User talk:PeterWaldo

Welcome!

Hello, PeterWaldo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mecca

Sorry about that I must have hit revert on the wrong tab. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sabians

Hi, exceptionally good user name btw. I'm a little curious about the content appearing and disappearing and reappearing on Sabians. Mainly because it's such a badly written article anyway with a lack of decent WP:RS sources. I hold no particular brief for inclusion or exclusion of the chunk of text, but am certainly not impressed by deletions made by 1-edit IPs. You might wish to add some content to your user page, make a broader range of edits to other pages, and get involved with other Wikipedia articles, using WP:RS sources. As CambridgeBayWeather said, welcome to Wikipedia. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: pagan idolatry

Hi, I have reverted your edit based on edit summary and intent as your reasonings (and resultant actions) qualify as orginal research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. In respect to the edit itself, as cited elsewhere on Wikipedia, pagan idolatry was indeed a part of Christianity to one extent or another, and, in various sects, modified to be forms of idolatry towards saints, angels, etc. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The idolatry of the Roman Church is not sanctioned in scripture, so it's specifically UNChristian, but that's beside the discussion at hand. The Roman church idolatry you illustrated would not, and did not, include pagan Arabian rock idols of the Kaaba's moon, sun and star worship, any more than it would have the idols of the most venerated priest and priestess of the Arabian jinn religion, Asaf and Naelah, that were placed on al-Safa and al-Marwah, of which the pagans ran back and forth seven times in Arabian jinn-devil worship. Besides the fact that there is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that the Kaaba ever existed before pagan immigrants from Yemen built it in the 5th century, after having first settled Mecca in about the 4th century AD.

Hi again, for your edification, here's a link to a Wikipedia article on exactly this topic.[[1]] From there, there of course are the various cited sources that were used in the article if you wish to learn more about such. And remember, we are not talking about current Christianity - we are talking far earlier times. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my friend, the born-again followers of Jesus Christ were the same in the 1st century, in Muhammad's 7th century, and unto today. Based on the above is it a surprise so many Christians were martyred by the Roman Church over that very issue?

1Cr 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

The whole subject of the Gospel remains the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Messiah to save all from sin who have faith in His shed blood. Just as prophesied so many hundreds of years in advance. Because Islam professes the exact opposite of the whole subject of the Gospel, is why Christians are martyred by Muhammad's followers, who even kill their own sons and daughters for coming to Jesus Christ.

Hi, I think you missed my point. I don't care what's in the Bible. That's not relevant to what's in Christianity. The topic at hand isn't the Bible, or how various sects of Christianity are incorrect in what they do. And no, the followers of Christ are not the same. So many offshoots of Christianity exist, with sometimes polarly opposed views. But that's not relevant. We aren't (per Wikipedia's standards) the experts on these topics. Find another expert that contradicts him. That's pretty much the only way to deal with this within policies and guidelines. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The topic at hand regarded a vague reference to an American author that: "According to Marshall Hodgson, IT SEEMS that in the pre-Islamic times...". Wikipedia is built on what "seems" to people regarding such a heinous claim? It seems to who? "It seems" to Marshall Hodgson or "it seems" to the person who authored the single source nonsense that's reported in the article? Real decisive isn't it? Is that the way someone writes when they are truthfully stating matters of fact? But sadly evermore typical of Wikipedia.

Indeed who would ever dream that the Bible would be "relevant to what's in Christianity"! Well done! There hasn't been a single Christian ever since the first century, that has denied the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Messiah, as the source of our salvation through faith in His shed blood. That's because it's the whole subject of the Gospel.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Anyone who rejects the whole subject of the Gospel, doesn't believe in Jesus any more than a secular historian does.

1John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

March 2012

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalization

I saw you had a lot of problems with vandalization of your contribution. I fully understand you as I have experienced the same numerous time from the same user. My advice is to report it.Tritomex (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

However, although I am also beginner try to avoid qualifications like "absurdly claimed " You can show indirectly that the claim is in fact absured without qualifying it.Tritomex (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• You should investigate something before you falsely accuse. It wasn't me but one of the Muslim vandals that wrote "absurdly claimed". And unlike the folks that run Wikipedia who allow Muslims to censor and vandalize with impunity - while larding the pages of Wikipedia with Islamic so-called "tradition" that masquerades as thousands of years of history of Mecca, that is in fact pure fiction that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th century AD - I wish Wikipedia could be more like an encyclopedia. But even Encyclopedia Britannica who's letterhead hollowly claims "facts matter" has been tainted by the same nonfactual, historically and archaeologically unsupportable, and geographically impossible fiction of Islamic so-called "tradition".

http://www.historyofmecca.com/geography_mecca_islam.htm

Regarding signing my posts, if I posted in Wikipedia more than a few times a year I might remember to do that! Though the sinbot generally cuts the slack. Whoops! There I went again!PeterWaldo (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest you to write your problem as request for comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All

You can also report any violations of Wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_dispute_resolution Do not forget to write everything down before on talk page. If there is possibility to resolve the dispute through talk page, this possibility should be used primarily. Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I did fail to express myself sufficiently. Rather than the anti-Zionist censoring the Muslim's sentence that contained his unprofessional "absurdly claimed", it was instead used as a false premise, a ruse, to censor the entirety of what I had written in several sections, that was unrelated to that Muslim's childish sentence. And no I don't have the time to waste on trying to get Wikipedia to spank them as I know where it will wind up. Try it yourself. Just add the censored out part out of Psalms 84 "in Zion" yourself, and see what happens.PeterWaldo (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)