Hi Silverfish2024! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Silverfish2024! Your additions to Historical reliability of the Gospels have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for graciously explaining why you removed my post! As a new editor I admit I am not as familiar with Wikipedia and its procedures as I should be. I am confused as to why my edit violated copyright rules, as the exact same passage I entered in this page has been present for a substantial amount of time in the page Oral gospel traditions - Wikipedia. Also as far as I understand, many parts of Wikipedia are sourced by books not available for public viewing without purchase, so I do not see what the problem is here. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into this in the morning. — Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The online source where I found the content is dated January 2019, but it's been in Oral gospel traditions since December 2013. So we had it first. What you need to do when copying from one article to another is to mention in your edit summary where you got the prose from. In fact such attribution is required under the terms of our license. Please see WP:copying within Wikipedia for more information on this topic. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I will try my best to acknowledge whenever I copy from one Wikipedia article to another. Silverfish2024 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Gospel seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input on this matter. The historicity of the Gospels is indeed of immense weight to many people religious or not worldwide, and it is difficult for many to set aside prior commitments. However, my recent edit, specifically Evans' quote, which has been present in other pages on Wikipedia for a significant amount of time, does not seem to me problematic. Sanders and Borg are mainstream scholars associated with renowned universities, and Evans' work has also received praise from both Evangelical and mainline scholars such as Charlesworth and Theissen. I also referred to more skeptical scholars as well. I understand your concerns and am grateful for your transparency, but I do not believe this removal was justifiable. Silverfish2024 (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed that you reverted my edit regarding Charles Gieschen's reception of Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God. I cannot imagine how this edit could be considered undue or fringe in any way, especially considering that Ehrman himself found it fitting to use Gieschen's work. Gieschen's view is undoubtedly worth noting. Silverfish2024 (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Gospel, citing Craig, a conservative scholar, from a publication from 1993 stating "are now viewed as useful" is misleading, to say the least; that'so in the body of the article, and even more so in the lead.

Regarding Gieschen, Ehrman refers to his work three times; it is undue to mention Gieschen's response in a section on the overall reception of the book. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you dispute Evans's description of the state of the field? He does not cite overly conservative scholars there. I am not the first to either have a high appraisal of Evans or to cite him on this wiki.

As for Gieschen, I think Ehrman says he received his view of Christ as an angel from Gieschen and later Susan Garrett. He even blogged about it. I do not think it is prudent to downplay his work or opinions. Silverfish2024 (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1993 is not "now." Have you edited before using another account? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is my only account. I have only started editing Wikipedia this week. Are you saying I Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

was the one who cited Evans in note 2 of Historical Reliability of the Gospels? Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Wikipedia use many sources older than 1993, and I don't think the Biblical studies field has changed enough, even with the developments you and I mentioned, that Evans' claim is now outdated, as far as I know. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Historical reliability of the Gospels, 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! 04:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for helping with the Gnosticism page with keeping it neutral and keeping my source. =) Shane O'Sullivan the 1 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Oriental Orthodox Churches, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry for my mistake. I had no intention of blanking anything in the page Oriental Orthodox Churches, and I thank you graciously for fixing this edit (I was trying to revert it myself). Silverfish2024 (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Mellk (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Gospel of Mark

added a link pointing to Paul

Gospel of Matthew

added a link pointing to Paul

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have repeatedly proved controversial. While this is not inherently a problem, you have a tendency to reinsert BOLDly added content without a consensus supporting reinsertion. Consider this a formal warning against that sort of behavior. You have recently made an opponent of Achar Sva. While they have an editing restriction that is meant to prevent them from removing sourced content from articles, you should not automatically revert their edits or exploit this restriction. Seek consensus and consider a more tactful approach. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns are noted. I will consider my actions more in the future, though I do not agree with everything. I think calling Achar Sva an 'opponent' may be too strong; we have already had talks that have been somewhat fruitful and agree on some things. Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - calling me an opponent is much too strong :) Achar Sva (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melon-headed whale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Currents.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A solis ortus cardine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Passion and Nativity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to New Testament appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dean (Christianity), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nordic and Baltic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive material you have in regards to the New Testament and I really like the work you've been doing on the New Testament page. However, I think with your recent edit, particularly about Bernier and his reception, reads a bit too much like an advertisement for his work, which could warrant this and other edits in this style being deemed WP:UNDUE considering early dating is still a minority position. I don't have access to the sources themselves, so I thought that maybe you could re-word this particular edit so its better broken down, such as "recent arguments by Bernier for early dating have been met with positive reception." Divus303 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you enjoy my contributions to the New Testament page. Your appreciation means a lot to me. I largely agree with your constructive critique and will try to tone down my description a bit. For reference, this is the original quote I was paraphrasing:

The advanced press for Rethinking the Dates is enthusiastic, with glowing reviews by Chris Keith and Anders Runesson, among others, listed...

^[1]

In this particular situation I also do not have immediate access to the whole review. I have access to a lot of publications right now, but the Bulletin for Biblical Research is sadly not one of them. Silverfish2024 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quote, and yeah I definitely think its better to break the paraphrase down to "Bernier has made recent arguments... this has received positive reception." Divus303 (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]