User talk:Josephconklin

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Seeaxid 13:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Bar Kokhba

I can understand your motives in linking the tracks, I think, but it's not really acceptable on Wikipedia. We link terms to articles about them; none of the links was to an article about the music — none of the articles even mentions the music, in fact. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't see any basis for reconsidering — my explanation above stands (if there were articles on each of the tracks, then they would be a good place for links to the other articles, but there's not enough to be said about the tracks to warrant separate articles). You could ask other editors, though, to see if they disagree with me. A note at the relevant section of Wikipedia:Requests for comment would do it.

Incidentally, the Wikipedia Manual of Style says that punctuation should only go inside inverted commas if it's part of what's being quoted or referred to (see Not to Touch the Earth). U.S. and U.K. English have different approaches to matters of this sort; sometimes Wikipedia goes with one, sometimes with the other — in this case it goes with the U.K. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

??? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
2. The link that you cite is relevant to the context, and leads to an article that that is what the reader would expect — an article about what is being mentioned. Your links led to articles that aren't about what is mentioned (i.e., tracks on an album). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dating of Matthew's Gospel

I apologize for upsetting you. I was concerned that the dating section was giving undue weight to a minority position (which isn't NPOV). There is already a big section about scholars who date Matthew early, and no explanation on why the majority of biblical scholars and historians date Matthew to 80-100. It seemed like you were just inserting your own POV into the article, as opposed to fleshing out a section that does need improvement. I have since readded your quote with a different phrasing, though I still believe there is too much focus on one side, but not the other, as it stand currently. Once again, I am sorry for offending you with my revert.--Andrew c 03:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)