User talk:RoyBurtonson

This user has been on Wikipedia for 11 years, 11 months and 16 days.

–

Welcome!

Hello, RoyBurtonson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Seventh-day Adventist theology. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ellen G. White without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You may also want to read WP:SOURCES and WP:VER in order to understand why Wikipedia renders certain sources rather than others. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources which you have removed pass WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS, therefore their deletion is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave a reason for the removal on the edit summary line, analysis of the psyche of a dead woman long after her death based on her suspect sayings. It has nothing to do with reliable sources, but rather to do with baseless speculation. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If "analysis of the psyche of a dead woman long after her death based on her suspect sayings" passes peer-review in a reputable medical journal, it is good enough for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Daniel

Sorry Roy, I tried to reply on the article talk page but those two guys are so busy yelling at each other I can't find time fore the create an edit conflict for me. I'll come back later. But what I wanted to say is that I agree with your point in principle, but am a little worried about the amount of detail you seem to want to add. Have you looked at the new final para of the aricle, and the sources it uses? PiCo (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I read the paragraphs you mentioned. The article expresses the opinion of modern scholars to the exclusion of traditional scholars. This gives the impression that the modern interpretations are correct and that all other interpretations are wrong. It puts you, the editor, in the position of telling everyone who or what is right or wrong. I don't see this to be the purpose of an encyclopedia. Our purpose should be to tell what was and is, not who is right or wrong. From a historical perspective, the traditional interpretations of Daniel have been in effect for about 2000 years while the modern interpretations are only some 200 years old. So there should be more about the traditional interpretations and less about the modern interpretations. And the traditional interpretations should be first since that is the way they occurred in history. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This relates directly to improvements to the article, which is the concern of the article Talk page (shouldn't be a private discussion between you and me). I've opened a new section on Til's concerns about neutrality, but you might like to put your concerns there. Please be precise: what are the traditional views, who expresses them? (In other words, give us some sources - everything comes down to sources). PiCo (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Seventy weeks references

Hi Roy. Thanks for your addition to the article. Please, could you convert your source (Coogan) to sfn format? - and make sure the book is in the references section. It makes for a cleaner article when other editors come to edit. Also, since you're interested in the article, you might like to try to reduce the sheer size of the section on interpretations, and find something useful on Jewish approaches (I didfind a good book, but didn't bookmark it on my computer). 121.127.203.230 (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)