Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Comma Johanneum has been reverted.
Your edit here to Comma Johanneum was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.avdefense.webs.com/wallace.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Your work in Comma is really nice. Perhaps there are no more errors (Codex Legionensis was described as palimpsest, several wrong manuscrits, etc.). I have created seven articles, you can see them here: Template:Did you know nominations/Codex Ravianus. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Leszek. I'm learning to really try to do my homework before making any scholarly substantive changes.
Your articles look great, however so far I am not really fully up to speed on the manuscript issues. I 'll try to take a closer look, I have noticed a number of corrections you have made, which are nice to see.
There is always room for tweaking, the manuscript area is now the strongest part of the article. I've been focusing on removing errors, adding references very relevant but missing, with a special emphasis on early church writer accuracy, and removing some POV out of place, especially things like the presumptions of insertion. Also clarifying doctrinal perspectives that are often subjective, wrong or anachronistic. There is a lot more that could be done in an overall sense, factual accuracy and sensible tone is the main initial goal.
If you look at the bottom of the Wikipedia talk page for the Comma Johanneum article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comma_Johanneum), you’ll see that the article is going to be rewritten soon. 7Jim7 (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The Preexisting Material on the Discussion Page Has Been Returned to the Page
Mr. Avery, if you want to add comments to the discussion page for the Comma Johanneum article, then do so. But do NOT delete the preexisting material. I have reverted the discussion page to what it was before you replaced the entire discussion page with your own comments. This version contains the preexisting material plus a few comments that you added to it. If you want to add your other comments as well, then do so. But do NOT delete the preexisting material. 7Jim7 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Jim. Please be specific as to what material you think I deleted. Even better, can you find it in the log of my edits ? That would be helpful. Afaik, I deleted absolutely zero material of any poster, so I am rather curious. You can respond on the Johannine Comma page. Thanks.
00:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I Am Sorry. I Was Wrong. You Did Nothing Wrong.
Mr. Avery, I am sorry that I misunderstood that an automatic archive of older discussion material had been performed by Miszabot. I went back into the "history" of the discussion page for the Comma Johanneum article and returned the page (hopefully) to the way that I found it. The older discussion (which I had thought had been deleted) can be viewed by clicking the "archive 1" or "archive 2" buttons. I apologize for falsely accusing you of having deleted the old discussion material. 7Jim7 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
When I thought that you had deleted the preexisting discussion material, I voiced my complaint at the Carm.org King James Only discussion forum in a thread titled " Wikipedia Discussion Page Vandalism, Comma Johanneum." I have recently added a message to that thread explaining that you had done nothing wrong and that I had falsely accused you, and I have voiced the same explanation in a new thread in that forum titled "Mr. Avery Did Nothing Wrong. I Misunderstood. I'm Sorry." Not only was I wrong to falsely accuse you, but also I was wrong to involve the people at Carm in my false accusation of you. I wronged them in addition to wronging you. Again, I am sorry. Jim. 7Jim7 (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim. Apology accepted.
Simply be more careful in the future. It's true that you had a real concern, and it was proper to express that concern, first here in the discussion forums. However, then you have to wait and see, before considering other venues. All fine now. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Comma Johanneum, again
It looks like the Comma Johanneum article needs some further work. I'm not particularly volunteering, but I have started a GA review, which might help in identifying room for improvement and/or help obtain a consensus for tag removal. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Comma Johanneum/1. StAnselm (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments. English is my fifth language, so please forgive me if you will not understand every thing. Polish is my second language. If you are looking for my best wikipedia articles you should look at Polish wikipedia. What are I do on wikipedia? It is a hobby. There are many scientists on wikipedia, more than you think, but usually they edited different areas. Lowyears edit sport or politics, historians edit biology, philologists edit geography... But sometimes biologists edit biology, historians - history and theologians - theology. I have started to edit wikipedia in March 2008 (English wikipedia in April 2008). I have decided to edit biblical manuscripts, because I did not see to much editors in this area. You should know that I was not expert from the area of textual criticism of NT. In November 2007 I have found in internet images from some biblical manuscript and I found it is interesting for me. It was my beginning - November 2007. In March 2008 I began to edit wikipedia. So, my knowledge was not advanced at that moment. I made some errors at that time. On Polish wikipedia all these errors - I hope - were corrected. On English wikipedia not all. Please examine my wikipedia articles created after 2012. For now I have only one publication from the area of textual criticism. By the way, I used English wikipedia only for improving my English.
Codex Alexandrinus was expanded by me largely in April-June 2009. I was conscious that there are some errors, I promised for himself that I will correct it in the future, but I was involved in many other projects. I edit not only English wikipedia, I edit Polish, French, Russian, German and several other wikipedias. It is easy to create a new short article, but if article is a bit long, it takes time. That is why I left Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Bezae for a time. Only minor edits from time to time. I even did not read these articles after 2009. I really do not have time for everything and Polish wikipedia is more important for me for several reasons (I can explain them if you want). "A large proportion of the scholarship cited is from the 1800s". Look carefully. Footnote 1st has letters abcdefg, it means it refer to seven places of the article. In normal printed article it could be seven footnotes. Footnote number 9. refers to eleven places. The same story with other footnotes. Section "Provenance" was written on the basis of McKendrick (2003). The Codex Alexandrinus... It is only wikipedia. I have created more than 5000 wikipedia articles in 22 languages, I expanded a large number of articles (I do not know how many, probably thousands) but my best articles are on Polish wikipedia.
Robinson wrote: "Almost as soon as someone attempts to correct various forms of error on Wikipedia, someone else... will leap in to "restore" the original posting, delete the corrections, or further alter the text in a manner that continues to misinform." It is a myth, but according to the English wikipedia standards every unsourced edit should be deleted without any explanation. Self published sources are forbidden, blogs are forbidden. On Polish wikipedia self published sources or blogs sometimes are allowed, but in every case it should be explained on the talk page of the article. Sometimes good IP-edits are deleted by mistake. It happens. So in that case you should ask every user who deleted your good edit why he deleted your edit. Usually this user will answer: I am sorry, my mistake, I restored your edit, you can edit this article, but it will better for you if you will create an account...
"Many Wikipedia administrators are school-going teenagers" It is another myth. Sometimes it happens, but they edit sport, movies, computer games... They do not edit manuscript articles. Many of administrators are getting old. Ca. 10% are professors from universities.
Codex Boernerianus. Bob Relyea should refresh his memory. All your wikipedia edits are still available here. You did not posted something to the talk page with explanation that you are not a German speaker, or an expert in Old Irish. See at the talk page. Only for edits in the history of the article. No one was your edit. And there is no deleted edits. Please do not misinform. In October 2010 Releya edited only this In the article was not written that Releya translated from Irish. I did not find errors in translation of Releya. It was good and accurate and it was better to use your translation than my own translation, because my translation into English was not published. After finding Strachan's translation it was no longer needed.
Not only on wikipedia you can find errors. According to Aland and the INTF 0212 is housed has shelf number P. Dura 10. It is not true, it has P. Dura 24. Metzger is right. According to Aland Codex Sinaiticus has size 43 x 38 cm (rather 37 x 34). According to Aland 0126, 0144-0147, 0154-0159 formerly were housed in Kubbet el Chazne. These manuscripts were never housed at the Qubbat al-Khazna (not Kubbet el Chazne). According to my investigations in 1898 Wilhelm II accompanying German scholars visited Damascus. At that time several manuscripts were brought to the Qubbat al-Khazna, only for a limited time of a visit of Wilhelm II.
They were removed from there. But Gregory wrote that these manuscripts are housed at the Kubbet el Chazne (wrong transcription). Aland followed opinoin of Gregory, INTF and many oters. Why? That is why I created article Qubbat al-Khazna on wikipedia. If you will lood to the wikipedia articles about 0126, 0144-0147, 0154-0159 you will find that they were housed at the... But I do not have choice at that case. Original Research is forbidden on wikipedia. In several cases I have multiplied errors from Aland or Metzger, but I do not have other choice. OR is forbidden. Biblical manuscripts housed in Poland have different shelfnumbers than INTF claims to be. Erroll F. Rhodes who translated work of Aland made some errors. Aland gave for codex 013 following textual profile - 174 (1), 82 (1/2), 3 (2), 7 (S). If you will look to translation of Rhodes you will find 174 (1), 82 (1/2), 2 (2), 7 (S). Robert Waltz used translation of Rhodes. These kind of errors (also shelfnumbers, numbers of pages, Categories) I found about 20. Rhodes not always correctly translated German text. Metzger in one case confused 013 with 018. Errors are inevitable. But if we talt about wikipedia textual criticism articles we should talk about Polish wikipedia. Compare Codex Amiatinus, Argenteus, Vulgate, Gothic Bible and hundrets of other articles. Almost in every case Polish articles are longer, more professional, more referenced. Many articles even are not translated into English (Early versions of the New Testament, θεός ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (1 Tm 3,16), Text of the Apocalypse and several others). It is a task for you. See here pl:Wikipedysta:Leszek Jańczuk/Pl-wiki-edycje. Compare also pl:Billy Graham and pl:Billy Sunday. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)