Rbreen

Star of Bethlehem continuing issues

Hello Rbreen, you deleted our conversation so I am starting a new one. You deleted Beyer's work a second time. The diff is here. I think it would be show good faith to revert yourself. As I explained on the article Talk page (under "Removal of Beyer text"), you are using an argument without scholarly support that is from blogs and wikis. What you deleted, however, is from reputable scholars, and can not be hidden since it is part of the discussion worldwide.

I would rather not jeopardize your ability to continue editing on Wikipedia, and prefer that if you believe 4 BC as the death of Herod is the only allowable position that we talk it out here or on my talk page. Al Leluia81 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm dealing with some serious health issues right now so I can't respond as fully or speedily as I would like. Also, I prefer to deal with this on the talk page to avoid it becoming personal. Also, readers of the article should have a chance to see the discussion,so it belongs onthe article page.

I have to say I find it difficult to take you seriously. First you delete cited text and add a spurious and inappropriate warning about 'advertising'; then you complain about harassment because I criticise you for this; now you hint threateningly that you will 'jeopardise my ability to continue editing on Wikipedia' as if you had some influence around here. I'm not impressed. Such childish tantrums contribute nothing to serious discourse.

Anyone who reads Beyer's text can see that he was completely unaware of serious scholarship in Josephus MSS; he clearly had no knowledge of Arlenius or Niese and his printer's error suggestion is speculative and founded on no evidence. That's plain by simply reading what he wrote. His ideas may have fringe support but have gained no traction in academic scholarship. --Rbreen (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you are not able to respond as well as you would like at this time, I will put the issue of adding Beyer's work aside for at least one month.

I deleted opinion on March 16 then added my first warning after you have made many such edits, have changed wording and blanked out opposing views, even when carefully referenced. In response to receiving a level-1 template warning you suggested I am an unconstructive editor who possibly should not be on Wikipedia. That can be considered wikibullying because an editor is not imply another should not be here. My intention in saying I do not want (you) to jeopardize your ability to continue editing on Wikipedia, is because you had suggested Arbitration as a first resort which I do not think would be to your advantage. I do not think I have any special power here, and there was nothing threatening intended, and that is the truth.

Beyer's work has been supported by Steinmann (whose work you have repeatedly deleted) and is cited widely. I searched to find sources that disagree but could find only the blogs and blog-like wikis I refer to here. You have blocked this information for years, but it can not last forever. Find some good articles that meet Wikipedia's standards and add it. When you are feeling better. And I hope you will be soon.

Some of your POV edits, if referenced, might work better in the Pious Fiction section of the Star of Bethlehem article. That section is particularly weak. Al Leluia81 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rbreen&diff=711931025&oldid=711925672

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rbreen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Sketch portrait of the MP Stuart Samuel.gif

The file File:Sketch portrait of the MP Stuart Samuel.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)