User talk:Editor2020/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Editor2020. 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.

Hi. Thank you for the edit on Abrahamic religions‎. Looking at it, I see the section on homosexuality is actually under discussion.

What is strange is that you claimed I was using weasel words. In fact, the entire section is suspect because it makes false and bizarre claims (such as that all Abrahamic religions bar homosexuality). I hope you will contribute to the discussion of this page because it's really misleading. Wakablogger2 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the whole homosexuality section (if not the whole sexuality section) is unreferenced original research and needs to be removed or rewritten.--Editor2020 (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that and the reference :) Wakablogger2 (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why you removed the History of Science expert tag on the Hanne Blank page? Was it because you didn't see any reason for it to be there, or was it because you are a History of Science expert and you didn't see anything to add/remove?

If neither reason, would you consider restoring that expert tag to the article?

If you'd like to respond directly me, you can do so at malcolm.gin@gmail.com, but I will also subscribe to your talk page via RSS. --216.152.101.64 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The page very marginally connected (if at all) to the History of Science.--Editor2020 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So the question is one of scope: Is the History of Science category/body of work purely the History of Science or does it also include folks whose work is about or involves the History of Science? Hanne Blank writes about the History of Science (that's what the newest book is about). I think it's provable that her discipline is about the Philosophy of Science. And it's definitely about the Category:History of medicine.

Would it be possible to have you replace the expert tag for History of Science with another portal/project that is equally useful?

I ask because I'm trying to reduce my time-committment/personal investment in Wikipedia, but I also want to help work within the system to try to better the articles I'm strongly interested in, not reduce their usefulness. If you can help increase this article's usefulness but calling for help with it from a helpful specialist project, that would be awesome.

Thanks in advance. --216.152.101.64 (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to work with me! -216.152.101.67 (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Is it necessary to clarify further the page?

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernust (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I made some grammar and english usage changes, and it looks good to me.--Editor2020 (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed category:Tanakh stubs from Christianity stubs. Ideally, the Tanakh stubs category ought to be renamed "Hebrew Bible stubs". All the other Tanakh categories were renamed as Category:Hebrew Bible etc, so that Jews and Christians could both use them, instead of having largely duplicate categories called Tanakh and Old Testament. Anyway, the Tanakh stub category is here for now, and Christians are as likely to expand the articles as Jews; so may I reinstate the head category? - Fayenatic (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, if you feel that is better.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi E.2020, I notice in your recent edits at Brahmoism that you removed all the wikilinks to Years within its History and Timeline section. On comparing this article to the Brahmo Samaj page there seems to be a consistency in formatting theme for these related articles (which are clearly under upgradation and expansion recently), the intention apparently being for easy quick-link to these dates for scholars/ visitors. This is not a gripe, just a share. 91.84.248.29 (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style (See WP:date) "solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations" are not supposed to be Wikilinked.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks 4 your edits at Brahmoism. So does this mean that "non-solitary" dates like 20 January 2008 can be Wikilinked? I was under the impression that only important dates/events are to be Wikilinked, so would normally Wikilink as January_20 and 2008 etc. 91.84.248.29 (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking only important dates would make more sense, but my understanding is that the linking is not for the date itself, but so it will display according to the users date preferences. That is, as (January 20 2008) or (20 January 2008) or (2008 January 20) or (2008-01-20). (see Autoformatting and linking).--Editor2020 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Note : The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. MOS:SYL--Editor2020 (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Editor2020 I am the editor LoveMonkey. There is an edit war on the Gnosis article. You as a poster of various religious articles might be able to help. I was hoping to disparage with the edit war and address a key issue that was interjected into the article by the opposing editor. Now that Hans Jonas (which invetablity leads to Eric Voegelin) has been high profile added into the article. I was wondering what would be the appropriate non POV way to handle Hans Jonas and by proxy Gershom Scholem's criticism that gnosticism is one of the Core reoccurring factors in anti-semitism [1].
Thanks
LoveMonkey (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, but I'll try to be a impartial voice.--Editor2020 (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent I appreciate your time, input and opinion.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It keeps Category:Churches by continent among the top of the subcategories on that category page. --Carlaude (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK then. I've never seen anyone use both a blank to sort to top and use a sort word. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't a mistake.--Editor2020 (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Look again. E.g. Category:Church buildings by city and Category:Category:Church buildings by country do the same thing and were set up before I edited the Category:Church buildings page. --Carlaude ^(talk) 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be!--Editor2020 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editor2020, I just want to credit you for the balanced and impartial way you're intervening in the persistent problems with this page. Thank you and best wishes. Vajraspanner 15:02 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Editor2020 (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if you could look at [2] Cheers 60.229.34.127 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was this deleted? [[3]] Is there a reason? Unless you'd want someone to create a redirect I'd suggest in good faith, that you reconsider your position here. The TSE Bible, is also called Sacred Scriptures. Therefore, instead of changing the redirect, I put the mention at the top using the correct template. I'd appreciate your cooperation. Kiddish.K (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of texts are know as "Sacred Scripture". Not all of them can be listed at the top of this article. To place a special note for this one would be WP:UNDUE, as noted in the edit summary.

I don't understand your comment about a redirect. Where were you thinking of changing a redirect? Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition already has its own article, so anyone searching for "Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition" would find that article. It should also be listed in articles and lists about versions of the Bible.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Editor

Hundreds of texts may be dubbed "sacred scripture" but often have other names, so this is an exception. You are right about the article, I see someone created the article in the wrong place. Even so, noone refers to the Bible as "The Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition", but "The Sacred Scriptures". Not much people refer to Darwin as "Charles Robert Darwin" but simply as Charles Darwin. I am trying to find some middle ground here. Typing four-five words for a Bible is pretty tiring! Your suggestion would be gladly appreciated. (Also if you could show me where to go to move the page to the Bible releated articles, I'd be much grateful) Kiddish.K (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

The article Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition is already in the category "Bible versions and translations". To go to that category, go to your search box and type "Category:Bible versions and translations", without the " of course. For information about categorization, you can enter WP:CAT. (I made this an active link, so you can click on it.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Great work Editor. Thank you. Kiddish.K (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, and one last thing. Is it acceptable to upload pictures that I have taken of the Bible, or would I be in violation of copyright rules? Kiddish.K (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't deal with images, so I'm not sure.--Editor2020 (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. Thank you for your help on the article so far. I'm not so sure about the deletion of "The TSE may also come under attack by Catholics due to the recent shift in opinion regarding the Name." but I'm content with the rest. Keep up the good work Kiddish.K (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

I don't think you are going to be able to get that version to stand, as it an unreferenced hypothetical.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be reverting some edits again [4]. I am not sure why you are doing so, but I assume it is because you wish to pursue your own beliefs on the matter, so I must remind you of WP:NPOV. In case you do not know, most scholars and theologians will tell you, what you have written is wrong. Now, if we cannot resolve this, I'll have it changed to YHWH instead and we'll just have to agree on that. It's not Jehovah - Jireh/Shammah in the Bible. Please, stop changing the articles and talk first. That way we wouldn't have this contention. Kiddish.K (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no agenda at all. Just trying to get a good, clear, understandable article. Personally, I agree that Yahweh is the correct form. But as you are going to find out, on Wikipedia, personal opinions don't count for much. If you can't provide a verifiable and reliable source, it's gone.

But I didn't change the article, you did. And I reverted it. Not to "my" version, but to the version that was there before your edit. That's how Wikipedia works. Edit→Revert→Discuss. See WP:BRD. If you continue to edit on Wikipedia, you are going to have hundreds of your edits reverted. Don't take it personally. You must remember that there are hundreds of editors with different opinions than yours, and you'll be much more successful at getting your viewpoint included if you learn to work with them and discuss your disagreements in a friendly manner. But if you think you can get that edit to stick, go ahead and revert, I won't touch it.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done. ~ R.T.G 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Editor2020 (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it seems we have some differing views on whether it is spelled "Sofya" in relation to Platonism or "Sofiya". The reason I think it should be "Sofya" is because most of the sources that I've seen in relation to Plato and Platonism spell it that way. For example, on page 235 in the book Dostoevsky and the Christian Tradition by George Pattison and Diane Oenning Thompson (2001) it says, "Sofya/Sophia... which translates, of course, as Plato's Wisdom." On page 216 of Platonica by Alice Swift Riginos (1976) there's reference to "an Arabic translation in Codex Aya Sofya, Istanbul, 4833..." There is reference in Plato's "Symposion" in the Arabic Tradition by Dimitri Gutas (1988), "this treatise on the basis of the famous Aya Sofya 4832 manuscript..." If you Google search "Aya Sofya" or "Ayasofya", you get many more results than if you spell it with the "i". I could also find more citations with the spelling "Sofya" instead of "Sofiya" in relation to Plato and Platonism too. So, that is why I think it should be spelled "Sofya" instead of "Sofiya" in the In Platonism section of the Sophia article. Geneisner (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to create a Category:Protestant denominations‎ since it would be so similar to this Category, that is already time conusming & tricky to mantain.

This is no need to excude Category:Christian denominations‎ from Category:Protestantism since it creates no confusion to just leave it in. We can all see that it is not all (but mostly) Protestant denominations‎.--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, couldnt help thinking that the info is perhaps listed under List of Christian denominations, whereas the categories dont list half of it. ~ R.T.G 13:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You should also note that the List of Christian denominations does not list 85% of what is with all Category:Christian denominations‎ categories.--Carlaude ^(talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020, why did you put a category toc on Category:Christian denominations‎?--Carlaude ^(talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

1. You are not butting in at all, RTG, but are welcome to join in the conversation! Neither Carlaule or I own this category, and any opinions or input you have is welcome.

Every article listed at List of Christian denominations should also be a member of this category, but, as I think Carlaude is saying, this category will also include related (sub)-categories and related articles.

Not related articles, just Christian denomination articles and folders on the same.

2. Carlaude, I never said or implied that a category "Protestant denominations" should be created. I said that including Category:Christian denominations as a sub-category of Category:Protestantism is incorrect because many its members are not Protestant groups, and it thus intentionally categorizes them incorrectly..--Editor2020 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not what a sub-category means. B being a sub-cat A does not nessarly mean that 100% of B is a part of category A-- but any system that making things easier (and not harder) to find/use/maintain is a good system.--Carlaude ^(talk) 21:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

3. The Category TOC was added because it helps in the navigation of a large category (such as this one), one in which there are too many top level members to be listed on the first display page. That is how we can have a large, but still easily navigable, category without having to put most of the articles in sub-categories.--Editor2020 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That will make it requiered to know a denominations‎' name (or sort tag) and that can be tricky even if I am a member of the denomination, because-- for starters-- denominations‎ often have names of long and short form, nicknames, etc.

Often people use Wikipedia to learn about that which they do not use the name of.

Many pages names will hinder the current system since the sub-category will also no longer be visible on any one page.

Please note that a major change (like you seek) to Christianity‎ Categor(ies) should be dicussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity‎ for consensus.--Carlaude ^(talk) 21:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about the Nov 10 undo of my merge of Righteous Harmony Society into Boxer Rebellion.

Sorry if I appeared not to discuss, but I thought I was following the instructions on how to merge. I put a brief explanation on the Boxer Rebellion Talk page, since there was no longer a Righteous Harmony Society Talk page to post on. My reason was that the RH article was a stub, had misleading information, was unsourced, and that it was part of the narrative of the BR article. No reason has been given for the undo except that editors "might" want to expand it.

Also sorry that I took so long to reply, but the undo of the merge was only labeled "cleanup," which didn't seem to describe the action taken. ch (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the reversal of the merge was not described as "cleanup", but as "revert non-discussed unnecessary merger". Changes made afterwards to improve the article were labeled "cleanup".

Normally, articles to be merged are tagged for merge, then a discussion takes place on that page's discussion page, a consensus is formed to merge the page, and the merger occurs. I didn't see that this process had occurred, and personally see no reason for this merger to occur, as this article can easily stand as an independent article. If you feel the article should be deleted, mark it for deletion, and a deletion discussion will occur. Yes the article had/has issues, but those issues can be fixed without a 'stealth deletion' via merger.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies again -- I appreciate your patience. I was following the instructions on Help: Merging and moving pages, which say "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument."

I understand that it is important to follow procedures, however, and have put a proposed merger notice on the RH talk page. Still, for future reference, how can one tell when a page such as "Help:merging and moving pages" is in fact wrong?

I'd be happy to expand on my original reasons for merging, which I put too briefly. It seemed reasonable to merge because the article was a stub, had not been developed, and could be integrated into Boxer Rebellion without loss of information to the reader. In addition, it is easier to introduce the new scholarly consensus the BR which have been developed over the last 20-30 years which are not reflected in the purely online sources of the RH article. I mentioned some of them on the BR talk page, including works by Joseph Esherick, Paul Cohen,and David Buck which reflect their own work and the wide research in the PRC. ch (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You can merge at will, but expect to have some of those edits reverted. Of course, being reverted is no big deal, it just starts the WP:BRD process, which is where we are now. Or you can have the discussion up front, then do the merger. Personally, I prefer the former, as it seems to me to be a more pleasant method.

I'd like to wait a few days to see if anyone has anything to add, but if you feel that a separate, more detailed article, linked to Boxer Rebellion where a summary could be provided, wouldn't be better, then feel free to restore the merge. Thanks for your patience.--Editor2020 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a category for Category:Triconsonantal roots and a series of like articles (though I think this is the best of them actually). It was a DYK and no one had a problem with it there. Another editor moved it to Q-D-Š minutes ago. Do you recommend that it be moved back? Tiamut^talk 23:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is a category for them, then obviously the prevailing opinion is that they should be included, so I withdraw my request.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 23:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:East Asian Religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020 (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I've replied to your question re Category:Religious comparison at my talk page. Btw, I have to ask -- how come you notified yourself about the above CFD that you opened yourself? I totally cracked up when I saw that... :) Cgingold (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I did the nomination with an automated tool, and evidently it automatically notifies the creator. Either that, or my multiple personality disorder was acting up.--Editor2020 (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you revert this edit by an IP with no explanation? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The article had been experiencing a lot of vandalism. I was attempting to revert to an earlier, pre-vandalism version. Apologize if your edit was inadvertently caught up in that.--Editor2020 (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Recently I have noticed that you have been removing the Assemblies of Yahweh links from articles i.e. Obadiah School, and removing the title "Sir Elder", from Jacob Meyers name. Could you stop doing that please? In Citer (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See the naming conventions at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#People. It is inappropriate and goes heavily about our policy of WP:NPOV to call him "Sir Elder." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

They want the AOY article deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.103.241.89 (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 , you appear to keep an eye on List of new religious movements -- Partridge with 27 others has a book out on new religions that has a better categorization of them than in the Wiki category of new religions. Redoing the Wiki would be a lot of work but I may be able to help it a bit by adding 2 categories from Partridge - Western Esoteric and New Age and Modern Western Cultures. Several of the current categories would then go in these and permit adding several that have no category as of now. Is this OK with you?Jlrobertson (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's fine with me.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do65.26.156.212 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm curently working on the John Smith disambiguation page. A couple of days ago you put a list of prominent Christian apologetics on the talk page, including John Smith. I was just wondering if you could tell me which John Smith you mean. Thanks. (Quentin X (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

I cut and moved that list from Apologetics because I felt it would be more appropriate at Christian apologetics, so I'm not sure who is being referenced. Sorry.--Editor2020 (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This one looks appropriate. John Smith (Platonist). At least he is categorized as a Christian theologian.--Editor2020 (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you change the category from Religion to Religions of California for the Fellowship of Friends article? The church is headquartered in California but has global membership? Thanks, --Moon Rising (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the article says that it is just a local congregation in California, not a denomination or a global organization.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The the article states: "The Fellowship of Friends has 60 centers in 32 countries worldwide." I consider that a global religion. Do you agree? BTW, where is the list where you found that the category was questionable? I've added the HotCat gadget - it's great, but can't find the list. Thanks, --Moon Rising (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the word "congregation" in the intro led me astray. I would suggest changing it to something more appropriate to a worldwide organization, ie "religious group", "organization", "religion", something like that.

I know of no list of questionable categories. Just go to Category:Religion and note the articles listed there. As you can see from the articles in this category, this is a general category and specific groups aren't listed there. If FOF considers itself a separate religion perhaps Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements might be better, or if it considers itself to be a denomination or subdivision of another religion, faith or movement, perhaps in that group's category.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added Category:Esoteric Christianity, as that is the self-description on the FOF website.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation of the different religious categories. I've deleted "religion" as you suggested and replaced with "religious faiths, traditions and movements". I think that's close. I removed esoteric Christianity. If you read the first 2 paragraphs of the web site more closely, you will see that the church has moved away from that (the Fourth Way - and the teachings of Gurdjieff & Ouspensky). Thanks also for your tagging the page. --Moon Rising (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe it is a good idea. I am new to Wikipedia and do not really know how to navigate as well I would like. I wanted to say that I believe that it should be ROIR and not "Reachout International Records" as the full name is not used much and has not been for a long time. Anyway, thank you for including me in the discussion. Many "old school" Wikipedia editors tend to be rude, arrogant, and may even come across as bullies in the way they bulldoze through others contributions. I appreciated the heads up from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnickcooper (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Although I might sometimes fail, I try to not be rude or bully other editors.--Editor2020 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm nominating an article you have worked on for deletion. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination). Borock (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's another: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satanic holidaysBorock (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I’m posting this comment on the discussion pages of several users who were involved in editing the article Race and crime before it was merged into Anthropological criminology, to let all of you know that I’m working on recreating the Race and crime article. My current draft for it can be found here. I would appreciate help from any of you with two things related to this:

1: RegentsPark, the admin who protected the redirect from Race and crime to Anthropological criminology, has suggested that the statistical information in this article should be better-integrated into the portion of it that discusses how these statistics can be interpreted. I would appreciate help with improving this aspect of the article, or any other aspects of it that you think could be improved.

2: RegentsPark has let me know here that he won’t be willing to unprotect the article himself, no matter how much it’s improved, so if I would like it to be unprotected I should propose this at WP:RFPP. I’ve proposed there that it be unprotected, but the admin who responded (User:Camaron) stated that without RegentsPark’s approval, I would need to first obtain a consensus that the article should be recreated. If you think the article does not require any additional improvements, and is good enough to be recreated in its current state, I would appreciate you making your opinion about this known on the draft’s discussion page, so that we can begin to create a consensus for this.

Thanks in advance. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This article, to which you have contributed, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. If you prefer to put it back, feel free to do so. Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

International Cultic Studies Association needed that boost. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Editor2020 (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

hello... While I do appreciate your contribution to the "Divinity" article, and the work you've done, I'm wondering why you reverted a good-faith edit, with no explanation. Is it because you personally favor the rendering of "Yahweh" over "Jehovah"? If so, that's arguably NOT a good enough reason to undo someone's edits, that were A) accurate, B) neutral, and C) good-faith. Personal tastes are not reason enough, according to Wikipedia policy, to summarily "revert" an edit...that you personally don't agree with, because of personal bias or tastes. "Jehovah" is a valid term, for the "Old Testament Name of God", with enough reference support, in and out of Wikipedia itself. No valid reason to undo or change that. Especially with no explanation. Only vandalism or inaccurate things should be "reverted". WP policy says "reverting" should RARELY be done...when in doubt, DON'T, it says. (As seen in WP:ROWN, WP:1RR, and WP:0RR) Otherwise, please take it to the article talk page.....thank you. 68.237.240.68 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit incorrectly described your edit as "minor grammar fix, comma" when in fact you changed the usage from "Yahweh" to "Jehovah". That is not a grammar fix.Editor2020 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rearranged the sentence, but left "Jehovah".Editor2020 (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though your changes reflect the actual naming of the wikipedia articles, they are not intuitive as to the common names within the Catholic Church. The reason I put the "See also" and renamed them was to follow this line of thought: Secular institutes are one of the 4 types of consecrated lifestyles within the Catholic Church. The other three being: Religious Orders, Religious Congregations and Societies of Apostolic Life. Since all five articles are of Catholic theme, I thought the "Catholic" in the name was redundant and I just put the common names for the articles. Here is the difference between what I had:

• Consecrated life
• Religious orders
• Religious congregations
• Secular institutes
• Societies of apostolic life;

and what you have:

• Catholic religious order
• Congregation (Catholic)
• Consecrated life (Catholic Church)
• Secular institute
• Society of Apostolic Life.

If you still think that your naming is better for Wikipedia purposes (I won't argue, I'm just an collaborator), then they should be changed in all five articles, since I put the same naming in all five. Let me know and thanks in advanced.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I won't argue either, I'll change it back, if you think that's best.Editor2020 (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discordian calendar (2nd nomination) since you were one of the article's main contributors. Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to this proposal. I want to merge this article. Black Buddhist Check the talk page please and give your opinion Zaza8675 (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why you made these changes here to Leonard Draves (Latter-Day Saint). As far as I understand this person belongs in these categories, so I was confused. Did I do something wrong adding him to those categories? I would hate to make the same mistake twice.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a redirect page. If he had an article, all of these categories would be appropriate. Is he notable enough for his own article?Editor2020 (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he is notable enough to have an article independent of Church of Christ (Assured Way) (hereafter call CofC). If there were two pages I think a merge would be appropriate.

I'm still confused. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, I'm trying to learn. I have done this type of thing in a number of places regarding LDS sects and there founders, who don’t merit individual articles. Anyway, here is my logic including this redirect in the categories.

I looked at the current CofC and Leonard Draves as a single article about both these subjects since Draves redirected there. However, had the article been written under the "Leonard Draves" title with the CofC as the redirect the three categories would have applied ("American Latter Day Saints", "Founders of religions" and "Latter Day Saint leaders"). However, the Title “Church of Christ (Assured Way)” is not compatible with those categories since they are "People" type categories. The name would look silly. Quite some time ago I read WP:CAT-R which says "Sometimes a redirect is placed in an article category because the form of the redirected title is more appropriate to the context of that category." Draves fits into those categories, but CofC doesn’t. However, say I were looking into various "Founders of religions". I may see his name and say "Hay who is this guy" so the information is then available.

Is this an incorrect way of thinking?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is "an incorrect way of thinking" in Wikipedia, just another opinion. I wouldn't tell you that my way is THE way, so if that is the way you want to do it, go for it. Editor2020 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I just didn't want to be making the same error over and over again. Wikipedia has to many confusing and misleading "directives" some times.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if you don't make the same error over and over you have to come up with new errors to make. ;)Editor2020 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

LMAO... what prompted you to remove the trivia under Sodom and Gomorrah... I dont really care, I was just curious. Jasonasosa (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It just seemed so....trivial. Editor2020 (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

LMAO... if you want to see trivial... see Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego or Lot's wife even!Jasonasosa (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll check 'em out. Thanks. Editor2020 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey man! You are messing up my Table!

you need to have those brackets around [ Scripture ] to make the scriptures align correctly. WTF!? Jasonasosa (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry. Editor2020 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So, are you trying to make that column wider? Editor2020 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thats the only reason why those brackets were there.. couldnt figure another way.. :( Jasonasosa (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I hate you... Jasonasosa (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Islamic fundamentalism. A new editor has added a section on "Apes and Pigs" which I think is clearly not neutral, and I reverted him, but he's added it back. Can you take a look to see if the the edit is appropriate. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I continue to come across your work and I must say you are a valuable asset to Wikipedia. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Editor2020 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind remarks. I think many of the religious articles are too tied up with Christianity, rather than what they should be, which is comparative religion, as per an encyclopedia. Due to that, the definitions were a little broad and not relevant to other religions which feature salvation, redemption, forgiveness etc. One religion should not take dominance over the other, and personal beliefs should not influence it. One of the problems with wikipedia is that most people are either Christian or Atheist on the English wiki, and we do not have many Buddhists, Hindus etc to add information regularly. I'll try my best to improve the articles, for my part, and to eliminate POVs and bias. Nakamura Mondo (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick thank-you for the incredibly good clean-up and streamlining at the article. It just adds to the hard work being done there all the time, and beautifully eradicated the messy, silly edits.75.21.119.216 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind remarks. Editor2020 (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the in popular culture section? It was true. He had an unnamed child in the film. MR.LISYT (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC

It's fiction...This article is supposed to be about the REAL Ramses II. Editor2020 (talk)

That's actually a good point. My bad. MR.LISYT (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you working on Hampson (surname) as part of the copy-editors drive? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2011.

Also, have you considered whether Hampson and Hampson (surname) should be merged? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is how I ran across it. No I haven't thought about it. Editor2020 (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you doing good work on Ark of the Covenant. Just curious - I've always understood that external links don't belong in the text of articles but rather go into the External links section. Is it different with Biblical references? SlightSmile 02:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Wiki policy is, but that's the way I've seen it done and I'm not sure how else you would reference "xx in the Bible" sections or articles. I guess I'll need to research that.Editor2020 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I try one thing on the article? I'll just see if I can ref one of the links and then I'll let you continue. SlightSmile 02:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go for it! Editor2020 (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm done. You can revert if it's not right. SlightSmile 02:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert the changes I made which were in accordance with WP:ERA? 78.146.132.102 (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The usage was mixed. My mistake. Editor2020 (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert the section I wrote on Demons or false idols according to the New Testament? Mknight901 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't figure out what edit you mean. I've checked the articles demon and false idol and don't see anything, I've gone to your personal page, but you have no "contributions" listed there. Please provide a link to the article you mean.Editor2020 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the section Demons or false idols according to the New Testament. It was removed by user Editor2020 00:52, 24 February 2011. I was not logged in with this user name at the time but it shows the ip address was using.

In what article? Please provide a link to the article you mean. Editor2020 (talk)

The only edits I show for Feb 24 are: 23:15, February 24, 2011 (diff | hist) m Bande Nawaz ‎ (Reverted edits by 119.153.115.119 (talk) to last version by 119.155.109.217) 22:58, February 24, 2011 (diff | hist) m Ark of the Covenant ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by 70.44.187.17 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Steven J. Anderson. (TW)) 22:55, February 24, 2011 (diff | hist) Treaty of Ghent ‎ (Undid revision 415800210 by 70.73.73.176 (talk)battle of new orleans : January 8, 1815) Editor2020 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. The article is Testemant of solomon. here is link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testament_of_solomon

This is the history line which removed the section I wrote

00:52, 24 February 2011 Editor2020 (talk | contribs) m (10,718 bytes) (Reverted edits by 90.213.59.75 (talk) to last version by Editor2020) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mknight901 (talk • contribs)

The text was incorrectly formatted, the capitalization and spelling was incorrect, the edit was off-topic (the article is about the Testament of Solomon, not demons/idols in the New Testament) and lacked non-WP:Primary source references.Editor2020 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What would you suggest to fix a rather difficult to read sentence in the bible intro? Right now, the sentence is garbled at best. I'm not sure why there would be a full revert rather than an attempt to help improve it? — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 18:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor2020 I am just a lowly IP and don't have many rights, in fact I don't want to create a username because it goes against personal principles, although other editors at my this location do have user-names. I am currently being bullied by someone who is pushing Fringe POV Original Research and Synthesis on an article which should be restricted to discussion of a Hebrew term Notzrim. The User is continually reverting all my edits in which I have taken great pains despite disability to include all of the work the user has put in which do not try to convert the article into one about Nazarenes and away from the interesting and unique evolution of the meanings of the Hebrew term from the time of Jeremiah's writings up until the present day. I have requested a consensus before the user reverted again, but the user prefers to revert before consensus is agreed. Therefore I would like to request a page protection to ensure that the user engages in appropriate discussion of disputed references which the user continues to insert (with heavy alterations). Sadly the User has become angry at my attempts to establish dialogue and has been going through various related pages edited by this IP and removing references. If you are able to spare some time to take a look at the situation I am sure it would be very helpful. Many thanks 81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor 2020, I welcome you taking a look here.

User:81.103.121.144, I am evidently not "angry", it is simply Wikipedia policy that you should provide evidence for edits beyond a medieval rabbincal tract. That is a WP:Primary source. Likewise, please do not remove academic-sourced material. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor 2020, your format edits were great, but unfortunately started from a version which 81.103.121.144 had done, promoting the view of the "unique evolution of the meanings of the Hebrew term from the time of Jeremiah's writings" (i.e. the Toledoth Yeshu). The changes are so radical I can barely recognise the original content before the academic sources I inserted so that the content before refs has been changed to say the opposite of what the actual sources I added said. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor2020, it's still happening: indicative the problem affecting page: added 3 dictionary references as someone (perhaps yourself?) requested, but the words "though this was not always the case" then reappear in front of the 3 dict references which say no such thing: ref "Christian adj. n. נוצרי " (Notzri) The Oxford English-Hebrew Dictionary (9780198601722) 1999 p.69; The New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew & English Dictionary, Dr. Sivan Reuven, Dr. Edward A. Levenston, 2009 p.50; Ben Yehuda's Hebrew Dictionary, 1940 reprint, p.450 ref In ictu oculi (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was my request. I figure it's harder to argue with the actual words there in black and white, so I requested a quote. I still would like to see the actual words from the sources quoted, if possible. Thanks. Editor2020 (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well you'd think so, but the IP simply reinserted his/her dicdef in front of the Oxford Hebrew Dic footref, but yes I agree for all articles it's a good policy to follow and I have been trying on this one to insert at least the key sentence from books along with page and publication date. Maybe if we get a single day's break from the IP reverting to his/her page from 2 months back I'll do a thorough run through of the 12 main academic sources and key in the actual texts. Though longer term User John Carter's point to re-merge the Hebrew spelling with the English/Greek spelling probably makes more sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I have done some minor work and you have done some work on the Collective salvation article. What other items need to be worked on? Please see the note on the article talk page. I appreciate your constructive efforts. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Per your request for citations in the lead/lede paragraphs, it is done. Another other issues or thoughts? Please advise. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to verify some of your references, and as you can see on the article's page, it did not go well. I could find no verification for the claims made in the article. References must provide backing for claims made in the article, with very little room for Synthesis or Original Research. If you want to claim something, you have to provide a reliable source that says the same thing.Editor2020 (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Collective salivation? A slow restaurant? PiCo (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again,

As time permits, I will work some more on this article and the citation requests. B-T-W, I may be slow, but not stupid. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see suggested replacement lines that you talked about in Talk:Collective salvation. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The tidy-up edits at Notzrim are much appreciated. I hope progress won't be stalled by another revert war.149.254.218.241 (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks again. We now have page protection for 2 weeks, I have reverted to last sourced version and tried to preserve the many good format edits you made - unfortunately some had already been corrected in earlier edits to the sourced version. In this 2 weeks window I would like to invite you, PiCo, John Carter, Ian Thomson, Jayjg (I don't think any other registered editors/admins have been editing?) to consider whether an AfD or merge back to the Nazarene REDIRECT or something else is appropriate. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you're cleaning up again, if I could remember how to post the barnstar I would. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see AfD merge REDIRECT discussion on Talk:Notzrim, what's the next step? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Notzrim 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/Notzrim 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that an editor reverted your change of the year numbering system in the John the Baptist article. I saw that your edit summary was BC and AD per WP:MOS, and was wondering which part of the MOS you were referring to. Perhaps there is an inconsistency in the MOS, since if you go to WP:ERA (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers), you'll see it says "AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. CE and BCE are becoming more common in some academic and religious writing. No preference is given to either style" and "Do not arbitrarily change from one style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page". Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't change the WP:ERA, and that is not what I was talking about on the edit summary. If you notice, they were formatted as: "B.C" and "A.D" I merely reformatted the text without the period, i.e. as BC and AD. The MOS reference would be "BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, unspaced, without periods (full stops), and separated from the year number by a space or non-breaking space (5 BC, not 5BC)." Editor2020 (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahh. My mistake. I just looked at the edit summary and not the diffs. Sorry. Mojoworker (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking this outline over for completeness. Wikipedia keeps growing, and I noticed you are probably a lot more aware of Wikipedia's coverage of Islam than I am. I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 02:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll do what I can, but I'm far from an expert.Editor2020 (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you please explain why you removed my edits to Christian worldview? --CCeducator (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I did, in the edit comment. Replace it if you like, but please fix the spacing and spelling issues.Editor2020 (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, what were the misspellings? I could see one obvious typo, but that doesn't justify a revert. StAnselm (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, caught the latest revert :) Do you think there's a case for an article Pseudo-Biblical persons and places in comics, games and other popular entertainment? And would it stop the constant flow of junk edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Brought this up at WP:NORN - the article is full of OR about Canaanite religion, very few of the sources used mention Natib Qadish itself. You edited it a bit hence this notification. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And what wasn't verifiable on the part I did on the rapture article?

If scriptures do not count, then we should delete the whole article.

I opened a talk page on someone who is on that page alot, and asked them to fix what I had put. I didn't know how to cite the scriptures. Do you know how to cite them? Then cite them! HolyandClean (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of new religious movements BigJim707 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

• Thank you for your contributions to Christianity and environmentalism. (",) See WP:Tea. 99.109.126.95 (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to do it. Editor2020 (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The article Pre-existence features interpretive parenthetical statements on verses quoted from the Judeo-Christian scriptures, parenthetical statements which are slanted toward a pre-existent view and not presently provided with support by verifiable sources, but only read as Original Research (personal interpretation). The section is titled "Christianity" and for that reason I added some balancing statements slanted toward what I believe is the mainstream Christian view for a more inclusive presentation in that introductory section. Since the section is on "Christianity" and Wikipedia promotes inclusion of "all points of view", please clarify why you reverted as "OR" the edit with balancing interpretive comments, similar in form but opposite to those interpretive "OR" comments supportive of pre-existence that accompany the scriptural quotations in the current version this date, without also reverting them as well (i.e. for the same reason). I point this out from the stand-point of a former proof-reader of texts submitted for professional publication. The interpretive comments in the section as it is now lack documentation and balance. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If an article has Original Research ("interpretive statements"), the thing to do is tag them as WP:OR and if references are not provided in a timely manner, remove them, not add more. Editor2020 (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(p.s. And that article does have a lot of OR, interpretation and unreferenced assertions) Editor2020 (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought at the time that it was curious/odd that when you removed in a few hours (as OR) the similar-type balancing statements I contributed you did not also remove the others you here point out that the article has: a lot of OR, interpretation and unreferenced assertions (which have been present for a much longer period, in fact virtually from the beginning of the article—look at its edit history). Could you clarify why you didn't remove those too? (The text quotations from the scriptures would still stand as potential but ambiguous examples without any interpretive comments.) Thanks, in advance! Have a good weekend. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't do everything at once. ;) Now that you've got my attention, I'll be working on 'em! Editor2020 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

10-4 Good buddy! I'll support your effort any way I can. To save you some time—Take a look at the External link section I added earlier, for potential mining of citations of verifiable sources of some of the historical references, Origen, Turtullian, et al (I just didn't have the energy at this time to do it, not yet anyway, I'm close to seventy)—when I read the articles linked there it sure seemed like the other editor(s) responsible for some of the questionable OR got their stuff from articles like these. On the otherhand, excising the editorial OR comments altogether isn't a bad idea at all. I'll take a look in on you in about 2 weeks, see how you're doing and lend a hand if I can. Thanks! Pax. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you helped me design my user page. I'm very illiterate when it comes to dealing with HTML, as programming is my main field. --HolyandClean (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		In recognition of your recent cleanup of Creativity (religion), have this barnstar. Thanks for your help. --Scochran4 15:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And ditto, similarly, for others including partial clean up of Yeshu. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at my suggestion for a restructuring of the article "Pre-existence". What do you think? (My own senior editors said I have a talent for making suggestions that involve other people in a lot of work. But I'm not going to do that to you. I will do what I can, since I'm the one who made the suggestion. It'll take some time, though.) What do you think of the proposal? --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Editor2020 (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)