User talk:RoyBurtonson

This user has been on Wikipedia for 11 years and 4 months.

This user lives in the United States of America.

It is approximately 03:57 where this user lives (Arizona, USA).

This user is a Seventh-day Adventist

–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artaxerxes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Prophecy of Seventy Weeks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Jehoram, Hippolytus, William Burnet, Thomas Parker, Thomas White, Thomas Scott, Edward Cooper, John Fry, William Digby, Henry Drummond and William Sherwin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Veith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loma Linda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jehoiakim page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walter Veith 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/Walter Veith (2nd nomination) 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. TheLongTone (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Roy,

You reverted my edit taking out the repeated title "professor" in this article. In an encyclopedia it is not done to call someone professor all the time in an article, so, e.g., no "Professor Einstein" here and there etc. Your exaggerated reverence just does not make sense and seems ridiculous. Please show me examples on good wikipedia articles to the contrary to prove that you were right. Otherwise, please revert your change. Regards and thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Daniel 11 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |}
• very accurate.<ref>H. H. Rowley, ''The Growth of the Old Testament'', Harper: 1950, p. 158))</ref> All major conflicts are mentioned, and the [[Syrian Wars#Sixth Syrian War (170-168 BC)|Sixth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Just thanks for your contributions related to the SDA church! Cristian ] Yes? 05:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I had to revert your recent edits to Petersen Rock Garden. I did keep the name change from HPLO to Restore Oregon, but the other edits changed information that is sourced by reliable references. If, for example, you want to update the article to reflect the increase in the price of admission, you need to update the reference along with the change to verify that the new information is accurate. This is the case even if you know the fact to be true--information at Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you have updated sources to add to the article, that would be helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]