|“||Well that's my opinion, but I could be wrong.||”|
- 1 Help test new SuggestBot design
- 2 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 3 The gospel
- 4 Unexplained revert
- 5 User:Fjjlee
- 6 File:Christianity Branches.svg
- 7 You are welcome brother :)
- 8 Historicity of the Bible
- 9 Biblical Mount Sinai
- 10 Josephus
- 11 Supersessionism
- 12 ahem
- 13 Thanks
- 14 Arguable either way
- 15 Language of Jesus
- 16 Sidurisadvice.com
- 17 Hebrew Roots
- 18 Thanks
- 19 Hello
- 20 Judeo-Christian topics
- 21 Angel Moroni
- 22 Epic of Gilgamesh
- 23 Era nomenclature
- 24 greetings
- 25 revert on Muslim
- 26 A kitten for you!
- 27 Astrology and classical element categories
- 28 Ganesha
- 29 Postmodern religion
- 30 Monogenēs
Help test new SuggestBot design
We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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.
|133||2.0||Jewish Christian (talk)||2.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||2.0||Add sources|
|164||2.0||British Airways destinations (talk)||2.0||0.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||Add sources|
|108||3.0||Biblical and Quranic narratives (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||Add sources|
|51||2.0||Dormition of the Mother of God (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||0.0||Add sources|
|131||2.0||Jesus and messianic prophecy (talk)||2.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||2.0||Add sources|
|15,573||3.0||The Big Bang Theory (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||Add sources|
|12||1.0||Mark Allan Powell (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Cleanup|
|137||3.0||Christianity and violence (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||Cleanup|
|952||2.0||Carnival Cruise Lines (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||0.0||Cleanup|
|68||2.0||Censorship in Saudi Arabia (talk)||0.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||Expand|
|105||2.0||Roman Inquisition (talk)||0.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||Expand|
|179||2.0||Language of Jesus (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||0.0||Unencyclopaedic|
|67||3.0||Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||Unencyclopaedic|
|366||2.0||Judaism's view of Jesus (talk)||2.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||2.0||Unencyclopaedic|
|805||1.0||Hebrew Bible (talk)||0.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||0.0||Merge|
|1,138||2.0||Eastern Orthodox Church (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||Wikify|
|58||1.0||Norwegian Spirit (talk)||0.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||Wikify|
|187||2.0||Christian ethics (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||Wikify|
|2||1.0||Reed Lessing (talk)||0.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Orphan|
|3||1.0||Jewish views of leather (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Orphan|
|2||3.0||A. N. Sattampillai (talk)||2.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||2.0||Orphan|
|29||1.0||Manchu Shamanism (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|29||1.0||Perea (region) (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|4||1.0||Bible translations into Aramaic (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|4||1.0||Theological hermeneutics (talk)||0.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|3||1.0||Epistle to the Alexandrians (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
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) 00:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you notice, I reverted myself right after. 03:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, it was my mistake. Editor2020 03:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I would suggest a change from "Assyrian Church" to "Church of the East" in view of the schism between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East. Esoglou (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't make the image, just changed the description. Editor2020 17:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome brother :)
There are many verses from the Buddhist Holy Text "Tipitaka" which rejects the idea of God and ridicules it. There are many sources for that. But the hypocrites revert the changes. I hope we both can make a great contribution. with metta.
- I hope you will refrain from quoting extensively from the Buddhist sutras. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Joshua I am not going to paste whole Buddhist text or sutras on wikipedia. Just like you can give the verse from the Quran or Chapter no. Se we can give it too...but you should rather inform others. and yes Views of the Buddha( who is my spirit) should be quoted. Stalkford (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Much metta.
Historicity of the Bible
Why do you keep reverting changes?
Only 62.9% is subjective, it infers you think this is a small number. One could just as subjectively write "as much as 62.9%" removing the word 'only' adds neutrality.
Also, you are taking  out of context. The blog article infers that evidence shows that "Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible." (direct quote). You are using part of this quote to infer that it shows that the bible is historically incorrect. Using a quote starting with "but" shows you have only used part of a conjecture.
- That line—"Biblical archaeology basically supports the historical veracity of the Bible"—is one of the three things that Enns wants people to stop saying (see the title of the article). Enns disagrees with that statement. You're using it as if Enns agrees; that's just a misuse of the source. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Understood, but my point is the article only classifies ONE issue where there is a strong consensus against validity whereas the line "Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth and twentieth century have supported few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and refuted many of the others" infers that the majority are disputed. This is not in the article at all and a relevant source should be used to back this up or the actual quote used. "Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible." This does not say that the majority of old testament narratives are disputed.
- What about the 62.9%, the actual text this is pulled from states that "this result is quite amazing" using "only 62.9%" is taking the author out of context. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about the labeling but I had just reversed a few blatant vandals and was still in that mode. My apologies. I have no problem with the text as it now stands (with the complete quote provided). As far as the second change, if the source given uses "only", we should use "only". If not it should be deleted. Editor2020 16:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The Source does not use "only", the source actually states that it's "quite amazing" that this high a percentage correlates. I've checked a lot of the sources in this article and there are many POV adjectives added that were not in the original source, I'll go through and update some of these.18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide quotes if you do so. Thanks!Editor2020 01:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Biblical Mount Sinai
Some material has been deleted from the Biblical Mount Sinai article which clarified two important statements made by ancient historian Josephus. (1) The general location where Mount Sinai was regarded to exist in his day (a mountain that lay between Egypt and Arabia) (2) That the mountain was "the highest of all mountains" in that area.
Also deleted was the fact that Mount Sinai is not one peak but a series of peaks (which the average person is not aware of) and Etheria's confirmation that it appears as one mountain but actually contains several peaks when entered.
The average reader misreads Josephus as referring to Mount Catherine when he was more than likely referring to "Mount Sinai" as a whole.
Mount Katherine and Jebel Musa are both much higher than any mountains in the Sinaitic desert, or in all of Midian.
The above facts contribute reason for consideration of the traditional Mount Sinai as a suggested location for the alleged original.
When I first came upon this article it gave great weight to fringe theory locations and gave space to wild theories of plasma phenomena, etc. When I first read the article I felt I was reading an article which was saying: "Mount Sinai cannot be in the southern Sinai Peninsula but it seems like it might be in these other locations." The traditional site has for decades been broadly supported by scholarship and meets the test of notability but undue weight was given to newer, untested ideas. CWatchman (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please add back anything you feel is necessary, as long as you have references. Editor2020 18:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Editor2020, I noticed your edits on Category:Supersessionism. The result is that we have this once again categorized both under Category:Christianity and antisemitism and its immediate parent category Category:Religious antisemitism. I would suggest removing the latter as this is a specific Christian topic. Kind regards, 22:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You are correct. I will fix it. Editor2020 03:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible&diff=613215935&oldid=613190933 some discussion and respect would be appreciated. --Tznkai (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- No disrespect intended. Per wp:brd, now is the time for discussion on the article's Talk page. Editor2020 15:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad none was intended, since a blithe "not an improvement" is usually taken to be a rude dismissal of the efforts of others. Would you please explain your reasons, on the talk page, for not only thinking that my changes were not an improvement, but also why they were so unhelpful you reverted instead of attempting to integrate the changes? I quote the aformentioned essay: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see)." (emphasis added) --Tznkai (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Arguable either way
I went back and forth a few times before re-reverting. I think there's only one syllable there, and I remember "plug" from when I was a kid back in the 60s. While "pluck" makes sense in a food context, it was very common to use "plug" to imply shooting or stabbing someone (as common then as "capping" someone is now). May well be an "each his own" situation. Gee, I don't see why a flash conversion of an .mpeg file of DVD rip of an 80 year old movie isn't dispositive. However, definition 24 here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plug) where it speaks to removing a core or piece seems more in line with scalpel use.Zooks527 (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- I listened over and over, but can't say for sure. It could be "plug", so I'm not going to revert. Editor2020 17:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Language of Jesus
Dear Editor2020, I noticed you reverted a categorization in the article Language of Jesus. It concerned the category "Jesus and history". Please note that this category is not just about the historicity of Jesus:
- "Topics range from the culture and history of the Early first century Palestine and surrounding areas, through discussions of archaeological, textual and/or historical evidence supporting or denying Jesus' existence as an actual historical figure, to ancient texts describing figures similar to the traditional figure of Jesus."
- I don't think so, but if you add it I won't raise a ruckus. (By the way, thank you for all your work on reducing the amount of overcategorization in the religious categories.) Editor2020 17:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This entire page was reformatted, reorganized, and titled by me in 2012. As can be seen on the talk pages, this effectively ended the discussions and issues going on between the various contributors. There has been other contributions to the article since that time but there has not been any significant format changes since 2012 by anyone. Obviously you disagree. This page is organized for content. That is not to say it is complete. If you have specific recommendations, please let me know and I will make them.Mikeprescott (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Editor2020 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Dear Editor 2020, I am very happy for your edit in the WP page Marxism and religion. I wished to post a thank you note to you, but I could not understand how exactly I would do this. I humbly request you, maybe venturing beyond my authority, that you may please keep this page under watch. This page has been subject to vandalism before. And yes, thousands of students every year do visit this page on Marxism. Strangely though, after the fall of USSR Marxism is being taught with more critical attitude across almost all the universities in the world (especially in countries like UK, USA, India, Egypt, etc.). Please, if possible, make this page a place of secure edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arghyan Opinions (talk • contribs) 02:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Editor2020, this is my new account. My old account was Jerm729, but I changed it because of too many issues with other users in discussions. The reason why I am telling you this because I believe your editing skills are always in a progressive state of...well...progression. Your edits in biblical articles I have never had an issue with, and I really appreciate your editing on biblical articles and Wikipedia in general. -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. Editor2020 17:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear Editor2020, the CfD about Judeo-Christian topics in which you participated has been closed with a decision to keep the category. Apart from that, what is your opinion about my statement in this discussion that the category has been polluted with many articles that do not seem to belong there? Very specifically, would you mind if I would try a cleanup - or do you just entirely disagree with this statement? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please feel free to attempt a clean-up, paying attention to the actual meaning of Judeo-Christian, "a set of beliefs and ethics held in common by Judaism and Christianity". Editor2020 01:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- For now, I removed this category from 3 out of 4 child categories and removed the category from 4 out of 8 articles (this count excludes the lead article which I obviously left untouched). Personally I feel I've been very conservative. On the other hand, I'm curious if any reverts will happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Epic of Gilgamesh
My apologies for reverting your edits. The ip just before your edit was the one evading a block. Your edits got caught in an edit conflict as they weren't there on my edit screen. Sorry 'bout that, Vsmith (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Editor2020 01:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Can be a bit tricky as WP:ERA isn't explicit about what it means by "established", but this one started as BCE and a few quick checks shows no changes, just the addition of a few BCs presumably as people edited without thinking about the whole article. So I've edited it so hopefully it is all now BCE and AD (not that we really need all those BCEs as usually it is pretty clear). Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that that is more appropriate for this article. thanks. Editor2020 02:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
hello. I do appreciate your hard work and edits and clean-ups and careful scrutiny of WP articles, especially Biblical and Religious and Philosophy type articles. Most of your edits and mods I agree with, and I consider very good, or I am ok with, as you notice. Not all obviously, but most. But I was a bit curious about something. I was wondering if you sometimes might be following me around a little bit. Or if you have me on your "watch list" or something. (I think I might have asked you this some time in the recent past.) The reason I ask is because I've noticed that you have edited articles RIGHT AFTER I have (or at least very soon after), even in articles where you have no real history prior, in editing. Like recently the "Hades" article, as one of a number of examples. If so, why? Just wondering. Let me know. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, but evidently we have similar interests. I was editing long before you came along. Look at my contributions list and you'll see that I edit a lot of pages. I do tend to visit them when a change has been made, maybe that's it. Editor2020 02:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- ps. Just a quick check, but it looks I edited Hades as early as Feb 6, 2011. But let me know it you have figured out how to follow someone. Editor2020 02:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear user, I reverted this unsubstantiated edit [here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim&diff=610200554&oldid=605421981], which you have undone. The 10-20% figure is a general figure of Shias and 1% of Ahmadis, per source.--Peaceworld 19:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thanks for the thank
Astrology and classical element categories
The classical elements are assigned to the signs of the Zodiac and are part of most astrology systems as a search of gbooks with the search term astrology earth fire air water quickly shows. SpinningSpark 05:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I am readding the Budhhist deity cat as though primarily a Hindu deity, he is incorporated in Buddhist pantheons in Ladakh, Sikkim, Thailand, Nepal, Tibet etc, generally as a minor deity See Ganesha#Beyond_India_and_Hinduism. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear Editor 2020, I agree that postmodern religion is not a faith, but I do think that postmodern religion is a movement so that it belongs in the faiths and movements category. How else would you characterize postmodern religion if not as a movement? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why not just categorize as it Category:Postmodern religion, under Category:Postmodernism and Category:Religion, but I agree it's a close call and won't complain if you think you must add Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements. Editor2020 17:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The Quran does indeed state about Jesus uniqueness and born of virgin etc.
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (4:171, Yusif Ali)
He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son. 20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" 21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed." (19:19-21, Yusif Ali)
And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. (21:91, Yusif Ali
We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! (2:87, Yusif Ali)
Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute. (3:55, Yusif Ali)
Sura 4:171 -- O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
As I tried to make clear. The Quran and New Testament are in agreement. Excepting when various use the word 'begotten'. The word begotten is from NOT from the Greek monogenes but from the Latin and worse Vulgate at that.
That is why the Quran reacts the only begotten. But still expresses Jesus uniqueness.
Sura 21:26 -- And they say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! they are (but) servants raised to honour.
Sura 23:91 -- No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!
Sura 112:3 -- He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
It seems to me, that if you are interested in truth, then we should completely reject the later Latin corruptions which lead to the English only-begotten. And also cite supporting Quran scriptures of Jesus uniqueness and special position. PS: Sahih International translation is poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)