Hello there, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you don't mind the mess. --Dan

Thanks. Some stuff is very good; some needs boldness. Stephen C. Carlson 02:08 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

---

Stephen, I just thought I'd say hi on your Talk page. It's good to know that you take time out to edit Wikipedia. I just started doing some editing myself. --Peter Kirby 09:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi Stephen. If you have a moment to look at my talk page, I've posted a discussion of Fundamentalism broadly defined, that I am working on in preparation for insertion into the Fundamentalism entry. It's drawn from a number of sources, but currently has no attribution and currently suffers from lack of specificity. But, I would appreciate your (and anyone else's) comments. (BTW, I am quite impressed with the "synoptic problem" page).Mkmcconn

---

Hi there. About the greek letters -- there's no point putting the Grk letter at "Alpha (letter)" if "Alpha" just redirects there. Are you planning on writing something else at "Alpha"? If not, they should be moved back -- Tarquin 11:56 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

I wanted to have a consistent system for all the Greek letters, and Pi was already taken by the mathematical constant, so all the Greek letters can be found with the (letter). The redirect is to facilitate links to the Greek letter and/or to furnish a place for a disambiguation page if substantial non-letter/symbol content becomes available. That was done for some of the letters (see Mu), and it probably should have been done for Alpha but I started with Omega and worked backwards, so the letters close to the front of the Greek alphabet got short-changed at the end of a long night. Stephen C. Carlson 04:55 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

Ease of linking and simple names is more important that consistency -- this debate came up when some people preferred "Cape Town, South Africa" even though there is only one Cape Town. A writer wishing to link to Epsilon may not know about the disambiguation setup at delta or mu. -- Tarquin 09:26 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

That's exactly why the redirects were set up. A link to Epsilon goes to Epsilon (letter). This has ease of linking and simple names, but without sacrificing a consistent set of pages for those who would like unambiguous names. So far, it seems like the best of both worlds (while requiring more initial work for me to set it up). Stephen C. Carlson 04:01 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

I still don't think it's a good idea. It's a move toward putting information into the article title. -- Tarquin 10:25 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

Regarding the change that you just made to 4 BC, see Talk:1 BC. There is controversy! ^_^ -- Toby 04:58 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi: The list of Christians is a list of famous people who are Christians. Otherwise, it woul be named 'List of People Who Influenced Christianity. You need to visit other lists of people and see how that works.

Antonio Omni Obnoxious Martin

But that is not what the lead paragraph of the List of Christians article states: This is a list of people who are notable due to their professed Christianity or for their influence on the popularity or development of some group of professed Christians. The article by its own terms has a more focused (and informative) mission. Stephen C. Carlson 07:19 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

---

Good work man. I wonder if you would look at early Muslim philosophy and see if there are known influences where early Christian philosophy could be said to have influenced it. Also Medieval philosophy needs references back to the Muslim and Christian stuff, and Islamic philosophy is so technical as to be unreadable by almost anyone but you - also lacks references to current work like Islamization of knowledge. So, could you look at those and see if a larger Christian philosophy article can be compiled along these lines, and what cross-links are appropriate? Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thought can't really be said to be independent, they are all part of 'Western tradition', and so the more these articles make that point, the better off the reader will be.

I'm sorry, but I know hardly anything about Muslim philosophy. SCCarlson

---

Thank you for your recent edits on Chiropractic medicine. RK

You're welcome. The chiropractic medicine article is slowly getting there. SCCarlson

---

Hi Stephen,

In Michael Jackson you/ your browser/editor changed the ' and " to cumbersome codes. Could you change that back? - Patrick 03:09 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

It looks like my browser converted a previous editor's smart-quotes into the cumbersome code. I fixed them by replacing the standard forms. SCCarlson 03:11 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

Ah, this previous editor put the "wrong" (at least inconsistent) quotes, you are right. Thanks. - Patrick 03:27 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

It is not appropriate to remove text simply because u don't understand it. Like a Virgin

In double jeopardy, I removed text that was repetitive and inaccurate. SCCarlson

The text is hardly repetitive, and any inaccuracies you must discuss before determining that you know what you are talking about. Like a Virgin

Instead of deleting a statement like X is related to Y because you feel that X is not related to Y you should considered editing the text instead, to something perhaps like X is similar to Y Like a Virgin

---

You wanted to know what Moxie tastes like. I wish I could tell you, but the only thing I know that tastes like Moxie is Moxie, it is very unique. -- RTC 16:55 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hm, nice incongruity I inserted there. Koyaanis Qatsi 03:22 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You know, I feel the same way when I read some of my old stuff. SCCarlson 03:30 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hello,

Theres something i've always wondered. Would the Synoptic problem explain why the Pericope Adulterae and The Ending of Mark are so disputed?

Thanks!

iHoshie 07:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The question raised by the synoptic problem is to explain the literary (documentary) interrelations between the first three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Pericope Adulterae is found in the fourth gospel, John. The ending of Mark has some collateral relevance to the synoptic, but only in establishing the (original) text of Mark that needs to be explained. Both of these are really text critical problems. scc

Well hello! I read your Synoptic Problem website a year or two ago, and learned a lot. Very well done! It's a pleasure to meet you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 04:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! scc 04:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What would you suggest is the most likely reason for the insertion?

If 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 was in fact an interpolation (a view that is still in the minority among recongized text critics), it could have been a very early marginal note that got incorporated into the main text by a later copyist who misinterpreted the note as a correction. This is a fairly common way for interpolations to enter ancient texts, and it lacks the requisite intent to deceive that forgery requires. scc 18:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Marginal note placed by whom? Also, in the context of this document, to what would this marginal note connect?Yeago 19:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer the "by whom" question. Do we know the identify of any sufficiently early scribe? The note (or interpolation as well) presumably connects to verse 33a ("For God is not God of disorder but of peace.") --scc 03:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, alright. But do you think that Paul would harbour such flagrant emnity towards women? Aren't the women of early housechurches typically credited for harbouring him as he travelled?Yeago 03:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==Mark Does Have 9 Different Endings== see Gospel of Mark, References for source. If you are an honorable person you'll put the statement back. It will be interesting to see what you do. Like to read those Origen quotes on various resurrection traditions. Where can I find them? 01 Dec 04

Are you stuttering or replaying a slogan from the previous entry?- Interpolation does not mean forgery. 01 Dec 04

Who is writing this??? --scc 03:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced by moi. =) Yeago 03:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well now that that's settled, I'd sure like to see those Origen quotes.(Sources?) Still don't see Mark's nine endings replaced. Where are they? 02 Dec 04 (Charlie)

Thanks for signing your name; it helps me know you're not an anonymous troll. The sources for the Origen quotes were listed in my comment: "E. Klostermann's index of Origen quotations in GCS 41." As for Mark's gospel, it does not have 9 different endings. The link to Wieland Willker's page on the endings of Mark only shows 4 different endings, he called the "no ending", "the short ending", "the long ending", and the "expanded long ending." Willker included the obeli and other editorial comments merely as evidence for which of various endings are known to scribes are not in themselves "different endings" -- at least not in any sense a typical Wikipedia reader would reasonably understand the term (i.e., new and different textual content). Plus Willker only listed eight of these (a-h). --scc 14:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but whoa there. Wieland Willker is not my reference for the 9 endings. It is the article by Michael W. Holmes. I would prefer you would deal with this article instead of bringing up something else. Then too, how do I know which article is correct? I ain't no expert. I'm only a grunt. Wouldn't it be correct to say that the number of endings to Mark is in dispute. Willker,(whoever he is) says 4 or 8. M.W. Holmes says 9. What the heck are obeli and GCS 41? Can't you be clearer? Charlie 02 Dec 04

The issue is coming down to one of terminology. Mike Holmes's article in a popular (not scholarly) magazine uses the word form instead of ending, and then uses ending to mean something else. His difference in terminology is probably to be provocative to an audience potentially bored by textual criticism. An obelus is a ancient text-critical symbol. GCS stands for Grieschischen Christlichen Schriftsteller. --scc 18:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looked at Willker he is only quoting ancient church fathers not latest discovered texts of Mark. So far they have found 9 different endings to Mark. Charlie 02Dec 04.

Better look again. Willker did not overlook any of "latest discovered texts of Mark" whatever you might think they might be. --scc 18:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTc)

That sounds like a grand research problem. To be continued... I can usually understand BR and it sometimes has some of the most obscure and off the wall Bible stuff I've come across. (Love that art work!) It can be a good starting point. Get back to you after I do my checking. Thanks for talking to me. This has been most interesting. Are you a pro, or just a hobbist like myself? How do you define form vs ending? If it is on the end, isn't that the end? Charlie Turek magician 2Dec04 charlesturek@comcast.net

Hi Steve. I have been to the mountain archives. Okay, I'll be generous and say 4 different endings, or forms. It is less confusing that way. Thanks for bringing it up. But why didn't you correct the error instead of eliminating it. I do not understand. Why are things entirely deleted instead of being edited. I thought Wikipedia was a team effort. I'll never figure this out. Let me ask you if I were logged on on Wikipedia would you have contacted me and discussed the change before, or after making it, instead of me coming to you? Please reply 03 Dec 04 Charlie Turek charlesturek@comcast.net

I don't like people entirely deleting material either, which is why I decided to focus on the two major endings (at 16:8 and vv9-20) while adding "A few manuscripts even include a different ending after verse 8. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.)" I did want to avoid putting a number on the total number of different endings because the notion of a "different ending" is too subjective to be illuminating. Out of all the ways of counting the number of endings, 4 is probably the least misleading. --scc 03:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Steve, You never told me whether you were a hobbyist or a professional biblical scholar. 4 Dec 04 Charlie Turek

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

Stephen, thank you for introducing me to Peter. I hope that I won't embarrass you for having dared to speak so positively of me. I've been a little frustrated lately, and I'm afraid it's been showing in my work. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen, I would like to update the Historical Jesus article. Please go to my User:Peter Kirby/Historical Jesus page and look at what I have so far. Please comment on it concerning accuracy and NPOV, and provide other suggestions for improvement. Thanks for your help. --Peter Kirby 16:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen. The Caesarean text-type article is currently on WP:AFD. I noticed that you have made some excellent contributions to the Byzantine text-type and Alexandrian text-type articles. The Caesarean article needs some attention to get it to a similar quality level. Unfortunately, I am completely unfamilar with the subject. I hope that you might be able to make some edits to the article, or perhaps point it out to another editor experienced in this subject. Thanks! Pburka 04:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These were at one time a single article. I split them because it was too confusing; it was difficult to talk about the actual text and the putative gospel and keep track of which was being discussed. I realize that they are intimately related, but it seems clearer to treat them as separate entities. Mangoe 15:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the original article was confusing. In fact, as the only carrier of the text, the Mar Saba letter is absolutely critical to any balanced discussion of the Secret Gospel's authenticity, particularly now that two major books have come out connecting Smith to their composition. Stephen C. Carlson 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely welcome. I got into this at the current time through the desire to straighten out sea peoples. I could see the Etruscology needed a lot of work and a lot of new articles. I'm not done yet. I am taking it seriously. This pass around I hope to improve the quality of the articles so there will be a basic good set on the Etruscans. Unless I get tied up in confrontations I plan to go on until that goal has been achieved. So far the only comment has been yours, which is encouraging. At some point I'll be going on to something else, but not just yet. There are still some blank spaces in the articles, as well as a monumental task with the vocabulary. Ciao and thanks for your thanks.Dave 07:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been interested in the documentary hypothesis article in the past, I'd be grateful for your comments on my recent rewrite, if you have time. PiCo 14:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]