User talk:Editor2020

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Help test new SuggestBot design[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Historical background of the New Testament (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: B Origins of Christianity (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Bible prophecy (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Add sources
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Mosaic covenant (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Christian eschatology (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
120 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: FA Biblical and Quranic narratives (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Add sources
1,127 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Sea turtle (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cleanup
2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Hungary (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cleanup
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Child Jesus (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
381 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Grandparent (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
35 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Michael Martin (philosopher) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start X-ray detector (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Empty tomb (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Omnibenevolence (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Promised Land (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Dystheism (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start Holy Land (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Jesus Seminar (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 2.0 Wikify
741 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Scipio Africanus (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Metro Maryland Youth For Christ (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Chinese views on sin (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Origin of Malankara Church of God Thrikkannamangal (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Shai Held (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Xuanxue (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Italo-Roman neopaganism (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub William Schniedewind (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Elazar Meisels (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Bloody Island Massacre (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Stateline Speedway (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources 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) 13:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Image removal[edit]

In this edit you removed an image. This article has only one image at present, and the one you removed was the second one. I think it is good to have at least two images in this list. Perhaps you would reconsider? Debresser (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll revert, if you'll add more images.Editor2020 (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have any. Debresser (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking, and they do seem hard to find. Editor2020 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Same here. That picture you removed isn't the best possible, by the way. I am starting to regret I asked you if you'd return it. :) Debresser (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Morality 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:
  • Examples of moral codes include the [Golden Rule]] (or "ethic of reciprocity");<ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barabbas 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:
  • ', dismissed by Pope [[Benedict XVI]] in his 2011 book ''Jesus of Nazareth (book)|Jesus of Nazareth]]'', in which he corrects the modern translation of "ochlos" in Matthew to mean the Jewish people.<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for third party comment[edit]

Hello Editor2020, I was wondering if you can bring in a third-party view to the editing and discussion that is happening at Huqúqu'lláh and Talk:Huqúqu'lláh (and actually a lot on my own talk page, which I'm trying to get onto the talk page of the article). The discussion is on the use of primary source material, as well as the removal of views which have secondary source citations, with them being replaced with views which have no secondary source citations.

It would be helpful if there can be some other viewpoints brought into the discussion. Warm regards, -- 10:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Confused[edit]

... about this revert.[1] Marijuana clearly redirects to cannabis? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I see the problem now. That redirect was changed only two days ago by Bullrangifer, so it will all have to sorted with the new requested move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I revert if you wish.Editor2020 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
nah, I'm going to leave it alone pending the Move review-- I didn't realize someone had changed that redirect just before the move discussion closed, so now we have one thing complicating another, and I'd rather stay away from it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dating Creation[edit]

[2], Nasadiya Sukta doesn't say that "no one knows when creation has arisen", the given source "The tao and the daimon: segments of a religious inquiry, p. 257" can be checked from here:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=x1haOIxj6aIC&pg=257#v=onepage&q&f=false

It doesn't add any "rigveda" or "nasadiya sukta" either, it only adds a few lines from Sarvapelli Radhakrishnan who got them from some scriptures, but they are not related with the estimates of Dating creation at all. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The article Nasadiya Sukta says

"But, after all, who knows, and who can say Whence it all came, and how creation happened? the gods themselves are later than creation, so who knows truly whence it has arisen?"

The Rigveda is a sacred text of India, of which the Nasadiya Sukta is a part (the 129th hymn of the 10th Mandala of the Rigveda) (10:129). Editor2020 (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
But it's more related to cosmology, than to Dating creation, as dating creation requires simple estimate, like other sections. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You would be able to make a good argument that the Nasadiya Sukta is about how and from what the Universe was created, rather than when. If you would like to make that your justification for the deletion, I won't object.
(I understand that you are not a native English speaker, but please try to make your explanations clearer and more understandable. I'm trying hard to understand what you are saying/meaning.) Editor2020 (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Fine. The explanation for the above verse is actually very long. It doesn't actually tells that "there's no creation date", but it further suggests that the earth has passed from so many changes, difficulties, that no one is perfect enough to guess, that where it started from. Which is probably true. The estimates given acclaimed by science have changed every 10 years. But if i attribute them, the dating creation itself wouldn't be right place for adding this whole thing. I think its better to remove the line, but add Hindu cosmology as main article, which explains the whole thing, a lot better, from the same chapter, as well as books. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Presuppositionalism[edit]

Why the revert in the Presuppositional apologetics article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckd83 (talkcontribs) 19:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It was unreferenced. Editor2020 (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Polygamy and Christianity[edit]

Out of curiosity why did you undo my edit? I changed it to two wives because Jacob only had to legal wives and then he had two concubines. Should we consider concubines wives in this context? Emperor001 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summary, the article Jacob says that Jacob had four wives. Editor2020 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
From concubinage "Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives.[1] The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries, while concubines did not." Editor2020 (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
From Pilegesh: Pilegesh (Hebrew: פילגש‎) is a Hebrew term for a concubine with similar social and legal standing to a recognized wife, often for the purpose of producing offspring. Editor2020 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, just saw the various changes you made. Now it is just a list of people in the Bible who practiced polygamy without mention as to how many wives/concubines they had. Although should we have a note for Moses? I am not sure that he was a polygamist. The Bible mentions him having two wives but that was not necessarily at the same time. He could have been a polygamist or he could have been a widower who remarried. Should we make a note of this? Emperor001 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the old version, having all the names and numbers, was too complex for comprehension. I've linked everyone's name, so the individual articles can be easily accessed for more information. I'll also link the bible references so they can be checked out. Editor2020 (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a verse that says something happened to Zipporah, I'll delete Moses. Editor2020 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That's just it though. There's nothing about when Zipporah died, so it is unknown if Moses was a polygamist or a remarried widower. The Bible, and to my knowledge no other source, just does not say. At most we could list him as a possible polygamist. Emperor001 (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Writer of the Epistle of James[edit]

The Epistle of James is traditionally attributed to James the Just. Take a look at the Wikipedia article about the Epistle, which dismisses either of the apostles James, son of Zebedee and James, son of Alphaeus to be the writer. Scrivener-uki (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Template on Noah's Ark[edit]

I see you removed Template:Characters and names in the Quran from Noah's Ark. I'm not a big fan of the template, but I note it did include a specific mention of the Ark, under "Locations, entities and events"/"Non-human physical entities". StAnselm (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Ah, I didn't see that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Editor2020 (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Committee of Union and Progress[edit]

Would you be interested in joining a discussion about this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I get your reasoning for reverted my deletion? In Origins of Rabbinic Judaism[edit]

The current text in the section Cross-fertilization with Christianity is lifted straight from Split of early Christianity and Judaism. Thus it is really about Christianity. It is not really related to this article. It is also meaningless empty quotes not need in an encyclopedia. The Bar Kokhba revolt is already covered.

The relevant articles are Split of early Christianity and Judaism #Emergence of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity

And in this article Origins of Rabbinic Judaism #Emergence of Rabbinic Judaism

Split of early Christianity and Judaism also have these un-encyclopedic quotes which don’t even tell you anything about what the authors thinking. At least they are in the introduction section there.

Thanks Jonney2000 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While repetition within an article is usually bad, a certain amount of redundancy in different articles is good. Not saying this information shouldn't be deleted, just that you need to discuss it on the Talk page before deletion. Editor2020 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Its not just me Lisa removed the mj part but if you want to keep it thats okJonney2000 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Machine elf for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Machine elf 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/Machine elf 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Creation myth[edit]

Hello. I am working on the above article for a while but will be through very shortly. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Post-scarcity economy[edit]

Your recent revert of post-scarcity economy and your edit summary shows quite a bit of confusion on your part. For one, it is quite obvious why the link farm was removed, since it was previously tagged in the header.[3]. By performing cleanup, I was able to remove the tag. Do you understand what cleanup entails? Finally, the burden is on you to demonstrate how the links are helpful on the talk page, not for me to prove a negative. Your revert was not only uncalled for, but shows that you don't understand what you are doing. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing! Editor2020 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit[edit]

Dear Editor 2020, My deletion was substantiated by several quotes from Deuteronomy evincing clear concern for attitudes towards non-Israelites. This includes repeated demands for respect and equality (not to mention love) of the stranger, the גר. I also cited the obligations towards the foreign female captive basically requiring that she be treated like a wife and not be enslaved. This clearly shows that the concerns of Deuteronomist school for human behavior was not confined to Israelites. To the contrary, it seems that the Deuteronomist school was concerned about humane behavior across the board. This does not contradict the duet. struggle against foreign influences. Could you please respond specifically to these claims and justify your undoing my deletion. Zvish (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Primary Sources is known in Wikipedia as Original Research. In order to add this you need to find a Reliable source which says it, not your interpretation of primary sources. You are also arguing with the sources you do have, which said what you deleted. Editor2020 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Even though I think it's quite explicit and not an issue of interpretation or research, I have nevertheless found, in response to your edit, an authoritative secondary source who says what I stated in my edit. In the ABD (Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6 page 104 left column second half) in the article on sojourner it is stated: "The second way in which 'sojourn' is employed is to describe foreigners who live among the Israelites. Often these foreigners are subject to the same laws as the Israelites...and shall receive equal treatment under the law (Deut 14:21). The reason given for this equal treatment is that Israel was once a sojourner in the land of Egypt. (...Deut. 10:19; 16:9-12)." As can be seen, Deuteronomy is a primary (although not solitary) source for the idea of equal and humane treatment of the stranger. I will nevertheless include in the footnote a reference to the opinion of Van Seters who, while an amazing scholar, is in my opinion mistaken on this point, as evidenced by the verses and article cited. Zvish (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Dahrī philosopher Ibn'ūr-Rāvandī[edit]

make researh about Ibn'ūr-Rāvandī, he is repeating his work, old staff!! and dont change without explanation68.100.160.250 (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.Editor2020 (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

alevis[edit]

Alevi people has no intention to get shia EDUCATİON in Kufa[edit]

They don't go to Kufa for islamic education. Thus, | religion = Atheism / Islamic-materialist
(Formerly, Athnā‘ashariyyah - Ja'fari shi'ite madh'hab; later, a follower of Dahrī philosopher Ibn'ūr-Rāvandī) YOUR ARTICLE SAYS HE WAS PLANNING TO GO THERE 68.100.160.250 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Editor2020 (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Category goes poof from Magician[edit]

(The category removed was Category:Lists of people by nickname)

Why have you removed the category? There are six entries in the "As a nickname" section. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

it's a disambiguation page. Editor2020 (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
So? Dab pages can have additional categories, most commonly for place names. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
It also has one about a horse, should it be in Category:Horses?
One horse vs. six people. If these people were split off into Magician (nickname), would you have a problem with the category being applied there? I wouldn't. So why is it inappropriate here? Show me the MOSDAB guideline that states "Thou shalt have no other categories before me". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If it's just a matter of numbers there are six links to books, so add Category:Books and nine to films, so add that one too? Look, this is just getting silly.

From Wikipedia:DABMOS#The disambig notice and categorization- "Most disambiguation pages do not need to be placed into any categories other than those generated by the template. If such cases do arise (for example, specific categories of personal names that do not have corresponding template parameters), then the additional categories should be placed after the template." I think this one fits under "most". Editor2020 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. Obviously Category:Books wouldn't be right - it's got nothing to do with lists. However, if there were an appropriate category in Category:Lists of books, it would make sense to add it. Of course, there aren't any just by specific title. How is this any different than adding say Category:Masculine given names?
Since we're not getting anywhere, I'm going to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Please do. Editor2020 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Voluntary euthanasia[edit]

You forgot to remove "euthanasia" from the article title. Now people might understand where the article is about. The Banner talk 22:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Once you have read about the subject of the article in the article title, it is unnecessary to have it repeated in every section heading. Editor2020 (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You are POV-pushing. Use your common sense, states the guideline. You are right, all the way and always. Okay. Sleep well and don't get bother by a revert... The Banner talk 23:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Why are you being so confrontational? I just made an edit according to the guidelines. Shouldn't we follow the guidelines?Editor2020 (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Satan article edits by user Editguy111[edit]

The Hebrew definition of Satan has been edited from the definitive article to the generic term i.e., "satan" rather than "The Satan". I didn't notice any consensus built prior to the edit and not much afterwards. I do notice the editor stating "it is more fitting to describe the Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew word as meaning Adversary instead of Accuser it is more definitively an contextually accurate". Seems as though such a statement shows POV because the context of the edit surrounds the difference between the generic term for satan (devil) which in truth is adversary and the definitive article or apellative Ha Satan (accuser).

The generic term in Hebrew is not capitalized and I would suggest the editor provide instances in biblical canon where שטן is capitalized. The source for the current revision being The Jewish Encyclopedia does not capitalize this Hebrew term in general connotation. The current revision of the article also shows cantillation marks for שטן, yet the reference is not Masoretic text so I don't see the purpose of using cantillation. I suggest a stronger consensus in the matter and taking cue from an earlier discussion regarding these definitions within the Satan talk page, that a more robust listing of definition in multiple languages be added to the page e.g., Hebrew for satan in its generic form and proper definitive Ha Satan meaning "accuser" as well as Latin and Greek definitions. Research into Latin and Greek's separation of the generic and definitive article should also be shown by an editor qualifying such edits. The context of the article embraces Hebrew primacy of the being and latter christian archetype, but only providing one Hebrew definition regardless of POV context paints the article in an adversarial light which is not the context of The Satan within Judaism thus the article portrays bias. This isn't the article known as "devil" there has been a separate wiki for the generic term related to satan. Blackson (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Editguy. Editor2020 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Epistle to the Galatians[edit]

Hi Editor2020... I've just re-removed the {{redirect}} at the top of Epistle to the Galatians. I think you misunderstood my previous edit summary: Galatians is now a dab page, and does not redirect to Epistle to the Galatians. This time, I've turned it into a {{for}} rather than just removing it (I can see the logic of having a pointer). Additionally, since "Galatians" refers to the people, I changed the link to Galatians (People) who have their own article. I'm leaving this message here as I realize my edit summary may appear testy -- it was not intended to! Best regards, Storkk (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversion on Genesis flood narrative[edit]

Hi, just to apologise for my recent edit that you reverted ([4]) - I was going from the NIV and I realise now that my citation was actually very much translation-dependent. CountingPine (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Folkloristics[edit]

I thought it fair to let you know that, for all practical purposes, I recently reverted one of your edits to Folkloristics. Specifically, I removed the {{reflist}} because the article is using the Harvard system, which does not use footnotes. I also removed the {{no footnotes}} because there are an adequate number of Harvard-style references throughout the article. If you disagree with my reasoning, please feel free to revert me and we can discuss it on the talk page. Thank you. --NYKevin 04:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).