User talk:StAnselm/2013c
 | This is an archive of past discussions with StAnselm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| 2013c |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - ... (up to 100) |
It seems that neither of us wishes to be an administrator here.
We also seem to share the feeling that every editor has the potential to redeem past transgressions and become valuable, should they choose that path Fiddle Faddle 00:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Request
Hello St Anselm,
I have been working on St James' Church, Sydney for quite some time and have now nominated it for GA. Would you be willing to review it please?
Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure yet, but I had a quick look at it, and there is no way it can pass GA with this sentence: St James' is known for having more liberal and diverse theological perspectives than most other churches in the diocese on certain issues, particularly sexuality and the ordination of women. That is definitely original research. You don't need a citation in the lead, but material in the lead should be in the main body of the article - this is not. StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. Will look into it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if you can provide some encouragement
I am working with an editor, Rathfelder, whose name I have not linked to in case my discussion here might make him feel bad. he has great enthusiasm and great energy, but my feeling is that it is off target. I'm trying to correct his aim and to help him move from enthusiastic to excellent (hence my desire not to discourage him by his finding this message at least before you have replied to it or considered it.)
His articles are entirely outside your field. He is UK, you are a fair distance away. That will mean that you bring an outsider's perspective to looking at his work and guiding him.
If you scan his talk page, just the index, you will see that he has been creating a great number of articles about entities that are notable, but whose articles are most assuredly lacking. He has "Stub and move on" edited. I am trying to persuade him to revisit all of the stubs, one by one, and to turn them from unreferenced stubs to at least stubs with references. To do this I had to fire a large shot across his bows in order to get his attention. Now I have it, at least to an extent, but I am in danger of wearing out my welcome in his life.
With that in mind I looked for a decent editor, one with who I have interacted and share at least some similar goals, but one who is, by and large, a stranger to me in order that I do not influence them one way or another by whatever my track record with them might be. I think I have found such an editor in you, and ask for help in guiding Rathfelder's aim. Fiddle Faddle 11:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality of articles relating to Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles
Please stop deleting relevant links that are added to these articles, or else show that the links are truly not relevant to the person or organization at hand. Your repeated deletion of these additions, followed by the accusation of spamming toward those who add the links, does not reflect well on Gothard or on IBLP but merely shows a strong bias. As you can see, a notice has been placed at the top of the entry for Bill Gothard indicating that the neutrality of the article is disputed; neutrality demands objectivity, which includes the presentation of various views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.85.214 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Publication
To publish is to make public. At some point, and some how, Daniel was made public. I doubt that there was a book launch, or reviews in the local media, or an author tour, but allowing for the conditions of the time, published is not, IMO, inappropriate. But I changed it anyway - if you think the word jars, no doubt others will too. :) PiCo (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've been intentionally avoiding the great debate on the article talk page, but I did notice it, and it did jar. StAnselm (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Crucifixion darkness era issues
Greetings, StAnselm. I noticed that you changed all CE mentions to AD in the Crucifixion darkness article with this edit. I undertsand why, but I want to urge caution here. As you may or may not know, an editor has almost entirely rewritten the article in the last 6 months, and it is currently undergoing a thorough review for Good Article status. There was a time when the article used AD for dates, but in the last six months most of the sources have been replaced, the article has been reorganized, and even the name of the article has changed. It has used CE pretty consistently since at least July. Given all that, I think it would have been better to discuss the issue on the talk page, as recommended at WP:ERA: "BC and AD are the traditional ways of referring to this era. BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and religious writings. Either convention may be appropriate. Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change."
It may seem like a lot of rigamarole for something as dry as a date format, but people do seem to get upset about such things. There have even been arbitration cases about it, if you can believe that. For formatting issues like this, I tend to favor whatever format is used by the most prolific content-creator in an article. (That's certainly not me. All my edits have been minor rewordings and reference fixes -- nothing substantial.) Anyway, we can discuss it at Talk:Crucifixion darkness if you like. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|
Thank you for reviewing St James', King Street! Here's a little something from Newtown. Amandajm (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
- Re the Theology at St James', those who regularly attend elsewhere have cause for such comment. The usual sermon by a Moore College graduate is a lengthy repetition of the scripture in different words, with some reference to the elder son borrowing the car, or the younger son tipping his weetbix on the floor. The least relevant sermon I have heard recently was preached by a senior minister to a large congregation that included almost no "new" Christians, and included possibly a hundred who had been Christians from 40 to 80 years. The scripture, which gave plenty of scope for mature contemplation, was interpreted at the level of a pre-confirmation, thirteen-year-old Bible study, and with a presumption that all the listeners were new to Christianity. Jesus instructed that the sheep needed feeding, along with the lambs.
- While I have defended the fact that psychology is part of what is taught at Moore, I should qualify that by saying that I am led to think that the main thrust of such teaching seems to be that women are intrinsically different to men in the sight of God. Whiteghost and I are both female, and just possibly feel a little disenfranchised.
- Amandajm (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, StAnselm! I was just putting my finishing touches on my opinion of the renaming of Eleazar Avaran to Eleazar Maccabeus when I saw that you reverted the change! If User:IZAK challenges this and/or if more opinions come in, I hope you will be able to place the proper templates onto the talk page and initiate the proper log entries in order to make it an official discussion. I'm not sure how to do this. For the moment, however, this may be premature; it may not come to that. Kind regards,--@Efrat (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
More Maccabees
Greetings, StAnselm! I just noticed that you have already reverted John Gaddi and Jonathan Apphus. Thank you. There is one more, Simon Maccabeus back to Simon Thassi. Also, User:IZAK has started a discussion on the page Talk:Eleazar Avaran However, he did not make it an official WP:RM discussion. Could I trouble you to take care of that bit of housekeeping? Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
anti-Islamic POV
You've been warned about your anti-Islam views in the past. if i see it again i'm taking you to An/I. Edits like this where you are positioning religions in certain hierarchies are pointless. Pass a Method talk 05:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have made such an aggressive post if i saw you make a consistent stance. For example if you consistently supported a chronological order. However i have seen edits of yours in the past where you support an alphabetical order. Such double standards are the reason i complain about your edits. Pass a Method talk 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would also like to remind you that following an editor to an article you've never edited before after getting into a content dispute with them falls under the definition of WP:STALK. I've seen editors getting indefinitely blocked for such behavior, so it would be in your best interest to stop. Pass a Method talk 17:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
FFS, words have meaning
OK, putting a pin in here. Will try to explain it all to you tomorrow -- Kendrick7talk 03:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Attack on Episcopal Church and Bishop Pike
This edit shows that you either don't understand how to cite reliable sources and attribute their content to claimants appropriately, or you are deliberately using Wikipedia to attack religious institutions and their members. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Half Barnstar |
| With less reasonable editors, the dispute over Gary North (economist) could have easily escalated into WP:AEGS high drama. Instead, you were willing to discuss what actually concerned you and come to a reasonable compromise that both of us could live with and which improved the article. This is how all disputes should end. MilesMoney (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |
you know nothing of this subject
Why don't you go listen to the sermon I mentioned if you think it's "just my opinion"? You wikityrants really piss me off. If you refuse to look at the evidence, how dare you criticize the conclusions drawn from it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.226.96 (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Michael Pearl qualifications
Your undo is unacceptable. You're asking me to prove a negative. I'm reinstating my change and the onus is now on you. I've provided a bulletproof citation from his own website. Mongoletsi (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Have you ever considered standing for admin yourself? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have, and I have decided not to, for various reasons. (I have a user box to that effect on my page.) But I was thinking the other day, how nice it is that we respect each other - we've come a long way since this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I had long forgotten that and barely recognise it, shows how wrong first impressions on one isolated article can be. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your thoughtful and attentive review that has driven me to make the St James' article better. You realise, of course, that I would like it to go onwards and upwards to FA. :) So if you have any advice, suggestions or recommendations, I encourage you to throw them in my direction. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Pauline corpus
I wrote "if any" (a weasel phrase which you rightly deleted) in order to suggest there might be none. You say "some do". Who do? Perhaps the text should read "no scholars"? Regards, Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- My comment is re Pauline Epistles, my apologies for not leaving the link. Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, pleaseconsult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
AN/I thread.
Your name has been mentioned regarding an issue you may be involved in. The title of the thread is "Editor removing Islamic content". Pass a Method talk 12:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I just found out John Carter has retired after being topic banned, a big loss. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Restoration of Peter
 | On 1 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Restoration of Peter, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the restoration of Peter (pictured), Peter's triple confession of his love for Jesus is thought to reflect his triple denial of him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Restoration of Peter. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ICC World ODI XI may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
- {| class="wikitable"
- ]|| {{flagicon|Sri Lanka}} [[Tillakaratne Dilshan]]|| {{flagicon|IND}} [[Gautam Gambhir]] || {{flagicon|SRI} [[Tillakaratne Dilshan]]
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Christianity 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:
- we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission" ([http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3G.HTM Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1213]; "Holy
- Aksum]] at the end of the 4th century, making an African kingdom the first to establish the church.{{fact}{{Contradiction-inline}}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Following me
Did you follow me to the Iran article? Pass a Method talk 20:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your talk page is on my watchlist, so I saw User:NPguy's comment. StAnselm (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
(Vandalism/Help)
Hello StAnselm,
How do you block a user for vandalizing an article? I undid edits by an unregistered user, but it seems the user has been warned several times. See revision history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salome_Alexandra&action=history – Jerm729 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response...I'll just watch the unregistered user and see what happens. -- Jerm729 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
When are you going to stop following me to articles you've never edited before?
Following editors to articles you've never edited before is covered under Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Campaign to drive away productive contributors.
The policy page Wikipedia:Harassment similarly states that one should "avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge". It looks like you are simply trying to harass me, probably because of a previous content dispute. Please stop your behaviour.
Forget about me; the type of intimidation and hounding you're engaging in is hamrful to the spirit of wikipedia in general. Last year one of the best wikipedia administrators ended up quitting altogether because an I.P. would constantly torment him until he had enough and quit.
Even if i deserve to be stalked, for the sake common decency, you've been on wikipedia long enough to know better. If you're unwillivng to stop you're abusive behaviour for me, then at least do it for the admin who quit last year because some idiot proxy would not stop badgering him to death. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 04:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comments you have left elsewhere adds more credibility to the notion that you are trying to bully me. In these particular comments, you appear to be admitting that you are intentionally trying to lure me into breaking BRD. I know that you are capable of making constructive edits, so please can we have more of that but minus the abusive behaviour please. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 05:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Articles about the Korean Presbyterian Church
I suggest that the Presbyterian Church of Korea should be separated from the Presbyterian Church in Korea (TongHap) because the Presbyterian Church of Korea was an united body till 1959 when HapDong and TongHap groud divided. The Presbyterian Church of Korea article should be the Presbyterian Church in Korea (TongHap) denominations Wikipedia article. In the World Communion of Reformed Churches member is the TongHap Presbyterian Church. In the members list of the WCRC are the Presbyterian Church of Korea, but this referrs to the Presbyterian Church in Korea (TongHap) and the link opens the TongHap website. The Presbyterian Church of Korea divided into 2 parts, so its a defunct denomination, Its successorrs are the Tonghap and Hapdong groups. So please help me correct this.
If you disagree with someone's addition to an article, how would you define BRD? Pass a Method talk 20:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then you are at the "R" stage, and you may revert, though it's a good idea to explain that in the edit summary. It is then that a discussion should take place, with the article left in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made. StAnselm (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- What if the two editors disagree on the talk page? What's the next step? Pass a Method talk 20:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- There are a few options - Wikipedia:Third opinion (which I haven't seen used very often) or Wikipedia:Requests for comment (which is much more common). StAnselm (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- What if the two editors disagree on the talk page? What's the next step? Pass a Method talk 20:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
EvergreenFir (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
For the love of all that is good and holy
... what is wrong with you?[1] You stand here before me claiming the name of Saint Anselm but you believe no one in all of time and space has ever been theologically opposed to Catholicism? What kind of drugs are you on, and please, may I have some? I'd much rather sleep forever than continue dealing with you, frankly :( -- Kendrick7talk 05:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- And, you know, I've asked you before not to WP:STALK me[2] but boom [3][4] there you are right in my rear-view mirror. So look: we are apparently both very passionate about the topic at hand. How about we have a discussion like two rational human beings? -- Kendrick7talk 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- And you can't see the least bit of irony in following "I'd much rather sleep forever than continue dealing with you" with "How about we have a discussion like two rational human beings"? StAnselm (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- As we've been edit warring for months now, I'm trying to WP:AGF. I thought I could just dismiss you as concern troll over a few articles. But since you are following me around on Wikipedia, I'd really like to know where you are coming from on this topic. -- Kendrick7talk 06:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- And you can't see the least bit of irony in following "I'd much rather sleep forever than continue dealing with you" with "How about we have a discussion like two rational human beings"? StAnselm (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Update on article
Hi St Anselm, Just to let you know, I have taken the plunge and nominated St James' Church, Sydney for FA. Feel free to point out any errors you spot (whether niggling or egregious). In any case, I will rely on your good will, even if it is silent. Couldn't have got this far without your earlier review. I have made further amendments to the section you were not content with before and am continuing to correct other problems being pointed out. Hope to make it to the summit. Cheers, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
BLP violation?
Hi, on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sportfan5000 you voted to delete the page as a BLP violation. Could you clarify what exactly is the BLP violation? Thank you. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've responded to your mistaken assumption that a title of an article was a BLP violation. Could you have a look and see if there are any actual BLP violations? Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, and thank you for responding. I noted that that serial killer comment is actually part of an article title which is now at User:Obiwankenobi/Wolfgang Schmidt (serial killer). Was there anything else you think is a BLP violation? Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Repeated information
Hi StAnselm, It's about the information that you wrote at the article Jesus:
"The calendar era Anno Domini (abbreviated as "A.D.", alternatively referred to as "C. E.") is based on the birth of Jesus."
That information is already at the paragraph before of this paragraph. But I can't erase this because this article is semi-protected. --Giliofelix (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
criticism of Jesus
Hi. I made some edits to your edits of my edits :-) You moved the "Criticism" section into the "Other Views" subsection of "Religious Perspectives." The criticisms aren't religious perspectives, so I took them out of that section. I noticed you deleted the supporting quotes for Nietsche's criticism. They seemed relevant to me. Can we agree to restore them, trimmed? Re-reading my quote, I agree it was a bit rambling. Also, you deleted the summary of the criticisms: they tend to fall in the categories of vindictiveness and prudishness. What's wrong with summarizing that? Finally, it seems sort of obvious that saying Jesus condoned slavery is a criticism.... Howunusual (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Your Eurocentric editing
The neutral point of view policy has a FAQ page which gives us an outlook on the question of wikipedia's opinion on Eurocentric editing, see Anglo-American focus. Please change your editing style accordingly. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 23:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Work in progress
Its not a good idea to intervene in the midst of a series of edits and tell an editor that their work is unconstructive. Please wait until the edits are finished before you make a judgement or delete all their work. Pass a Method talk 00:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't intervene after a series of edits; I intervened after one edit, and there was nothing to suggest that there were more edits to come. StAnselm (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
23 December 2013
Your recent editing history at Christianity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Pass a Method talk 01:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
BLP
Well is Jesus is alive, then WP:BLP would absolutely apply <g>. MM does not object to "Fringe" but objects to "Conspiracy"? Interesting dichotomy -- I would figure both would be about the same in strength. Collect (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Reverting multiple editors
If you're reverting multiple editors, it means you're editing against consensus. Pass a Method talk 11:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for full edit protection for this article, in response to the recent back-and-forth between yourself and User:Pass a Method. I am inclined to protect the page accordingly, but would prefer that the two of you agree not to edit the page for a time, and instead work out your differences on the talk page, in a draft, or through an RfC. Are you willing to do this? bd2412 T 20:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Islam
i have never seen you deleting Christian content but you regularly remove Islamic or Quranic content. May I ask why that is? Pass a Method talk 08:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring
I'm surprised at this. Ok, you're minutes out of the 24 hours, but I'd block for that if I saw a report at ANEW that someone had reverted 3 times in 24 hours and again a few minutes later. It shouldn't be necessary to give you a formal warning. I'm going to warn Passamethod now. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. as I only just now discovered this was across several articles. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
|
Merry Christmas |
| and a Happy New Year to you; hopefully you will continue to add new fine entries to the encyclopedia. Iselilja (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC) |
A beer for you!
|
Thanks for your assistance and input at WP:POV Railroad! — Keithbob • Talk • 02:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC) |
A cup of tea for you!
|
I'm sorry we've found ourselves on opposite sides of the issues, sometimes strongly so. I hope to continue our work with mutual respect in 2014. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hebrew Gospel hypothesis
- Can you watchlist Hebrew Gospel hypothesis please. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)