User talk:Ckruschke/Archive 2

divine

On Jesus talk you said nobody believes in Zeus as divine. Thats untrue, there are thousands of followers of Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism who believe in Zeus Pass a Method talk 12:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh - learn something every day... Maybe I should have said "No one but an extremely small handful". Ckruschke (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Proposed revision of disambiguation terms at WP:NCCOMICS

As you recently participated in this discussion, Do you have anything to add at this discussion? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Passover

The origins of the Passover had never been very much in my consciousness either. If you look up that word in google books all you get is devotional books. But if you look up "passover origins" you get a better result. I'll list the first page:

• Haggadah of Pesach: The Order of the Passover Seder (no author?). Doesn't discuss origins, just assumes the Exodus story. But has an interesting discussion of the etymology of the word itself (pasach) - could mean "he passed over", which is the usual assumption and is based on the translation in the LXX, but the authors think "he over over, guarding" is more likely (recalls the ruach of God which "hovers" over the waters in Genesis); and pesach refers to the sacrificial lamb. Personally I wouldn't regard this book as authoritative on this subject - it's really all about the passover festival itself, not really interested in its origins.

• The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism. His focus is the development of the Passover festival in the early centuries AD (the rabbinic period). He does, however, say: "The various Biblical descriptions have led scholars to hypothesize the existence of two separate holidays that may have existed even before the exodus from Egypt, to trace their independent origins, and to suggest how they later combined in the Bible." (page 14). The two holidays (he means religious festivals) are the Feast of the Passover Offering ("an earlier apotropaic (turning away of evil) rite ... for the protection of flocks and sheep"), and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

• After two books with no preview, The Development and Symbolism of Passover Until 70 CE. Revised from a PhD dissertation. Ugh, I hate those books. Very interesting Acknowledgements section, though. Begins with stressing the difference between pre and post 70 AD Judaism: before the destruction, Passover was one of three national, Temple-based festivals common to all Jews (all in Judea, anyway). Passover "is traditionally regarded as embedded in two different cultural traditions" - in other words, the family/pastoral Passover Offering and the temple-based Unleavened Bread. Her thesis/argument is that this is incorrect. I don't think she comes down on the side of Exodus being the true account though. I haven't read this book all through, it's as exciting as a railway timetable.

• The Jewish Pesach and the origins of the Christian Easter. Another page-turner. Subtitled "Open Questions in Current Research." Page 15, "Exodus 12 and the Origins of Pesach." Doesn't really help - it's a very abstruse discussion based on Jewish texts, and this part seems to be talking about changes in the ritual over time (why Christian Easter, supposedly a Passover meal, is so different from the Passover described in Exodus).

• My People's Passover Haggadah: Traditional Texts, Modern Commentaries, Volume 1. Seems more thorough than the previous ones. Beginning page 10, it talks about the "fusion of two festivals" theory. Apparently it (the theory) originates with Julius Wellhausen, whom evangelicals love to hate. Apparently he argued that Passover originated from the fusion of these two types of sacrifice, pesach, the pastoral bounty sacrifice (i.e., the animal sacrifice), and matzot, for "agrarian abundance". On page 13 the author deals with a different theory, that Passover began as a Spring equinox festival of a type common in the Near East. This book is very clear and readable, and seems quite authoritative (it isn't arguing a case, either).

Anyway, the point is, the idea that Passover comes from these festivals is clearly well-established in scholarship, and there's no reason to treat it as a novelty. PiCo (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick tip for citation needed tags

Hi, Ckruschke. I noticed these edits where you added a {{citation needed}} tag. The proper format for the tag is {{citation needed|date=April 2013}}. You have to have the "date=" part or the page gets put into Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters. Actually, I've been seeing a lot of editors making the same mistake, so if there's documentation somewhere that's confusing or misleading, please let me know where so I can improve it. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Commas

Correct: April 15, 2013, taxes were due. Not correct: April 15, 2013 taxes were due. The year is treated as a parenthetical comment and so is set apart by commas. For details... Rklawton (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wichita

I tried finding sources but sourcing city nicknames can be a pain. ICT and Dub-K get said on the radio station Power 93.9 regularly, and have been used in songs by local rappers, the biggest being ICT (The Official Anthem) by Kae Wun.--Rockchalk717 14:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Clean up...

The article has been there for 7 years or so... Now as I was cleaning it up realized it was missing this. I thought you would find it interesting that after all the hoopla on those stories, this key fact was missing from that and the Lost years page that covers the overall issue... FYI, on my way out (for real this time) I also cleaned up this and this which a key part of the Jesus page refers to, an given that there was sock puppetry on one of those if you could keep an eye on them will be great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Notovitch item was never on the page. It was a glaring omission. History2007 (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hi, I noticed you are not on this list. From June 2013 there is a new "in focus... " format, book reviews, Christianity-DYK, etc. that refer to some articles of interest. Please just take a look at the June issue (should be released soon) and see. You just need to add your name to the list here. They are also offering a 3 month money back guarantee deal next week. History2007 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Jesus' walk on water move request

Hi there

You recently participated in a move request for the Jesus' walk on water article. There was no consensus for the proposed move, but some suggested the new possible title of Jesus walking on water and I have reopened the move request with that as the move target. If you are interested, please contribute to the debate at Talk:Jesus' walk on water#Requested move 2. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

VeggieTaleS AfD

I think that you meant to refer to Quibilia, rather than Editor E. SL93 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Although Quibilia also mentions "notability" I was referring all comments back to the original "complainent". Thanks anyway - it wouldn't have surprised me if I'd screwed something up... Ckruschke (talk)Ckruschke

Regarding your comment on 'Ad hominem' talk page

Regarding your rather strange (almost insulting) comment on Ad hominem talk page (I am talking specifically about the "Why is the title in italics?" entry that I've created). You know, it was in fact me, Wayfarer, who asked that question, and it was Gareth Griffith-Jones who replied to it and reverted my edit. So there was nothing for me to answer! But then suddenly your comment appears in which your say:

“ I got rid of the italic title as Wayfarer either doesn't understand the intent of your question or is dodging it. Ckruschke (talk) ”

So as first, basically you did the same thing as I (removed the italics in the title), and then blamed me for "dodging the question" (whereas it was ME who has asked the question). As you can clearly see I replied to Gareth two times, the second time saying:

“ Yes I do understand about the use of italics in the titles now. ”

In this case, considering what Gareth explained, it was reverted to previous state (title in italics) by Gareth because the title of an article is a Latin phrase. --Wayfarer (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I was a jerk. However the page is still the same TWO MONTHS LATER... Maybe you should just be bold and make it italics, rather than taking exception with what you think was an insulting comment. Focus... Ckruschke (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thomas the Apostle

hello there, Have included suggested edits to improve the article. These are at Talk:Thomas_the_Apostle#Portraying_Myth_as_History. When you find time, do take a look. Appreciate your comments. cheers Prodigyhk (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for the heads up. Ckruschke (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Aaahh!!! Real Monsters

Hey, just a heads-up that I've opened a sock investigation on ol' Rack, Shack and Benny. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent work on Laura Ingalls Wilder

Hi there. Thanks for taking ax in hand and removing material that was screaming, "Delete me!" (Also, 'enjoyed your edit remarks.) Do you have more in the offing for this article? (I also wrote to you at the article talk page.) Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I had a few spare moments and got out the axe. I'd love to do more, but I don't have anything planned at this time. Someone just needs to go section by section and rewrite as appropriate - of course that takes alot longer than just my hack and slash... Ckruschke (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Weird Veggie Tales episode dub

Weird Veggie Tales episode dub

Phillipe: Hello Israelites! You are pigs! Jean Claude: And soon we will put apples in your mouths and stick you in our toaster ovens! Phillipe: Oho! After we defeat you, you will be our slaves and will have to fetch us our slippers! Jean Claude: And iron our trousers! Phillipe: And wipe our little noses! Jean Claude: And scratch that spot on our backs we cannot reach no matter how hard we try! Don't you have anything to say? Why would they put subtitles on the bottom of the screen when they don't have to & aren't even turned on? Were the French Peas supposed to speak French? Or is this a dub? Ryan Woo-Ming (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)|} I think its supposed to be a joke. Rather than speaking "real" french, which would need "actual" dubbing, the French Peas speak in weird Maurice Chevalier-esque accents. Trust me, two Americans (Phil Vischer and Mike Nawrocki) do the voices of Jean-Claude and Phillipe in the Veggie videos. Ckruschke (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke I know that, but I mean, in Dave and the Giant Pickle, when the French Peas were saying their first lines, why are there subtitles at the bottom of the screen when they aren't turned on? Ryan Woo-Ming (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC) I understood your question. The sub-titles popping up are PART OF THE JOKE - as if their english is so poor that we'd need sub-titles to figure out what they are saying. If you've ever watched Monty Python's Holy Grail, they do the same thing. Ckruschke (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Téa Leoni: Difference between revisions

Hi, for this - I didn't know, sorry.

When I see external Links at the very bottom in de:WP I always edit them over the references - I thought: Someone clicks on the ref at the point he reads the article itself, but when he/she scrolled to the bottom .. no one will scroll through the references without knowing what's down there. Are the ext. Links not much more visible where I pasted them?

Greetings from Berlin-Neukölln --Sujalajus (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's cool. "No blood, no foul" (meaning: its no big deal).

If you aren't an American transplant, "No blood, No foul" comes from backyard/pickup basketball games in which the players call their own fouls. The feeling is usually: unless you are actually bleeding from the contact, it isn't a foul. Keeps people from calling "NBA-esque" phantom touch fouls that just bog down the game. It also usually serves to start fights, as the game can get rougher and rougher as play goes on, but then that's a separate issue... Ckruschke (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Geddy Lee

Regarding your reversion. The point was, the novelty song was more successful in the Top 40 commercial market than anything Rush has done. I think that is a significant piece of information. Trackinfo (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok - I missed your point. You said "Lee" which implies that you meant anything that "HE" had done, not Rush. That being said, a quick look on Rush's discography shows that they've had several Top 5 singles in the US. So I'm not sure I agree with your point. Not being difficult - just trying to make sure we get the correct info on here. Thanks for contacting me! Ckruschke (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Maybe my clarity error. By your own reference, on the Billboard Hot 100, which is like the established big kahuna, (as opposed to the other, more specialized charts, like "mainstream" rock/AOR, where Rush has excelled), "New World Man" was the highest charting single at number 21. "Take off" was number 14. That was the reference I was making. Trackinfo (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right - I was looking at the chart list off the Mainstream Rock (chart) that showed New World Man, Limelight and others all in the Top 5. Sorry - misread the list off the Rush discography site. I'll make that change on Geddy's page. Ckruschke (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Alphabetical order

Actually, I didn't realize the religions were in alphabetical order, thank you for your correction. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yea - I had to read it twice myself. Trying to keep you safe from instigating a big religeous edit war...  ;-) Ckruschke (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Luke edits

Hello. I'm not sure why you deleted the whole entire edit and elaboration. You over-stepped, frankly speaking. There was no need to remove the whole thing though just because you don't like the word "probably"....then why not just remove the "probably", instead of the "Hellenic Jew" etc, which is valid and the reference for it?? No valid reason to revert everything...). I reverted it back to the way it was. I may remove the word "probably" though. But the point is that the edit I put was accurate, sourced, good-faith, and arguably warranted...and solidly sourced. No valid excuse given to suppress that. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted Gabby Merger's edits again from both G Luke and Luke the E. This "Luke was Jewish" idea appears to be a minority opinion with little traction in modern SBL scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info In ictu. Ckruschke (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

restored edits...it is a notable opinion, validly sourced, and is mentioned in other articles, long established, whether it's "majority view" or not. No need to suppress sourced valid information from readers, because of personal bias. The edit never said "Luke was Jewish", but that some scholars believe so. And it's sourced and notable, by scholars with credentials. No need to hide, for "I don't like or agree" reasons. This is a wiki. You (or others) don't own any article. It's not your job to agree or disagree, but to respect edits that are reliably-sourced, good-faith, and accurate..."majority" view or not. So there your whole rationale is not even correct. WP policy is not to disallow minority scholar views, simply because they're minority, if at least their notable in name or credential or reference. Which they are. Also was is apropos to the phrase "not the only possibility" that was already there. Stop the hounding also... You're violating WP policy on a number of fronts now. (You were also wrong on the Nontrinitarian talk page about "Papandrea"...thinking that Arius may have believed that Christ began His existence from Mary's womb, when Arius never believed or taught that. Arius clearly taught Christ's pre-existence, before Mary. Arius was NOT a Socinian. But you got that wrong, and never responded again on that. Now you're disrespecting and stalking here with these edits. Not good.) Don't continue, sir. Thanks. Or take to article Talk. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)(talk) 03:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabby - I agree I should not have reverted all your changes - I focused on your clumsy rewording and didn't see anything else. Honest mistake made since I was 5 days behind in checking my watched pages. Appologies.

That being said, I'm not sure why you are fighting this out on my page... Have you started a thread on those pages Gabby? Ckruschke (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Assyria

I have looked at the edits. The IP editor has added sources for his changes to the dates and for some other changes that he has made. Under those circumstances, without access to a differing source, I think we must assume the editor's changes are verifiable. Usually a wholesale change in dates, absent a different calendar system, would be very suspicious but I am not in a position to challenge sourced changes without a more reliable source. Thanks for bringing this up. Donner60 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good - thanks for the update! Ckruschke (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks

Hello C. Thanks for taking the time to reply on the Rudolph... article. I wasn't too worried but I was getting close to 3RR so I started the thread to follow the WikiP guidelines in that situation. Thanks again for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh - didn't see that you were bumping the 3RR rule. I don't think I really meant you were worried, but sometimes I can be a little short on Talk pages so I probably came off as an idiot... I'm not sure this applies to moronic IP editors as I've reverted the same garbage from the same 2-3 editors (or maybe one w/ mult sockpuppets) on about a dozen VeggieTales pages. If they continue to insert the same incorrect crap and they don't respond to items on the page Talk or their own Talk, I think you can feel free to revert to your heart's content, but that's just my opinion. Take care and Merry Christmas! Ckruschke (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hi again. No worries about your post and you came off just fine. I just wanted to fill you in on the details. Oof I have seen some of the craziness that goes on at the Veggietales articles. You are a brave soul to have them on your watchlist :-) Merry Merry to you as well and have a wonderful 2014!! MarnetteD | Talk 22:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV & copyright issues concerning flood myths

You've added copyvio material from [1] to two articles. You place a large chunk of copyvio in the lead although the issue wasn't discussed in the body of the article. You presented a YEC author as the Christian viewpoint, and you didn't include any other viewpoints. I'm surprised at these two edits and have reverted them, discussing them at Talk:Flood myth. Note that the editor who reinstated your edit at Flood myth was a now blocked sock simply stalking me. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller - as I discussed on the Talk page, the copyvio was unintended - just my stupidity.

Your assertion that I somehow violated NPOV by inserting information where there was - none - is somewhat baffling to me as I was not aware that Wiki requires an exhaustive source search prior to making an insertion and I did not express the viewpoint as Christian or non-Christian - simply statistics that I thought were interesting. Are you are making an assumption about my insertion of the text that I am not in fact making? I apologize for my tone, but we've bumped into eachother enough that your out-of-character assumption of wrongdoing or malice of intent on my part is odd. A mistake is a mistake, but this... Ckruschke (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

It wasn't a suggestion of malice or wrong-doing which is why I said I was surprised. The NPOV (or WP:UNDUE) issue was presenting only one viewpoint, and that a minority view, and that Morris should be described as a YEC so it doesn't appear that his is somehow a general Christian viewpoint. We all make errors like this. I've said elsewhere recently it's important when presenting material to try to show other views if they exist. Morris is in any case a redflag author, not to be trusted. See [2] on this survey, [3] on other work of his.

And apologies if I didn't make it clear that my surprise was because it didn't seem typical of your editing. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Doug - I wasn't aware of Morris' "issues", but then I'm not the Wiki expert you are. Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I will take note of the "Sensuous Carmudgeon" though. Just one section is:

Details may have been added, lost, or obscured in the telling and retelling, but the kernel of truth remains. When two separate cultures have the same “myth” in their body of folklore, their ancestors must have either experienced the same event, or they both descended from a common ancestral source which itself experienced the event.

Frankly, that is absurd. If all flood stories everywhere were telling of the same event — the most important event in human history — virtually all the details would be preserved, including Noah’s name. As we’ve said before:

[D]iscrepancies are not expected. Englishmen, for example, have scattered from their home island and now live all over the world. But except for known embellishments by later writers, there is no variation in the legend of King Arthur.

Frankly this is completely idiotic - note I'm saying you are an idiot. If this line of thinking is this author's argument for the rest of Morris' work, I'm wondering what the issue about Morris really is - seems like the typical "Christians cannot be scientists/historians that is rife throughout Wiki". The anecdotal "evidence" that you shouldn't have any differences in the flood myths because there is a commonlity "among all Englishmen on King Arthur" is beyond laughable - BEYOND laughable. First you have WRITTEN accounts of the stories of King Arthur that "anyone" can reference that are only 400 yrs old. Even if you decided to go back to the earliest supposed timeline of King Arthur, the myth has its roots in history that is only 1500 yrs old - and even some of the earliest accounts of such a man as Arthur are actually written records.

The Flood on the other hand, if it were true, 1) goes back 6-10,000 yrs, 2) has been handed down orally, and 3) has been handed down in 100's of different languages which only causes translation issues. So there is - NO - correlation to Morris' text and this author's rebuttal - in fact the Sensuous Carmudgeon only comes off as a pathetic hack who is grasping at straws. Obviously this auther never played "Telephone" or he'd know that people, places, and dates handed down orally change quite easily. Thus the fact that there is ANY correlation in the Flood Myths is fantastically interesting - even if the numbers are not exact as Morris portrays - and the Carmudgeon clearly misses this point. If this red herring was presented on Wiki Talk pages substantiating someone's viewpoint, it would LAUGHED away in a second as this guy obviously is working off a pre-determined viewpoint and then forming a conclusion based upon that viewpoint. Not impressed...

However, I'm not going to make further edits on that page just like I don't make edits of new content on any Christian Wiki page - the hoops that are needed to jump through in order to have works by Christian authors (or pro-Christian content in general) faithfully presented are too many. I get on Wiki for only a few minutes a day and I don't have the time to post major additions only to have them erased. I'll stay with my benign role of tending pages to keep malicious editors at bay and making additions to obscure pages that no one will read... Ckruschke (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yeah, the curmudgeon page asn't very good, I didn't even read very far, just threw it in as it was all I could find (no one serious seems to take it seriously, only Young Earth Creationists), maybe I shouldn't have. As I said, I wouldn't trust Morris's survey. It would be interesting to read the protocol and questions. Don't knock yourself out about this, if you aren't familiar with Morris and the literature then it's not surprising you added that, on face value it looks interesting. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll delve further into Morris study - I think the study on its face value is interesting.

Just grousing about the rest, but still stating the truth. Tired of being told I'm an idiot in Talk because I believe the Bible. Wiki is supposed to be a fun outlet for me - having some atheist call into question my beliefs with one red herring, strawman, or outright opinion which is masked as "someone's research" after another isn't that. Wikipedia is simply just one source among many on the web - I'm not caught up one way or another about what it says about things I hold dear. If a cabal of atheists on WIki want to shout down Christian viewpoints, then this is simply a reflection of society today. I take Wiki alot less seriously than I did 4 yrs ago. Ckruschke (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Shaggy Rogers and marijuana

Hi! I took a look at Shaggy Rogers and wondered what happened about the part of the rumors of marijuana use went. I found this edit I would like to discuss this edit with you.

It's not OR, nor is it fancruft. Wikipedia:OR means "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." All of the information is from published, reliable sources, so this is not OR. It's also not fancruft because these newspaper and magazine sources believed it was important enough to document the marijuana rumors (Philly Inquirer and Newsweek).

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

WhisperToMe - The section gives undue weight to what is essentially a non-issue - "rumors" of Shaggy being a pothead were started and are continued by fans (thus it's fancruft) and the articles are merely responding to this obvious fancruft - thus my deletion note - I was obviously not saying the ref'd articles were fancruft. However, I probably should have condensed the material rather than removed it entirely. I'll go back, add it back in, put in a rewrite and we can go from there. It appears that you already added the content back in. I'll make an edit that reflects my viewpoint and we can go from there. Sound good? Ckruschke (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thank you! One thing I do want to emphasize is that while the guys making the Scooby movie had shot several scenes parodying Shaggy and drug usage, only some of them ended up in the final product (apparently the film was toned down from what it could have been). IMO it's hard to tell whether that one issue is undue for Shaggy. In order to refer to something as Wikipedia:Undue weight you have to compare the issue and think about it in relation to every other sourced "issue" about the subject and compare that issue to the other issues related to Shaggy. Since the filmmakers had acknowledged the issue by making film scenes (and therefore this got coverage in reliable sources) of it I thought that compared to other fan issues (where it's likely no RSes exist anyway) it's "important"/"notable". WhisperToMe (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

WhisperToMe - if you want to make that statement, I guess it's fine. However, I still feel that you are putting wp:undue weight on one source - doesn't have to be an argument when you are only presenting one viewpoint. Discussions of a fancruft issue is obviously a minority viewpoint (which the section backs up by saying Casey Kasem has "no idea" of the viewpoint). Not trying to be a jerk - we just disagree - which is always fine.

They also tamed Velma down in the movie (I guess she had a siren song that was cut), so I guess it doesn't surprise me they cut out some "Shaggy is a stoner" scenes - they tried to make an "adult" Scooby-Doo and they figured out they alienate their target audience so they changed it. Ckruschke (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The articles stated that Velma was also cut down. With Shaggy the "stoner" info originates from two sources: "The Inside Dope" by Newsweek and "Are hidden meanings present in the 'Scooby-Doo'movie?" from the Inquirer. The Matthew Lillard quote answering the question about Shaggy comes from the Inquirer but everything else comes from the Newsweek article. If everything came from one source I can see how one source could be over-emphasized but by having two sources discuss the same issue I think it shows more importance to the issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks bud! Ckruschke (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

davy jones

Abbythecat (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Ckruschke. I couldn't find a source for the STAR SPANGLED GIRL edit (except the obvious DVD of it; just play it & you'll hear the different theme ... you can hear this at Youtube as well) so I deleted it as you said. I did reference the other edits (note I added the MONKEEMANIA book, even page numbers, for 5 edits under the LAST edit). That's the best I can do. Whatever you want to do now is fine with me. I'd like to add here that, whatever you decide, my New Years resolution is to leave Wikipedia (but how long will I keep this resolution?). I've been contributing things almost 4 years now and have found it to be at times enjoyable and at other times annoying. When it works, it's great. When it doesn't, I can argue the truth forever and still get nowhere. Some examples that come to mind: trying to add the air date to the "Planet of the Apes" TV series page for the episode "The Liberator" (rejected, even though I had 2 books as reference); a page for the great actor Jack Grinnage that was rejected (hasn't ANYONE seen "The Night Stalker" TV series? He was a regular cast member!); and 2 articles for the book "The Bible On Film" and its author Richard H. Campbell (both rejected, even though books from Cambridge reference his book!). No matter what you decide, as Jones sang in the "War Games" song, "it's all over". So this seems like the perfect time to say to everybody at Wikipedia (with true great respect and no malice) happy new year and goodbye forever. Abbythecat (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Abbythecat.

blogspot.com

POPTECH.BLOGSPOT.COM is a personal blog. Not a RS. — TPX 20:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok - and? This isn't something I inserted in any Wiki page. Was it on something I edited? Ckruschke (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

It's the core reference you provided. The domain name points to a blogspot account. — TPX 12:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahh - good info. Ckruschke (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Marc Morano

Ck, I am looking for some editors to help with the bio on Marc Morano. I do not care what your position is on the person just that you help with objective editing. I feel that the current guardians of this article are not being objective. I am all for allowing both sides to get in their statements, but currently it seems we are not getting that objectivity. Thanks for any support you could provide.Jvaughters (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the person eventhough I've been listening to Rush for 20 yrs - not sure how that's possible, but... I can certainly give the page a look and add it to my watch list (when you get to 1000+ watched pages, what's one more). By the looks of it, you and Gaba are having an on-going disagreement. Some of it seems to stem from simple differences in editting styles - I'm not sure he's "guarding" the site - you might have just got off on the wrong foot with him and now he's simply digging in. I've seen his name before, but don't remember the context. Thought it was positive, but I don't keep score... Ckruschke (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for the support. I know one place you saw his name and that is on the Climate change denial talk page where the discussion of Skeptic vs Denial were discussed. He is a person that believes consensus is the same as proof and I am more literal to the scientific method that proof is undeniable evidence. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age that I have to fight so hard for that concept. He seems like a very educated person, so it is a bit shocking to me, as a person that desires to get to the truth with evidence vs belief aka consensus. Much of the issue is that I am still very green on the Wikipedia process, so I went looking for more experienced editors. I am open to any and all suggestions becoming reality as long as it is proved undeniably. I just cannot understand people that will not address skeptics considering the history of science having vastly more theories disproved than proven. When it comes to Global Warming he actually compares a skeptic to a person that denies gravity. That just does not compute in my head.Jvaughters (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. I've largely stopped posting similar things as you suggest on the Global Warming Talk pages as I grew tired of being basically referred to as an uneducated mouth-breather because I do not agree with Man Made global warming no matter how much evidence I show. I won't go further than that, but its frustrating on this and a number of other pages.

However, what has helped me is I've been on Wiki for quite sometime and I've learned alot of the basics, thus I'm not "automatically" dismissed as some newb who has just fallen off the turnip truck (recently I had a couple editors tell me they "respected my positions" which almost made me fall off my chair). I've also learned to not take things so personally (after all we are doing this for "fun" - right?) and this has helped my attitude knowing that ultimately it doesn't matter what a specific sentence says on some unnamed Wiki page. My suggestion is you "watch" as many pages as you think you have time for (and like I said, I'm over 1000) so that you can learn editting tips by watching what other, more experienced editors do and don't do. 1000 seems like alot, but if you key your "Watchlist" page so that it only shows you the most recent edits on each page, reviewing of each day's list goes pretty quick. I'd also read as much of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines as you have time for so that you can smarten yourself up on Wiki policies and procedures - especially when experienced editors revert your edits with tags such as WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and the like and expect you to figure out on your own what in the world they mean. So it simply takes time as even now I forget from time to time how to insert a list or do other formatting things on Wiki that I only do once or twice a year since I don't do alot of inserting new content.

Finally I'd suggest you see the other editors as collaborators - even the ones you dislike or see as disruptive. I have a "friend" on Wiki who I go to often for advise because he's been on for a long time and I know he knows the rules backward and forwards. However, even we tangle from time to time as we both tend to jump to conclusions about eachothers actions. Also you don't want to burn any bridges - you never know which "jerk" on one page will be in your corner on another. Recently I deleted a fair and reasoned refutation of someone's "you got to be kidding me?!?!" comment on a Talk page simply because in hindsight I realized that eventhough I was right, "I" was the one being a jerk. The next day I found myself on a wholly unrelated page agreeing with the same editor about a stupid Talk post by an anon editor - so you never know.

My 2 cents. Keep your chin up and let me know if you need any help in the future. I'm not on alot, and never on weekends, so I might not respond immediately but I always do. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

That is wonderful advise, and I have already learned to chill out and not worry so much from my discussion about Marc Morano. Looking back at my comments, I was being a jerk, albeit somewhat justified. That was my first reversion and to be honest, I still think it was valid, but I do not have the time to learn all the ropes, which is why I went looking for experienced people to help. I did not find your name from the global warming sites, it was something else, but you seemed objective and experienced. I knew Wikipedia was left slanted, but I had no idea it was as organized as it is for Global Warming. In any case, the reason I have not edited much is that I truly do not have the time. As a matter of fact, I am already thinking to slow down, because I have more important things to do. I just like to fix little issues here and there, and I always feel guilty that I use this site so much but do not participate. It will be a slow process for me until I retire`,~). I do truly enjoy the idea of contributing and I think I have knowledge to offer. Also, Thanks for your service to the Country. Jvaughters (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Np - glad to help. I don't do much original work on Wiki - most of my edits are of the "keep the dogs at bay" variety - reverting nonsense, etc and only get involved in Talk threads if I "really" have the time.

And I'm a civil servant so the only thing I'm being served is a big slice of your taxes...  ;-) Ckruschke (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

VeggieTales.

Hey, what's up?

No issues with you reverting my edits, but please don't take out the references verifying that the show now airs on TBN and Smile of a Child. Always good to have references...avoids issues with WP:V.

Thanks. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

yep - sorry - didn't see the refs - apologize. Ckruschke (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

No biggie - Just rather be safe than sorry, that's all. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. So much nonsense goes on on the Veggie pages that I obviously got a little carried away... Ckruschke (talk) 13:19, 27 January 20

Titles versus professions at Creationism

Hi Ckruschke. Thanks for your contribution at Creationism. "Scientist" is a job description, not a title, and so the term is generally reserved for people who are currently doing science. There are terms that span both uses: an ex-president, governor or ambassador is corrected referred to as "Mr./Madam President", etc., and "Coach" can be used even when someone is well into their broadcasting career. To the best of my knowledge, Ken Ham has never claimed to be a scientist and I'm not aware of any independent, reliable sources that make the claim for him. As he self-identifies as a creationist, that's probably the best term to use. Thanks! Garamond Lethet
c 16:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

After reading through your well thoughtout argument, I agree. I simply saw it as a degree. In the USG, a civil servant with this type of degree is classified as a scientist - but again, I see your point. Thanks for the note! Ckruschke (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruscke

At the Department of Energy labs, Ph.D. students are classed as "indeterminate" and, after a successful postdoc and a year of probation, earn the right to be referred to as "indefinite". No, I'm not kidding.... Garamond Lethet
c 19:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Really...? DoD categorizes these types in the "Engineer and Scientist" career group in a very broad sense - even w/o higher degrees. Guess you guys have a higher pecking order than us... Ckruschke (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Santa Claus's reindeer

I thought I was "fixing" what an IP editor changed. I should have just reverted them. Thanks for catching that.--Asher196 (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks for the note - I sometimes think I'm doing something when I'm actually restoring incorrect info - happens to me all the time when I go through my Watchlist and work too fast. Take care! - Ckruschke (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Gospel of Mark

That adoptionism section is all over the place and I'm not sure what to do. From my reading there seems to be a lot of dispute over whether there's adoptionism in Mark, but if there is, it has interesting implications. You're welcome to join in. PiCo (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC) I wonder if I could ask you to do something for Gospel of Mark. At Gospel of Matthew there's a template for the detailed content of Matthew - you can see it about halfway down, a long list of incidents from Matthew on the right hand side. It's a template. There's no such template on Mark. instead, there's a very long subsection with the same title, Detailed Content. Would you like to be the one who does us all a favour by transferring that content to a new template like the one on Matthew? It would be a kindness. PiCo (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw the discussion on adoptionism on the Mark Talk pages. Unfortunately I'm too stupid to speak intelligently on the subject so I mostly just watch the discussion (as I do most of the deep philosophical discussions on these pages).

I'll look at the Matthew page and figure out what you are talking about. If its simply crafting a table from existing information based upon a previous template - THAT - I can probably do well. Ckruschke (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thank you my friend (for creating the Marcan template I mean, as well as any further such you might feel moved to). Having read a bit more, I think adoptionism in Mark deserves to stay, but there's too much on it - it just needs a few lines, probably saying that the matter is important but opinions differ. The ending of Mark is a real puzzle - apparently the extra-short ending is the real one, with the women finding the tomb empty, not resurrection sighting, an angel (it's clearly an angel as it's clothed in white, the preferred outfit for self-respecting angelic beings) telling them to go tell everyone, and then they don't. Very strange - I mean, if an angel told you do something, wouldn't you feel a little bit wicked if you didn't? I have my own theory, which is that the gospel had an oral part that followed the written one - people wouldn't read this alone as we do today (not many people were literate back then), but rather someone, a leader, would read it to the group, and then they'd deliver the oral message, the one the women were given, and it would be, of course, about the full Christ-message, whatever that may have been in 70 AD. Not that anyone will listen to me, of course. PiCo (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And then there is the Old Latin Codex Vercellensis in which the last page of the Gospel of Mark has been excised and replaced with the long ending. Ignocrates (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the adoptionism section was added or expanded by Ret.Prof. 'Nuff said. Ignocrates (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

See my archived comments here. I'll find the page numbers tonight and add them here. Ignocrates (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

See pp.140-143 of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture for a clear and insightful explanation of the difficulty and how later manuscripts were altered to remove this embarrassment ("unto him" --> "onto him"). Ignocrates (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the incite guys! Ckruschke (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Ckruschke

MythBusters

A discussion that you participated in at Talk:MythBusters has now recommenced at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Should inanimate objects be considered "main cast" in the infobox?. Your participation would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think my opinion has changed, meaning I continue to disagree with you, but it isn't quite as vocal as some of the others. Ckruschke (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

RfC

Collect knows full well that RfC's tend to run 30 days, that is part of the reason I see their goading as particularly disruptive, and poisoning the process. Essentially they have turned the entire content dispute into a battleground that most reasonable editors don't want to bother with. This is a strategy I've seen before and it's unfortunate. I feel a few of us were hearing each other and making valid points moving the discussion forward. Removing the entirety of Phil's racial comments is completely violating NPOV, modifying what we have is reasonable. I hope that makes sense. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I know how it works. Honestly, its very clear that you are in the minority and I don't think that's changing. This has nothing to do with you or my opinion of your viewpoint - I try not to carry grudges and be fair even when my viewpoint is 180 deg from someone else's - who knows, we may collaborate on another issue or on a different page. However, sometimes these things go on "forever" when its clear pretty early what the ending will be... Ckruschke (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Things change though, and I still hope reasonableness will prevail. This is also one aspect of a larger issue on how to deal with the entire controversy, I still hold hope that the AfD will get overturned, which will allow the entire section in the DD article to be addressed as a summary only. I think that is ultimately best. As it stands now the battleground has made reasonable discussion unworkable. But i still have hope. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox television episode

There are some issues with proposed parameters for {{Infobox television episode}}. I've left a message at WT:TV about this but unfortunately the templates used in the TV project draw little interest, even though they often cause us grief. Because of this I'm approaching experienced editors directly, with a view to getting some more input. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Infobox television episode provides an introduction to the issues. Your attention would be greatly appreciated at the discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

CMT definition

Hoping you will support the compromise I have proposed. Radath (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Radath - I'm trying to keep up. However, I am somewhat handicapped by the fact that I look at Wiki as only a hobby and as such I only get on once or twice during weekdays and seldom if all during the weekends. Thus for fast-flying threads like this one, I miss about 3/4 of the conversation... Ckruschke (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Dispute resolution

A content dispute resolution process has been started at [4]. Please participate and contribute to a resolution. Wdford (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wdford - looks like some old disputes are starting to rear up - might be time to close discussion on the lede for awhile... Ckruschke (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Christ myth theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent sources are needed when describing creationist pseudoscience

WP:FRIND says we cannot include the ideas promoted by pseudoscientists such as Young Earth Creationists unless there has been independent notice of those ideas. If you can point to a non-creationist source which shows these ideas are prominent enough to warrant description in our article, then that's what you need to do. We cannot use AiG and ICR as our only sources for content at Young Earth Creationism. jps (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There are and it should be no problem to provide. However, section blanking should be a last resort - not the first - especially considering AiG and ICR AREN'T the only sources on the YEC page. I'm trying to understand why you wouldn't just flag it rather than make someone like me restore the original text AND THEN put in references...? However, I will go ahead and do this for you. Ckruschke (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

What references are you going to use to show that young earth creationists as a whole believe these things? They are very parochial beliefs. jps (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

For example, I did a rather thorough search of the literature on creationism (e.g. Numbers fantastic book) and saw nothing about these conjectures involving inbreeding and people living to 130. It's just someone's idea they made up one day. We can only discuss ideas that are universally acknowledged by non-creationists as being indicative of creationism. We cannot take creationists' word for it because they are not reliable sources for what is important about their beliefs. They are, after all, in the business of evangelism and so their stated goal is to claim that everything they say is important. jps (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism is actually a much discussed topic (although dirisively) in the media and among non-Christian scientists/academics. It wasn't very hard to find several articles where "what do YEC believe" in media, even if the discussion was just tangential. I'm going to put in those ref's along with keeping the original ones (so that the original source documents act as the expositional basis and the media sources act as corroboration). If you don't feel that what I put in is ok, please either flag the sections as whole or just let me know and I'll give it another lash. I think I'm going to have to put in one place a "needs better ref" flag on something that I was unable to independently verify - the inbreeding part that you talked about above. Should be ready in 10-20 min.

That being said, I'm somewhat taken aback by your insistence that this is simple proseletizing or wishful thinking when its adherents claim it as actual science. Although correctly fringe by definition, your "Creationists' word for it" is called "A Theory", just like any other theory. If it is proved as false, then so be it. However, it is just like any other "theory" proposed by evolutionists that they have been unable to prove. I've heard many YEC call the adherents of evolution as being evangelists for their own unproven theories. We need to maintain a NPOV. I also think that you are misapplying RS. A media source is either RS or not RS - a person isn't. So you can't say that "We cannot take creationists' word for it because they are not reliable sources" because this is against Wiki policy. You can (rightfully) say that AiG and ICR are not RS because of their somewhat skewed position and I support that.

Not implying that you aren't acting in good faith, but we just need to be careful of our wording. This has been a good dialogue and I appreciate your comments. I'll be back on sometime tomorrow so I might not reply back right away.Ckruschke (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

The point is that everyone can make up "theories" in the vein of creationists. Wikipedia explicitly is designed to not just include those things that people make up. It needs to be addressed by experts on the subject. I anxiously await you finding sources where geologists, astronomers, and biologists actually take seriously the creationist claims. If you cannot, they don't belong in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok... It looks like we are talking about different things. You are stating that in order for this information to be here, you need an independent reference that corroborates AGREEMENT with the statements. What I've thought you've been stating is you need independent references REITERATING the statements. I agree with the latter, but I'm in complete disagreement with the former. If the text says "YEC" believe X, why would we need a separate ref that states agreement with that assertion. If that were true, 90% of all the Christian pages would be almost completely blank which despite what anyone believes, is clearly not the case and they are supported by Wiki guidance.

So I'm not sure what to do at this point. Since I have the section ready with corroborating ref's that affirm the text that "Creationists think X" is really what they think, I'm inclined to just put it back in with the edit tag "corroborrating ref's as requested by jps", but I don't want to start an edit war since this now appears to be not what your original edit note meant. I also have no time to open a thread on Talk. I can stick around for a couple more minutes - if you reply back I'd welcome a suggestion. Ckruschke (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I put a Talk thread on the page. Please go to it and state your position accordingly. Ckruschke (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Oh, don't get me wrong! Agreement with any belief isn't necessary in the source, but certainly addressing the belief directly is required. I have not seen a bona fide scientist address the belief that inbreeding is the cause of the geneological changes in Genesis. Have you? jps (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No - I agree with that. As I said above, I was having trouble finding even a source corroborating that belief from a non-YEC news organization. Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. Sometimes its hard to flesh out what people are saying. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Redirects Dan Anderson (voice actor) and Glennis Yeager

Hello. I've restored the redirects on both of those pages since a purpose redirects is to redirect the user onto the pages with the material relevant to the subjects if the subjects do not meet WP:BIO. So, since the two articles are plausible but does not currently have enough material, I've redirected it back to its appropriate targets. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 23:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I left a discussion on your Talk page. Not a huge deal to me - thought that Wiki frowned on circular links... Ckruschke (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Love the One You're With

Please stop removing the Bucks Fizz info from this page. A song should have an article if it has been covered by several notable artists. This is one and Bucks Fizz are a very notable band, therefore it should be noted. The fact that it peaked at #47 is irrelevant, it was notable as the follow-up to a top 10 hit and was an important release because of that (in fact crucial to the demise of the group in this case). Chart positions are not the only criteria for notability, but either way it was a chart hit which satifies notability anyway. Your undue weight argument also doesn't hold water - it's not my fault that the other sections aren't longer or editors haven't put the work in. However, feel free to see what consensus says and I will go with that. Thank you.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Tuzapicabit - as I've said, it has nothing to do with the band, the follow-up song, or our opinion of the group. The notability is based on THAT SONG. It peaked at #47 therefore it is by definition "Not Notable" - doesn't matter how many people wrote it up. As an example of the converse, I thought all of Styx's albums were great, but the press hated them. Do these albums become "not notable", eventhough they were gold/platinum/double platinum albums just because they had unfavorable reviews? Similarly, a band's single is "not notable" if it flops even if everyone in the world rights it up as "a possible hit". Not being mean - just being honest - I have no axe to grind against the band or you. Ckruschke (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Kuban

I've reverted you. We've had a discussion about this before, see[5]. Kuban's at least one of the most prominent and cited writers on this. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Doug. Obviously "I" was not included in your "we" since I didn't get on Wikipedia for the first time until five months later so I'm not sure how I would have known this. Not to be argumentative, but I've seen pages that look just like his, well cited and similarly "scholarly", on the Creation side and they are dismissed off-hand as non-RS/self-published personal webpages/blogs (thus my criteria for the ref's removal), but if Wiki decided he was ok then that's ok with me. I've never heard of him, but I would have no reason to hear of him. Just FYI - when you mass reverted my removal of Kuban's ref's, you also removed legitimate edits which I just redid. So FYI in case you see me editing on the same two pages.

Take care Doug. Thanks for looking out for me as always. Ckruschke (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Sorry, it was the 'wikipedia community' or 'noticeboard' 'we'. But that was pretty ambiguous, my bad. I'd forgotten it myself but did a search as I was sure we'd discussed Talk origins before. I take your point about similar pages, but the difference is, and I think its important, that Kuban is taken seriously in scholarly sources. If that wasn't the case I'd agree with you. Sorry also that I didn't look carefully at what I was reverting. Very bad of me, especially to do it twice. I try to break down my edits into multiple edits always hoping that some will be left when reverting, but that's no excuse for me not seeing you were inserting something at OOPARTS. I doubt that you think I'm looking after you very well. :) I also must figure out why this font has shrunk so much, that doesn't help. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I give you Kudos for remembering a discussion from eight years ago AND finding it. I might be able to do the former, but not the latter...

The font size issue is "odd". I'm only 44, but I'm having a tough time seeing stuff on even my 21" monitor... Ckruschke (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Did you see my post to [{Talk:Creation Evidence Museum]]? It's just a list of sources using him. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yea I did. Its all good. Thanks again - Ckruschke (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

It's nice to be young. I'm 71. Although the least time I had my eyes checked I had to have new glasses because I needed a weaker prescription! I know that the foundation has been messing with fonts recently. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My Dad is exactly the same age as you and I can't imagine him being as heavily involved on Wiki as you are (although he's on the computer alot, it isn't as involved as you are). He had coke-bottle glasses for years, but had Lasik done in 2007 or so. He's since moved onto wearing bifocals full time for reading. I bet it was a nice surprise to see your eyes get better! I had Lasik in January, although my eyes weren't nearly as bad as Dad's, and its taken a little getting used to. Although I can see great (Doc checked me out to 20/15 and I don't need reading glasses - which he kept warning me I would) I have trouble seeing really close in where in the past that was my "no glasses comfort zone" for doing really fine work like models and such. However, I'm really happy to be glassless for the first time in 34 yrs. Take care. Ckruschke (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks but poll failed...

Thanks for the early input to straw poll on edit placement/style for Objections to Evolution .... but it's become obvious the edit style topic isn't heading for consensus, useful discussion, or even good example of situation handling so ... I appreciate it but you were like the ONLY one to be on topic and can not go on with poll. Think that area of needs will have to wait or come in other ways and meanwhile I will work where seems more likely that it might be useful results. Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The O2E page is a hard one to edit. There are so many people who allow their POV to get in the way of honest comment/concensus that its almost impossible - by definition - to get anything done. I've been the "voice in the wilderness" for so long trying to make changes to the way the information is presented on this page, much to no avail, that its almost comforting to see someone else be kicked for once...  ;-)

I haven't been on Wiki as much in the past month as I've been in the past, but if you need/want my help/input on this page or any other, please do not hesitate to let me know. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Razzies

I just wanted to mention that the "Golden Raspbberry" awards had been spammed to dozens upon dozens of article by a single SPA, and that myself and other editors discussed the "award" at some length at Wikiproject Film and now at AN/I. The consensus is that we don't add these parody awards, which are really a form of derision and not genuine awards, to biographical articles without sourcing independent of the people who award the "razzies." Coretheapple (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh - I did not know this - sounds good. Thanks for the follow-up note! Ckruschke (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Veggie Tales

I put "better as a redirect" since I don't believe any single episode of the series meets Wikipedia standards for notability. I am aware of the double redirects, had no one reverted me, I was planning on removing the redirects from the list of episodes page. I probabley should have just listed the episode articles at Afd, but if you have better ideas, I'd like to hear them. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I thought you were going to say something about the pages not meeting the WP:OR test.

I think you'll have a tough time convincing anyone that these videos lack notability. If you set the bar this low, that videos that have sold millions of copies and are in a very well known genre are not notable, you have thus caught up thousands of other pages on Wikipedia. I was involved in a notability discussion on Afd and this was basically the final opinion of the moderator. I'm not saying not to do it - just saying I think it will be for naught.

RFC you may be interested in

Previously, you participated in an informal discussion at Talk:Eagles (band) regarding genres in the infobox. Due to a recent dispute, a formal RFC has been opened on the matter. Please feel free to comment as you see fit. --Jayron32 23:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Ckruschke,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2018 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

sphere

Hi, I saw your comment "the Bible says in numerous places that the Earth is a sphere".[6] The only examples I'm aware of are highly ambiguous at best, such as alluding to the planet's shape using a word that applies to discs just as much as bumpy oblate globes. Do you have a reference that explains in more detail the current scholarly estimates of what the various different writers of the bible thought about the earth (and its relationship to the sky and cosmos)? Cesiumfrog (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sayings of Jesus on the cross

Please see talk page discussion re Andrew Hamilton quotes and similar. Thx----08:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Frank Viola III for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frank Viola III is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Viola III until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spanneraol (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Content of John

Template:Content of John has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ckruschke. 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)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your comments from five years ago at Talk:3-2-1 Penguins!

Hi. I am nominating template:source for discussion. When you used the template, did you mean {{citation needed}} or {{refimprove}}? If not, what template did you intend to use? --George Ho (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow - this was a long time ago. Considering I was talking to a keyboard jockey who seemed to enjoy blanking whole sections because they were unreferenced rather than just tagging them, I was probably referring to {{citation needed}}. Ckruschke (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

December 2016

Hello, I'm Toddst1. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Year Without a Santa Claus, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. As someone adding or restoring unsourced material, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide adequate sources. Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And you're above any WP:BURDEN? Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. First - none of this stuff is mine. You can verify that through the history.

Second all due apologies, but rather than deleting the section, I flagged it as needing citation which is a perfectly acceptable option. A ref improve flag, in my mind, is much better than just wholesale deletion when there is material that's probably ok, but just isn't properly referenced. Since I didn't add any of this material myself, either those people who did will add the references or, after giving people ample opportunity to make the proper changes, we can delete the material in a few months.

I guess if you differ that strongly you can go ahead and delete it since you have obviously have seniority over me, but it appears to me that the material is sound and not simply fancruft.

Yours Ckruschke (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

It doesn't matter who originally added it. If you restore it, it's yours. Toddst1 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - disagree completely. However its a moot point - I deleted the section yesterday. Ckruschke (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Ckruschke