User talk:Gabby Merger

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baucalis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Schism, Council of Constantinople and Meletius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cornell NYC Tech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy-efficient (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cornell NYC Tech[edit]

Nice work on the edits to Cornell NYC Tech. I'm not sure what you meant by information that was removed but this is what the article looked like before a couple of us had a crack at cleaning it up. Scary stuff. I actually went to the Cornell Wikiproject to ask if more editors could chip in and add some info - not sure if you saw it there or just stumbled across it but thanks for contributing. Cheers, Stalwart111 12:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For writing the article on Cornell NYC Tech :). Ironholds (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Van Allen radiation belt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Solar activity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon edits by Kennvido[edit]

I think we might have a troll onhand. Kennvido also removed reliable, cited info about the claims about a suspect that I and another editor had placed. I've replaced it, but looks like this person has a habit. It's been awhile since I've edited Wikipedia, but this kind of behavior sure is frustrating. — Yksin (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And he or she just deleted the stuff you replaced, again. Again, with no explanation. I can't keep up with it... I'm at work. Is an admin needed? — Yksin (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Yes, I believe I remember this character from the past. Not sure what his problem is. But it's not something I would ever even THINK of putting up with. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy[edit]

I'll thank you not to accuse me of violating some nebulous "policy" by reverting your incorrect edit. Elizium23 (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Read what I wrote on your talk page. There was NO "incorrect edit" on my part. And it's not "nebulous" that you should always leave a comment or explanation when reverting someone. Also, NOT to revert at all if it's not vandalism or incorrect. You failed to explain just how my edits were "incorrect". But just rudely reverted. Not cool...and NOT something I would tolerate. Explain at least why you felt the need to disrespect my edits. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Your edit was incorrect, and I have partially reverted it for that reason. The "Orthodox" section covers both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions. "Eastern Orthodox" is unnecessarily specific and incorrect for that section. You are more than welcome to cite chapter and verse of which policy I have violated by reverting you. I'm just dying to hear it. Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If in the context more than just "Eastern Orthodox" was being referred to, then maybe I can understand... But then again, why not have "Eastern and Oriental Orthodox"? Saying "Orthodox" can sound a bit incomplete. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nontrinitarianism 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nontrinitarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristotelian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Epistle to the Hebrews 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:
  • Christian Resource Institute. [http://www.crivoice.org/biblestudy/bbheb1.html] Accessed 17 Mar 2013]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Debra Nelson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seminole County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bible: Pseudepigrapha on July 23[edit]

Hello Gabby,

My name is Jeremiah, and I noticed that you edit the Bible article plenty on times_ Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible _I just want to ask you for a favor in that article. I have scrolled the article plenty of times, and I didn't see much mention or if any information regarding the Pseudepigrapha. Can you please insert some information about the Pseudepigrapha I only read the articles to give suggestions to users who are dedicated to their articles, but I try not to edit the articles of dedicated users such as yourself. I hope that the Pseudepigrapha would be noticed by readers. That is all...

-Jeremiah A.
 Thank You  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIBLEDIT SENTINEL (talkcontribs) 23:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thank you so much Gabby for a quick response to my request for Bible article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibleBIBLEDIT SENTINEL (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Asiocentrism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, East Indian and Polynesian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dominican Republic[edit]

I'm still waiting for your reply to this message since yesterday. I assumed you had found better things to do in the meantime, but clearly this is not the case as you found the time to revert my changes with the bewildering explanation that "you never wrote anything in the talk page for me to answer" and even dropping me a vitriolic message on my talk page, complaining that "You wrote zero. So as I said, ADDRESS IT IN TALK". The message for you to answer is there, if you can't or won't read it it's not my fault. And I told you twice already, your manners are terrible and if you don't make a little effort to be a little more civil don't be surprised if people respond in kind. Regards.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I opened a dispute resolution request here about this matter.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
A decision was taken at DRN, if you revert again I will report you to WP:ANI.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
There was no final decision made, just an arbitrary closing of the discussion...with my last comment un-answered. Not cool. Hardly anyone even participated, so don't give me that. Report what you want... It doesn't matter. Save your threats. The discussion was never completely finished, no matter what TransporterMan wrongly prematurely did or said. Finish up what we were talking about, and try addressing my last point and last question, instead of dodging it. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
it remains closed now. Fine. I won't pursue this nonsense. I leave it alone. As TransporterMan's big issue and hang-up was "if you don't provide reliable source for that pronunciation" then so forth....but the problem is that last point was un-answered...and discussion was closed prematurely... it's whatever though.
I'm not pursuing this thing anymore. It's too trivial overall. It just seems that French dominance and involvement in DR's very formation seem to be under-played and watered down too much by certain parties. And Wikipedia should not be that way, when it comes to historical facts and points. That's all I was saying really. The pronunciation issue is debatable admittedly, but made its point in a way. Obviously France had the pronunciation from way back, and its pertinent (arguably) to the point (factual and historical point) that France was also involved in DR's very existence, formation, and development, and culture.
But even so, instead of dodging my last point and question, why not address it? The last thing I wrote was in RESPONSE to what YOU wrote just before that, about "French rule and involvement" supposedly coming much later, etc. If that's the case, why is the whole "French rule" matter brought up so early in the article? Instead of evading that point (which really refutes your claim that it was so much later etc) why not address it? That's all I was saying.

Your comments about Twinkle[edit]

Hi Gabby, re your edits to the Twinkle talk page: please be aware that Twinkle is merely a tool that users may use to roll back others' edits. As the Twinkle information page states, users who use Twinkle take full responsibility for their edits made using Twinkle. Please contact the editor who made the edit in question to discuss this issue. Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposing to rename the page Nontrinitarianism to Non-Trinitarianism[edit]

Since you are a contributor to the Nontrinitarianism page, please share your thoughts regarding renaming the page in order to try to reach consensus. You can find the discussion here: Talk:Nontrinitarianism#nontrinitarianism_or_non-Trinitarianism.3F

Many thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


Nontrinitarianism[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gabby Merger. You have new messages at Banaticus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Luke was Jewish"[edit]

Regarding your message. I am not following you around. Your edits are simply bleeping on a number of pages I have watch-listed. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. It just seemed a bit weird. That's why I asked. I didn't want to assume 100% for sure. Overall, I've noticed your hard work on WP, and I've appreciated it, and agreed usually. So I don't know where this stuff is coming from recently. Anyway, as I said...
it actually IS a notable opinion, held by a number of scholars, regardless or not if it's the "majority view". The point is why delete or hide that sourced information? No valid reason to do that. The edit is accurate and sourced. Stop edit-warring and disrespecting valid edits and additions, that are referenced and are apropos to the context and paragraph. Just because you (or maybe some others) DON'T LIKE. That's against WP policy. And suppressing information and points from potential readers is not the wise or proper course.


As for your wrong statement that "Paul says Luke was uncircumcised". Paul never EXPLICITLY said that. It's not worded that way. Read it again, in Colossians. This idea that Paul clearly said that Luke was "uncircumcised" is an old sloppy TRADITIONAL talking point. But doesn't hold up, under more careful, more critical, and closer analysis.
The argument is made that, as Luke is not mentioned in the list of those of “the circumcision”, he therefore must not be a Jew. However, this is very slim evidence, indeed. In the above reference, Paul is speaking of his fellow workers in the preaching ministry. However, Luke was not ever described as being actively involved in the work of preaching, but was rather Paul’s personal physician and historian. It would not be appropriate to put Luke in the list with those who were active in the preaching ministry, regardless of background.
Thus, there are reasons other than background why Luke would not be included in the list of “the circumcision.” It is risky to build a concept on evidence which is so weak, and this is the strongest evidence in the Bible that those who believe Luke was a Gentile use to prove their point.


Also, to be honest, NONE of that really matters anyway. As it doesn't matter what YOU (or I) think Paul meant or said, and even what the "majority view" of drone-ish "scholars" think or write. The mere fact that you have even a few theologians, writers, and ministers, and sources, saying that they believe Luke was either definitely Jewish or probably Jewish (a Hellenic Jew, etc), is enough to warrant at least making mention that some scholars think that. Like, as one of many examples, this one right here. So what??
Just because you personally think Luke was a Gentile is irrelevant. A number of notable scholars and writers (past and present) don't buy that, and say clearly that he was a Hellenic Jew. It's fairly copiously sourced. Don't start an edit-war, over this. Because it's not worth it. The info is valid and sourced, and it stays. Thanks. Revert again, and I revert back. Or bring to article Talk. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm also not following you. In ictu and I watch similar Christian pages. Ckruschke (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Greek Orthodox Church[edit]

Abbey, you really need to read and understand wp:verifiability. You don't have to like it. You just have to accept that this is the basis on which Wikipedia works. Of course Dr. K.'s edits are biased. Of course they are selected because they support his POV. That's the way that Wikipedia works. Getting yourself banned won't stop that happening and it certainly won't correct any mistakes in the article. You need to learn to work within the system that is Wikipedia. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, if something is verified by a reliable source then t is verified. That's the end to the story. You can't remove it, you can only find other material that challenges it, and let the sources speak for themselves. You would have achieved much more by doing a simple Google search to find those sources than by getting engaged in an edit war and arguing ion the talk page. When you find your references you can add whatever you like. It doesn't matter how much you revert or how much you argue, you won't be able to change a single damn thing. Those are the rules. You need to accept them and learn to work with them. If you can't learn to do that, your time here will be brief and frustrating. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said that those refs can't be used to make the general point or statement. That's fine. What you're not grasping or maybe just not understanding where I'm coming from (or the WP policy regarding this) now is that it doesn't matter how those refs word things, as those refs in question are NOT neutral encyclopedias, and those refs are valid to bring in (no problem) only as far as giving the point that "it's believed"...when dealing with cases like this. I know about "verifiability, not truth". I told you appreciated your time and attention to this matter, but now you seem to missing the point yourself, about simple NPOV wording...that's all. It's not about which ref can or can't be used, per se, to make the general point. But for WP to state dogmatically is another thing. Other refs (do you even agree with that), don't even come close to agreeing with the words or notion that "Greek Orthodoxy came directly from the first century apostles" or "making the sign of the cross was from the apostles" etc? I don't disagree that those refs can be used, but the point is neutral tone...and that WP is not to endorse one position like that, especial in cases like this. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I tagged Taylor Business Institute under speedy deletion criteria A7, yet I must have been something else because such criteria does not cover educational institutions, so I removed the tag almost instantly. Sorry for any stress or inconvenience it might've caused. Ging287 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited God the Father, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roman numerals 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gabby Merger. You have new messages at Davejohnsan's talk page.
Message added 14:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gabby Merger. You have new messages at Kresblain's talk page.
Message added 10:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for July 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elder Gods. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Hades[edit]

I'm not saying the references are unreliable because you added them, but because they are from unreliable, non-academic sources. As for the first ones, are afterlife.co.nz and tentmaker.org authorized to speak for the groups listed? If not, they are just two guys opinions. The last one already has a bible ref, so another source is not needed unless you are making any additional claims about the meaning of the text or interpreting the quoted text. Editor2020 03:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hades as per User:Editor2020 reverts, including that website, please discuss on Talk page. Do not add back into article without discussion, per WP:EDITWARRING, sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent AFD comments[edit]

Regarding your recent comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's immigration crisis, please remember to assume good faith on the part of other editors and refrain from ad hominem attacks. Keep your comments related to the content of the article, and not the nature of the person making the nomination. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but some editors are a bit uptight about certain news events and articles. But point taken. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)