testified the miracle had a duration of 10 minutes. The time it takes light from the sun to travel to the earth is also 10 minutes. There may be significance to this. John Haffert compared the events of this miracle to a prophesy from Akita, Japan “fire will fall down to the earth”. There was a show on the Discovery Channel “Savage Sun”, that described huge solar flares from distant stars (observed via the Hubble Telescope) large enough to scorch inner planets. It hypothesized about our sun exhibiting similar behavior. No big deal, but thanks for the info.
Welcome!
Hello and
welcome to
Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!
NW ( Talk) 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Stationary Engineers operated "Stationary" steam driven equipment as opposed to Locomotive Engineers. Thats why they are called "Stationary Engineer", not because they stay in a control room —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapn80 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I reverted your recent edits to
Atheism and
Intelligent Design. Edits need to be cited to reliable sources, and the website you used would not be considered such. Generally we're looking for books, magazines, newspapers, and academic journals. For the full details of what constitutes a reliable source, check out
WP:RS. If you have any questions, the
WP:TEAHOUSE is a friendly place for questions about editing. Hope that helps!
Garamond Lethe
t
c
06:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The ID perspectives category lists 7 sites (including 2 personal blogs). It is difficult to imagine that ArguingWithAtheists.com, a project initiated by Diocesan Judge Deacon Thomas Rich, D. Min., J.C.L. under supervision of Bishop William Murphy of the Diocese of Rockville Center, NY. with permission of Cardinal Timothy Dolan does not meet Wikipedia Standards. The site is edited by two Roman Catholic Doctors (Dr. John Palmer & Dr. Tony Ciuffo), who host the most popular Catholic Radio show in the tri-state area of NY, NJ & CT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcuteInsight ( talk • contribs)
The Links Page mentions the two editors Roman Catholic Doctors (Dr. John Palmer & Dr. Tony Ciuffo), and one of their radio shows details the history of the site with Diocesan Judge Deacon Thomas Rich as the guest. The back shows are on http://www.Listen-Up.net. The site is also edited by Rabbi Uri Yosef. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcuteInsight ( talk • contribs)
What are the press releases to the other 7 sites, including the 2 personal blogs?
Undue weight? That statement is illogical, as the "Further Reading" category is "ID Perspectives"; sites supporting ID. It is followed by "Non-ID Perspectives"; sites not supporting ID. Naturally links in either category are expected to be subjective.
Notwithstanding that this is the third time the goal posts were moved for including the Catholic ID perspective, at least we arrived at the heart of the real obstacle. This last hurtle is untenable, as the Catholic ID perception is at complete odds with the creationists who appear to dominate this Wikipedia page. Observably, no creationist site would be willing to endorse or link to views incongruent to a 6,000 year old earth. The Catholic Church is unique among the Christian denominations, in that it abandoned challenging sound science. It learned from its mistakes, such as adopting the Flat Earth model during the Hellenistic period and espousing the celestial sphere orbs theory developed by Aristotle (in these celestial models, the stars and planets are carried around by being embedded in rotating crystal spheres moving around the Earth), so it is not limited to the young earth ideas. I mistakenly considered these insights good for further ID reading, since the Catholic Church is the largest denomination in the world with more than a billion followers, more than all 41,000 Christian denominations combined. My hope is that one day a Wiki editor who doesn’t believe that cavemen had pet dinosaurs would be able to make sound science based edits on this page.
Some of these sites do not reflect views of Pope Benedict XVI: "In the beginning the creative Word - this Word that created all things, that created this intelligent design which is the cosmos - is also love": http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20051109_en.html
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)
14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)