User talk:Tahc

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


Biblical cosmology[edit]

Hi. Just regarding your edits on thie article Biblical cosmology, since the edit summary is too brief to explain fully and I know your edits are serious ones.

The sentence you're editing is talking about understandings of terms such as "word" and "spirit" during the 2nd temple period (c.500 BC-70 AD). The sentence is this: "Later Jewish thinkers, adopting ideas from Greek philosophy, concluded that God's Wisdom, Word and Spirit had shared in the creative act." "Later" means later than the authors of Genesis 1, about 500 BC. The word translated "speech" is ruah. It has a range of meanings: wind, breath, spirit. As wind it's synonymous with God's breath - the storm-wind was literally his breath in Iron Age texts. As "spirit" it means the life-force that only God provides, via that same breath - in Genesis 2 Goid breathes into the nostrils of the lifeless man of clay and makes him "nephesh", a living being. None of these are "spirit" in the modern sense - a living but non-corporeal entity. That came only in the Christian era, and was then adopted into Judaism. So, it's misleading to link "spirit" to anything other than "ruah" when talking about 2nd temple Judaism.

Similarly, "word" in 2nd temple Wisdom literature doesn't mean divine revelation (God speaking to people and telling them things), but rather the creative power of divine speech - it concerns creation, not revelation.

This is in the cited source (Kaiser), but rather abstruse - a good bible dictionary might be more informative. PiCo (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

List of 21st-century religious leaders[edit]

Hello! Please see Wikipedia:LIST#Lead_sections_in_stand-alone_lists. Lists should definitely include a lede and explanation of inclusion criteria. Also, you removed tags for other items. Please don't remove tags without addressing the issues. MANY items on this list are unsourced. Thanks, and Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In my recent addition to the list of 21st century religious leaders, I added Marshall Vian Summers. It was removed. I would like to add that Marshall is the founder of a new religious movement that has been in existence for over 20 years. It has a worldwide following of thousands of people, many texts, books and audios that entail and teach of this faith tradition, and even has a free online school that has almost 1000 students from 71 countries studying the New message from God tradition. Marshall has a wikipedia page and has been interviewed by media both in the US and abroad regarding this new religious movement. If this doesn't constitute the founder of a new religious movement, what does? Thanks. Robert2013NMFG 7-11-13Robert2013NMFG (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss List of 21st-century religious leaders at Talk:List of 21st-century religious leaders.
Likewise, you should always start new discussions at the bottom of the page. Thank you. tahc chat 21:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Seth Mokitimi[edit]

Hi Tahc! Please, I'm not criticizing, I'm asking because I want to know. On Seth Mokitimi you changed a bunch of categories, and I don't have enough experience to understand why:

  • I understood that, in general, the more categories you could put a page into, the better. You have significantly reduced the number of categories overall. Could you please help me by explaining why fewer is better?
  • Where you replaced categories (Methodist ministers replaced with 20th Century Methodist clergy, 20th Century people with 20th Century South African people, Christianity in Africa with Christianity in South Africa) I notice that it was always to a smaller category group. (Except that 'clergy' is a bigger group that 'ministers'.) Why is this a better thing to do?
  • Don't you think there should be a category for African Composers? How do I set that up? (I left that in there because I wanted to get the category created, but I do understand removing red links!)

Regards. David_FLXD (Talk) 05:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

  • You can read Wikipedia:Categorization and/or Help:Category for more info, but the main purpose of the categories and the category tree is to help the Wikipedia editors find certain pages. Is not their to help readers learn facts about the pages subject. The article for that purpose.
  • The more appropriate categories that you put a page into, the better-- but a page should not go into every page they seem to fit in.
  • Pages should rarely if ever be put into a category if they can also be put one of its subcategory. It should go into the subcategory. This should result (as it did here) in better and fewer categories.
  • Say, for example we put all religious leaders with articles on Wikipedia in Category:Religious leaders. There would be thousands, or many be hundreds of thousands of articles in that category. Long before we finished, the category would become usless for editors to find articles in. Likewise if we did the same with Category:South African Christians, to say nothing of Category:Christianity.
  • I did look and found Category:South African composers for Seth Mokitimi. You should always look thru the category for similar categories before you create a new category. tahc chat 13:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much, that is very helpful! I have been guessing my way through cats till now. I appreciate your advice, which makes much sense. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 17:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed[edit]

Hello Tahc,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! MarchionessGrey (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

List of alien species[edit]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance -- Rasmussen, Larry L. [Paperback] $12.97 & eligible for FREE Shipping 222 p.

Sojourner Truth: Ain't I a Woman? -- Pat McKissack; Fredrick McKissack [Paperback] $5.99 & eligible for FREE Shipping 186 p

List of Stargate races[edit]

Hello. You recently created List of Stargate races. However, I believe this list largely duplicates Mythology of Stargate, formerly named Races in Stargate. Would you think about alternatives that removes the redundancy? – sgeureka tc 08:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reformated Mythology of Stargate in line with other sci fi "Mythology of..." pages and merged in "List of Stargate races". The list page should be deleted shortly. tahc chat 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

List of fictional alien species[edit]

Hello! I see that you've done a lot of work on this article. Despite the fact that it is completely against what I had in mind (when creating the article) I find it very informative. So I've elected to go ahead and revert the article to the way it was before you began editing it, and I've copied everything you did into (the previously relatively bare) article Lists of fictional extraterrestrials which bares a more content-related title. It could also potentially fall into a new article List of fictional alien species by work, but List of fictional alien species is just what it says, a list of species (not a list of works or list of species in works) Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I'm not terribly articulate at times. Regardless, thanks for all your work, please continue it under a more appropriate title that reflects the content of the article in question and remember that an incomplete list (hopelessly or otherwise) does not make it any less worthy of existence.

Kindest regards,

Ncboy2010 (talk)

Look. I don't think you really understand what you're talking about. incompleteness is not reason to overhaul an article, especially without even mentioning anything to anyone else. Please, stop changing it without consulting fellow wikipedians.
Thank you.
Ncboy2010 (talk)
Please discuss articles on the article talk pages. tahc chat 15:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Why did you redirect Template:Fictional life form categories to Template:Fictional biology navbox? Ncboy2010 (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
At first I thought it was a tempate to serve the same purpose as Template:Fictional biology navbox. I'll revert my redirect. tahc chat 17:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, and your participation in this discussion may be critical to finding a resolution. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I am sorry, we have both dome two reverts on God in Christianity. I suggest we stop before inadvertently crossing WP:3RR. This has been discussed in a friendly form on talk for a month now. please join the multi-party discussion there, rather than making sudden changes. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of miscellaneous fictional animals, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Seal and Pachyderm (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) 11:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology[edit]

You need to stop trying to impose your own ideas on this. The wording is almost exactly that of the source, and moreover reflects the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. The fact is, it would be very difficult today to find a reputable biblical scholar who would disagree with the idea that the bible is not consistent - I don't know any. If you want to dispute this, find a source who says otherwise. If you won't do this, I'll have to take it to dispute resolution, and you'll lose. PiCo (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to impose your own ideas on this. You know this is a fact because you don't know any sources that disagree with it. Wikipedia is not about what to or I think. It is about what RS think.
If it is really "almost exactly that of the source" then just make it "exactly" and cite it as a quote. By not making it a source-quote you are making it a Wikipedia quote... but it isn't WP:NPOV. If it is realty the "overwhelming majority of reliable sources" then just find one reliable source that says it is the "overwhelming majority of reliable sources." If you won't do that then it is just your point of view.
I am not claiming one, some, or many sources say "otherwise", so there purpose to find and cite sources that say "otherwise". Of course even if I did hunt down such sources, then you could again claim it doesn't need any references at all, and just try to cut the entire section. tahc chat 08:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The source (which is the Oxford Dictionary of Judaism) says: "The bible's view of cosmology is not always consistent". That's a quote. If it had meant to qualify that statement it would have done so. It doesn't qualify it because there is no dissent. None. If you can find modern reliable sources that say otherwise, please do so, but you can't, because they don't exist. PiCo (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Most editors are will to discuss this on the article talk page. Is there some reason you are unwilling to discuss this on the article talk page? tahc chat 19:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Do you want any help with the lists of fictional animal articles? If so, get with me and we'll organize the efforts, if not just let me know. Thanks. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I found something I think we could work on. List of fictional canines and List of fictional dogs are both have problems IMO. List of fictional dogs is a long poor sorted list (there should either be no animation section, or the animation should have all the animation characters. List of fictional canines overlaps other list too much (it is 99% dogs and has 5 sublists).
We should discuss what to do on one or both talk pages. tahc chat 06:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

List of fictional dogs[edit]

Hi, I don't know if you noticed or not, but you just stripped all of the references from the entries you edited at List of fictional dogs. It's important to keep in mind that references are actually required for stand-alone lists the same as they are for any other article on Wikipedia. I am neutral toward your decision to change the list into a table, but the references must be restored. -Thibbs (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know what the citations were trying to cite.tahc chat 04:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The citations demonstrated that the dog characters are notable - one of the inclusion criteria for that article. -Thibbs (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you proposing that all the items on all lists such as these need citations? Very very few of the items have such citations. Not even this list has many for such a purpose. tahc chat 05:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm reminding you that those are Wikipedia's rules. Quoting WP:SAL, "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability ... as well as notability guidelines." (emphasis added). It doesn't matter that other articles are poorly sourced. They should have more sources added. Stripping the few sources from the list of fictional dogs is a problem as far as I can see. Can you tell me how your removal of them has improved the article at all? -Thibbs (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

broken wikilinks[edit]

There are also a lot of entries that have broken wikilinks appearing like "[[Against the Day#In alphabetical order" for example. I can see you're in the middle of fixing it up so no worries for now, but the links and the refs should be intact when you're finished. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

'kay. tahc chat 05:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I've just restored the original version of the article prior to your shift to the table format. The tabling seems to be taking a very long time and at this point the article had only 1 source and so it risked nomination for deletion. The issue of the broken wikilinks was still very much a problem as well (you can see what I mean if you do a text search on markup characters like "=", "]]", "[[", "#", and "|" in this version of the article). So just until you have the time to make a proper job of it I've restored the original. That's not an argument that it should stay in list format though. If you are converting all of these articles over to table format then it makes sense that this one should be tabled too for consistency's sake. So if you want to carry on shifting the list of fictional dogs to table format then just revert my last edit and then you can make the 18 source re-additions and you can repair some of the broken wikilinks and other tabling errors (e.g. the tables in some of the subsections like "Dogs in Film" and "Dogs in Television" seemed to have extra unused columns, and some breed entries had sentence fragment designations like "Ned's Golden retriever on", etc.). Thanks again for the effort and remember to revert my edit to save you some time when you get a chance to look at the article again. -Thibbs (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I spoke too soon and now I've made it so a simple revert of my edit won't work, instead you can just click here to carry on with the tabling effort. Please remember to remove the 8 unverified members seen here, though, because their notability has been challenged for months and it's unlikely at this point that any sources will emerge for them. Anyway sorry for the confusion and thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

All about Rabbits[edit]

It seems that the number of rabbits is getting too numerous for the article. I suggest renaming the List of 'Fictional Rabbits and Hares' to 'List of Fictional Leproids' where the hares, jackrabbits and other seperate family species can stay, while the Rabbits can be moved to a new article simply titled 'List of Fictional Rabbits'. What do you think? Deltasim (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in uninvited, but I thought it would be worth mentioning that I've dealt with this issue before (i.e. over-populated crufty lists of fictional animals) and I found that by far the best solution was to use the #1 recommended set of Common Selection Criteria and to require that the characters have individual notability. In the words of the MOS, "Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment."
Generally the existence of a blue-link article on the character is enough to demonstrate notability and membership in the list, but for redlinks of notable characters that don't have their own article, a reliable source should be sufficient proof of notability to allow them to stay in the article. This helps by removing the subjectivity of the editorial decision of who stays and who goes and it explains why (for instance) "Gilia from Watership Down" stays on the list while "The unnamed siblings of Thumper in Bambi" gets cut out. (That was just an example - Gilia may not be notable and Thumper's siblings may be...). -Thibbs (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

PS - As long as you two are both together in one thread I also wanted to express my gratitude that you both (Deltasim and Tahc) are trying to clean up these and deal with these fictional animal articles. I have also previously thanked Ncboy2010 for his help in this area. The whole topic area was a terrible mess and I'm hoping that by cutting out the most egregious cruft and by implementing sensible MOS-guideline-based practices at these articles we can have a very positive impact on their futures. I've run into a lot of resistance to these cleanups in the past from well-intentioned editors who absolutely refused to allow any of their favorite fictional species to be cut from the lists no matter how trivial, and I'm more or less retired from the arena now since it's such a massive pain to deal with at times. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the issues, however, and even though I may not agree with all of your edits all of the time (just like I differed in opinion with Ncboy2010 occasionally), I just wanted to let you guys both know that your efforts are appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biblical clothing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belt (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) 11:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


Under the heading proposal here can you please highlight your preference after a bulletpoint as i did? Pass a Method talk 11:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biblical clothing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian (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) 12:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Fixing" redirects[edit]

Hi Tahc, I noticed that in this recent edit you had tried to "fix" some of the links that were redirects. I used to do this myself all the time until I was alerted to WP:NOTBROKEN. So for example where you changed Pillars of the Earth (tabletop game) to The Pillars of the Earth#Board games the result is the same right now, but in the case of the redirect, it is always possible that someone will expand the redirect into a full article on its own and then the Games 100 page will still link to the correct place whereas if we swap it for the second link we're assuming that the redirect will never be expanded. Given that Games 100 is an article about the industry's best games it's more likely that individual articles may be written on these topics so the redirects should probably remain in place. And NOTBROKEN suggests other reasons why redirects should not be "fixed" as well. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. -Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Christianity[edit]

Replied on my page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with the sneaky reversion of Template:Centuries in Christianity before sticking in a couple of quick CFD proposals. It's out of process, to say the least of it. The outcome of the CFDs should have been made known before reverting the template. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Instead, you should have created the CFD before making the new catagories, and then waited for the outcome before changing the template in the first place. 05:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Merry Christmas!
History2007 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Original sin[edit]

My difficulty concerns the question whether, after your replacement of "original sin is viewed ..." by "the fall of Adam is viewed ...", the text says anything whatever about original sin, the topic of the article. "Mormons do not believe that children come into the world with any guilt". Neither do Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, who do believe in original sin. Do Mormons? We aren't told. The text talks of Mormon belief in "original guilt", but gives no explanation of the relationship, if any, of this to the topic of the article. Perhaps it is all perfectly clear to you and others, and perhaps too it ought to be perfectly clear to me, but I am unable to figure it out. Esoglou (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Catholics (and others I expect) do believe that children come into the world with guilt. I do not know about Eastern Orthodox, but as the term was first used, that is what original sin is. This artical seems to say that most all Christians beileve in "original sin" but beileve it to be different things. To me that is to empty the term of any useful meaning.
The fall of Adam is the origin of original sin, but maybe a mormon could tie the two sentences togther better. I can not. If you think the 1st sentence to be too far off topic, then you can remove it. The 2nd sentence seems to say that LDS view is that there was original sin, but now it is no more with Jesus' death. But I do not know that sort of thing myself. tahc chat 03:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Your claim that Catholics believe that children come into the world with guilt is in direct contradiction to what the article itself states: that the Catholic Church "explicitly denies that we inherit guilt from anyone, maintaining that instead we inherit our fallen nature. In this it differs from the Calvinism/Protestant position that each person actually inherits Adam's guilt, and teaches instead that 'original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants ... but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). 'In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam and Eve's particular sin' (What the Catholic Church Teaches about Original Sin)." The article also states: "In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that mankind inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death (John Matusiak, St. Augustine & Original Sin)." But as I said, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, while denying that human beings inherit guilt, believe in original sin. Mormons, it appears, likewise do not believe that children come into the world with any guilt; yet they believe in something called "original guilt", whose existence is denied by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and which sounds very like the Calvinist idea of original sin. Don't you think the article should state whether Mormons believe or do not believe in original sin, the topic of the article? Your supposition that the "LDS view is that there was original sin - here you use the word "sin" rather than "guilt" - but now it is no more with Jesus' death" sounds somewhat like the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view that the sacrifice of Christ (which is applied to individuals by baptism or in other ways) removes original sin - and don't Mormons attach great importance to baptism? Your removal of all mention of "original sin" from the article's account of the LDS view makes that account quite obviously puzzling, if not self-contradictory. Esoglou (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Your last edit makes the account at least less obviously puzzling. Let us see how it stands up to scrutiny by others. Esoglou (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of religious leaders in 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Damianos (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) 11:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Centuries in Christianity[edit]

Nice work. Looks well. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Userpage draft[edit]

Hi. That's a great looking article you've got going there on your userpage. However, policy suggests that it be tagged as such, and I've done so in order to add your userpage to Category:Userspace drafts from January 2013 until such time as you're ready to move it to article space. Hope you don't mind. If you do, then please revert my edit, as is your right. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Reformed vs Calvinist Clergy[edit]

You moved Matt Chandler (pastor) from Calvinist to Reformed. Technically speaking, Chandler is not Reformed as he does not ascribe to one of the subordinate standards. ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If we take "Reformed" in a denominational sense, (as in the Continental Reformed churches), then not all Calvinists are Reformed, and not all Reformed people are Calvinist. Even theologically, some people use "Reformed" in a wider sense than "Calvinist", and some use it in a narrower sense. StAnselm (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets say that I want to take things in the theological sense, and I only know of how one can use "Reformed" in a wider sense than "Calvinist". Why would anyone use Reformed in a narrower sense than Calvinist? tahc chat 01:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
When "Reformed" is used to refer to a Calvinistic soteriology (the Five Points of Calvinism) but not necessarily a Calvinist view of the church, sacraments, etc. This would sometimes be the case with Reformed Baptists. StAnselm (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes-- and that makes Calvinism a subset of Reformed but not the reverse.
Hence, Category:American Calvinist clergy is a subcat of Category:American Reformed clergy. tahc chat 22:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
No, that is using "Reformed" in a narrower sense - Reformed Baptists (according to this use) would be "Reformed" but not "Calvinist". StAnselm (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Diogo Morgado[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Diogo Morgado has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Diogo Morgado for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diogo Morgado 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/Diogo Morgado 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. reddogsix (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diogo Morgado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Model (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, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename fictional section[edit]

I have recently expanded the Canine related articles by linking to the Wolves in fiction article. I'd like to request it would be rename to List of Wolves in fiction. Thank you. Deltasim (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

All links to the List of fictional wolves are arranged. I have taken care of the article movement. All the same thank you for participating in some of the related articles. Deltasim (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Virginia listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eastern Virginia. Since you had some involvement with the Eastern Virginia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Core topics work list[edit]

I don't know how many people actually watch that page, so I'm not sure how many people there would be to respond in any event. Having said that, I think it might be worthwhile for someone to go through the various pages in the relevant pages of Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles to see which articles seem to be most important by amount of weight given them in such sources. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems like you proposed something like this before. I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles just now and I do not see any obvious use, at least not in regard to this list. Do you have something particular in mind? tahc chat 22:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
First, I think the use of these lists, when they get done, and they aren't yet, is that they can at least provide some indicators as to what topics merit articles here. I know for a lot of people, myself included, I don't have a clue about which Unitarian Universalists, for instance, are important to the history of that group. Lists like these can if nothing else provide people with a good, if potentially dated and limited, idea of what content is perhaps of really encyclopedic importance. And, in some content disputes, at least potentially, they might be useful as well. If we do get the newsletter up again, like I indicated at WT:X, the lists might provide an indicator of articles to propose for an article creation and/or development contest. And, yeah, at least for a few cases where they're needed, they can provide an indicator of what other sources say on some of the less known topics. But, for the core topics, I'm thinking maybe the articles getting most weight in the Fahlbush Encyclopedia of Christianity might be a good indicator of what topics should be on our own core topics list. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I count 630 topics. How do we narrow it down to something like 100? Also, what does the "*" mean? tahc chat 00:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biblical names of stars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morning star (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) 11:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Clothing materials and parts[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Clothing materials and parts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Oddbodz (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

List of The Incredibles characters[edit]

Hi. Please do not cite the Internet Movie Database as a source, as you did with this edit to List of The Incredibles characters. Sites with user-generated content, such as IMDB, are not reliable under WP:USERG. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to Apex predator[edit]

Information.svg Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Greenmaven (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding removal of Finding in the Temple from Template:Gospel Jesus[edit]

Hi Tahc, This is regarding your removal of Finding in the Temple from Template:Gospel Jesus. I agree it is not a nativity event. I replaced nativity with Early life. Regarding your object that it is not a major event, just an interesting one. I would like to suggest that it may not be a major event in his life, but it is the last recorded event of his early life in the gospels. In that sense it is significant. I request you to reconsider your deletion, as there is no template which covers full Jesus's life from a Gospel perspective. I was hoping that this would be the one. --Jayarathina (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think a template with all events is not as useful. None the less, I will not fight you on this. tahc chat 20:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I am not proposing a template with all the events, I am proposing the template at-least contain significant events. --Jayarathina (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverting and not explaining[edit]

I reverted an unexplained change to God in Christianity. I also fixed a poorly added citation needed tag. I explained why I reverted. You simply reverted my changes and removed a maintenance tag, without supplying a reference. It should have a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Next time please discus on the page in question." tahc chat 06:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of changes to Abrogation of Old Covenant laws please?[edit]

באזרת השםShalom User talk:Tahc (peace, hello and good-bye)Please forgive me but I am not aware of any place in that article where I broke the rules. can you please enlighten me? Obviously I'm new and yet I still don't see how I was outside of these boundaries "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.". I would like to use this as a learning opportunity. Will you help me with that stated objective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohwid (talkcontribs) (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Dohwid (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Dohwid: Thanks for asking so nicely.
  • Undue Weight: You cannot make 60% of the article text about supporting one view (out of three) for just one part of section of the article. This comes under the Wikipedia policy on giving one point of view (POV) undue weight. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately... all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Also note that the page is not about Paul the Apostle and Judaism.
  • Primary sources: The book of Acts is all a primary source. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person... any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so"
  • Block quotations: "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins." See also the examples of overuse of quotations. --tahc chat 07:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Heads of state[edit]

If you have a reliable source that Commanders of the California Republic were Heads of the State of the United States, please provide it; otherwise stop adding a category claiming that they were. Another unsourced addition will be considered vandalism. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Religious leaders lists[edit]

Good job. Perhaps they should be List of Christian religious leaders? I though about including Jewish and Moslem, but the "8th century" etc designations would be meaningless or even contemptuous for them, as they follow different calendars. It would seem very strange to speak of Jewish religious leaders of the 8th century AD ! DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Second Intermediate Period of Egypt 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:
  • Dynasty as Theban.<ref>see for example, Quirke, in Maree: ''The Second Intemediate Period (Thirteenth - Seventeenth Dynasties, Current Research, Future Prospects'', Leuven 2011, Paris —

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gilead 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:
  • In the [[Bible]], '''Gilead''' or '''Galaad''' ({{lang-he-n|גִּלְעָד}}, ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|g|ɪ|l|.|i|.|ə|d}}<ref>[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Guillermo Maldonado page moves[edit]

Hi Tahc, I was hoping to get your thoughts on the page move from Guillermo Maldonado (pastor) to Guillermo Maldonado (no subheader). What are the guidelines for justifying a move like that? Firstly, the article has moved around at least half a dozen times, from GM (Apostle) to GM (Reverend) to "GM (pastor)" back to (Apostle) again, I think, so my head is swimming, but secondly, does there need to be a discussion about a move to take over the default "Guillermo Maldonado" article? I understand that the existing article is little more than a stub for an automobile racer, but I also worry that we are essentially elevating Guillermo Maldonado (pastor) to THE Guillermo Maldonado. Am I making any sense? Michael Jackson is THE Michael Jackson even though there are other Michael Jacksons. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to you at Talk:Guillermo Maldonado (pastor)#Guillermo Maldonado page moves. tahc chat 19:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list[edit]

Hi! Could You response me on that page? And please tell, do You ultimately agree for adding Eucharist to this list? Best regards, Propositum (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes[edit]

Is it in order to make categorical changes to things like denominations / branches / families while a CFD on those very categories is currently under way? Would it not be wiser to await the outcome of that discussion before making such changes? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The category changes were not the topic of any CFD. I do not think I even made changes to the same those categories. tahc chat 22:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


Hey. Nice work on sourcing the information on the name of Ramanu's daughter used in The Chronicles of Narnia adaptations. I restored "Ramanu's daughter" as the entry in the List of Characters and moved Lilliandril to the adaptations section. We've been trying to keep a clean separation between what is in the books and what other people have added later. Nice to have someone else working on the Narnai articles. LloydSommerer (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

New Testament apocrypha[edit]

Hello, I see you removed New Testament apocrypha from the template. My explanation for adding it because the New Testament canon wasn't fully organized and developed yet. If you know this, such books as the Gospel of James and Apocalypse of Peter were considered scripture in the early centuries. In Egypt, Gnostic writing were very poplar during the first, second, third, and forth century. I think I should have placed it in the Development section of the template. I hope you could change your mind about it. -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources
Jewish Christian
Thruway Cup
Mosaic covenant
Mashta Azar
Roman Catholic theology
John Gorman (footballer)
Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy
Development of the Old Testament canon
U.S. Route 166
History of the Orthodox Church
New Testament
History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate
City Harvest Church
Satisfaction theory of atonement
Eastern Orthodox Church
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Serge Jolimeau
Oom Yung Doe
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
Disney Channel (UK and Ireland)
Herod of Chalcis
Berenice (daughter of Mariamne)
Sapiential Books
Henry Danger
I Didn't Do It (TV series)
Split Decisions

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Snowclone 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:
  • (As Language Log explains, this is a popular [[rhetoric]]al [[Trope (linguistics)|trope]] used by

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Template:Books of the Bible, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.I highly recommend you discuss your position in the talk page of the template. JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice job[edit]

Choco chip cookie.png
Mannanan51 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. "Very nice Family Tree at Abraham".

Pseudepigrapha and others...[edit]

I don't know what the issue is, but I highly recommend discussing it. The articles placed in the template are apart of the development of the Bible. Many of the Pseudepigrapha documents were written during the Hasmonean Era and during the persecution of Christians during the first five centuries AD. Development of the Bible was still divided in the Jewish and Christians sects. As you know, the Deuterocanonical books were the main texts still in argument today. Jewish communities had different books. Such popular pseudepigrapha texts would be considered the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, but the word pseudepigrapha to me would be applied to an opinion. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss such things at Template talk:Books of the Bible. Thanks. tahc chat 03:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
You stated WP:BRD in the edit summary, yet I'v started the discussion before this one that you failed to reply such as Weekly Torah portion? in the template. So please, don't use Wikipedia polices as an excuse for your own failure to actually discuss when I send you 1st step messages for discussion. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I apologize, but I did not see your comments at Template talk:Books of the Bible#Weekly Torah portion? before. tahc chat 07:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Israel (Ancient and Medieval), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temple of Jupiter. 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) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Christian denomination tree[edit]

I'm not seeing a problem when I look at this. I wonder if you need to PURGE?

For the text I deleted, I thought {{Diffuse}}, which is already on there, was sufficient, but no big deal. --JFH (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea. It looks fine to me here, but not here-- it has Catholic lables next to the Protestant lines and Eastern Church lables next to the red lines.
I added "{{purge}}" and tried it but it was still the same.
Since it clearly or works fine for you, it may be just browser-dependant (or dependant on something else equally ephemeral), but we have to make it work on everyone's browser. tahc chat 17:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
What browser are you using? --JFH (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Explorer. tahc chat 17:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Pope of Alexandria[edit]

It may be some while before I get together enough facts to begin a discussion on the talk page for template Pentarchy. Please consider, however, that the patriarch of Alexandria has been known as pope since the third century. The first edit you reverted was linking Patriarch of Alexandria to "pope". therefore, I linked to where Pope of Alexandria links to, and I regret not simply linking to that page given your logic for reverting my edit, "There are many of Patriarchs/Popes of Alexandria other than the Coptic Patriarch/Pope. Linking to just the Coptic one is highly POV.". I find calling it POV specious, and calling it *highly* POV is absurd. There is a reason that Pope of Alexandria links there. (And my denomination is affiliated with the other Pope of Alexandria, so it's not my personal POV). Sorry to ramble, but I'm very tired and very busy. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion Invitation[edit]

You are invited for a discussion at Talk:List of fictional ungulates. Deltasim (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't get your edit[edit]

You reverted my edit to Outline of Christianity and listed the reason as "(Smith founded Latter Day Saint movement and Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) but not "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". You are totally correct, but that is what my edit was making clear.

I changed the listing from

To and cited it.

Then I added a totally separate listing of

This is completely consistent with your edit summery "(Smith founded Latter Day Saint movement and Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) but not "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)"

The LDS Church is a Nontrinitarian denominations, and so was Smith's Church of Christ, so both deserve to be listed. So I'm not sure why you seem to disagree with my edit.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the same as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? It isn't in 1838 Smith changed the name to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (see Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). After 1844, Brigham Young re-incorporated the group who fallowed him after the Succession crisis (Latter Day Saints) into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So Smith's sects were
Church of Christ from 1830 to 1834
Church of the Latter Day Saints from 1834 - 1838
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1838 - 1844
After that the Young Group became
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
All of these sects are Nontrinitarian denominations. However, not all Latter Day Saints sect are Nontrinitarian denominations, like the Community of Christ, which is a trinitarian denomination.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Please make comments at Talk:Outline of Christianity#I don't get your edit. Thank you. -tahc chat 20
53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)