Jump to content

User talk:StAnselm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→An advice: new section
Line 279: Line 279:
Hi StAnselm, I've been trying to get your attention so that you might rejoin the discussion on the talk page of Homosexuality in the New Testament. I'd like to know whether you agree with me that Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 should be discussed in the article in question. [[User:MagicatthemovieS|MagicatthemovieS]] ([[User talk:MagicatthemovieS|talk]]) 17:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi StAnselm, I've been trying to get your attention so that you might rejoin the discussion on the talk page of Homosexuality in the New Testament. I'd like to know whether you agree with me that Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 should be discussed in the article in question. [[User:MagicatthemovieS|MagicatthemovieS]] ([[User talk:MagicatthemovieS|talk]]) 17:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
:Sorry - I've replied now. [[User:StAnselm|<b>St</b>]][[Special:Contributions/StAnselm|Anselm]] ([[User talk:StAnselm|talk]]) 18:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
:Sorry - I've replied now. [[User:StAnselm|<b>St</b>]][[Special:Contributions/StAnselm|Anselm]] ([[User talk:StAnselm|talk]]) 18:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

== An advice ==

Hi! i have an advice for you : Improve your knowledge first, then talk about other cultures. i studied literature and i am journalist, it's so simple what means "Proverbial people". --[[User:Chyah|ސ ޚ ލ ٰ ا]] ([[User talk:Chyah|talk]]) 18:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:15, 5 July 2017

Template:Archive box collapsible

Hannah Marshall

I hope you don't mind that I've moved Hannah Marshall to draft space as per my edit summary. Schwede66 23:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do mind, actually - significant roles in two TV shows means the subject passes WP:NACTOR #1. Add stub tags if you need to, but there is nothing wrong with having a stub like this in mainspace. StAnselm (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alice Vaughan.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alice Vaughan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Hammoth-Dor

Hello, St. Anselm. If I am reading the edit history correctly, back in September you put a "clarification needed" tag on on the article Hammoth-Dor. I've cleaned up the relevant sentence. I'm wondering if you now consider it clear enough for me to remove the clarification needed tag. I would do it myself, but I figured since you put it there first, I'd check with you.Alephb (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's all good now - I have removed the tag myself. StAnselm (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Trump listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mr Trump. Since you had some involvement with the Mr Trump redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American films category

Hi. Category:American films and the other national categories are non-diffusing. I did the exact same thing and removed the category from a few articles before someone told me that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK - thanks. StAnselm (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Reformed Theological College logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Reformed Theological College logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Patterson

I don't understand how an image of the guy (you can definitely see it is the same person) cannot be posted on the page of the actual person. What about public photos taken from newspapers like the Baptist Press? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:92C5:BB00:5E7:630:56C6:1E8F (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are all under copyright. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for more details. StAnselm (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no

comment removed per your request Lakeshake (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine: please remove the new comment you just added. The text there clearly says "Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page," and your comment is in the same section. StAnselm (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello StAnselm,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello StAnselm,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer

Hi. On its creation on 1 November 2016 you were automatically grandfathered into this new user right. If you are not interested in New Page Reviewing, or if you will not have time to help out in the foreseeable future, please consider asking me or another admin to delist you from this user group in order to keep our stats and records straight. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For you WP:HEYMANN rewrite of salvation bracelet. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message on my talk page

Hi,

I'm confused as to why you left a warning message on my talk page. The underlinked tag keps getting removed because there's a program that I use called AutoWikiBrowser which, amongst other things, detects errors in tags. According to its algorithms, that article is not underlinked therefore the tag keeps getting removed. It's semi-automated and works on lists so that article is one in thousands that AWB deals with.

Please remember not to template the regulars as it's patronising and a bit rude really.

DrStrauss talk 20:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've had problems with tools doing things I didn't want - but we still have to take responsibility for our edits. See WP:AWBRULES: "You are responsible for every edit made." Perhaps you need to raise the problem with the tool's developer, or maybe you just need to stop using AWB. With this particular removal, you had done it twice[1][2] - and made no other edits to the article. I had reverted your first removal, but you had ignored that. Anyway, I'm sorry you were offended by the template, but please also see WP:TR. StAnselm (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so: it's only a minor thing really but I'll raise it with the developers but I make a lot of useful edits with AWB as can be seen in my thanks log so I'm not stopping using it. I knew you'd reply with the rebuttal essay...
Sorry if I came off a bit terse, hopefully we can both bear that in mind in future.
Thank you,
DrStrauss talk 22:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you

The Namibian Barnstar of National Merit
A belated thankyou for your work on Namibian topics during the Africa Destubathon! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moana (2018 film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Moana (2018 film). Since you had some involvement with the Moana (2018 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Next 100 Years.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Next 100 Years.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Making Threats Against Others

I see your threat you made at my talk page. If you think I violated the 3RR rule then file for it. But I see you edited it back to what was the previous consensus as I was also doing the same which is not a 3RR violations. Reverting edits that go against the consensus is proper. Maybe before making wild threats you go to the talk page as I asked instead of ASSuming. ContentEditman (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hi, I am User:bashereyre. I contribute across the site but principally to the Anglicanism section. This article Michael John Keatinge has been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge Could you see what you think Bashereyre (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. StAnselm (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Eltham College UK logo.jpeg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eltham College UK logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on Ten Years!

You have contributed much! Congratulations on Ten Years on Wikipedia! :)

May God bless you in the years to come. :) Is there any way I can pray for you?

With hope,

TenorTwelve (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, as my user page indicates, I'm working on a PhD. I'm very close to the end now - please pray that I can make the remaining corrections before Easter. StAnselm (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. We want to know the outcome. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you! It's submitted and in the hands of the examiners. :) StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Torah is not a subset of the Bible

this is not OK. Please don't make these kinds of claims in Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jews traditionally divide the Bible into Torah, Neviim, and Ketuvim. That makes Torah (in one sense of the word) a subset of the Bible. Getting all huffy about that is ridiculous. Alephb (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is - what is The Bible? Jews have Tanakh and Christians have their own versions (which are not the same among Christians; the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible see also Christian biblical canons). Most Christians are not thinking Tanakh when they say "Bible" in my experience, they are thinking some version of the Christian Bible. Otherwise they wouldn't get upset when I said "The Bible doesn't include the New Testament" which is perfectly true if;) you are Jewish and talking about your "Bible" and b) if "Bible" is really a term that anybody can use however they want. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Christian Bibles all include the five books of Moses (a name we can all agree on), which we Jews call Torah, and we don't mind anybody else calling it Torah. Torah is a subset of the Bible in every sense of the word, anybody's Bible, everybody's Bible. See Biblical canon § Old Testament: "All of the major Christian traditions accept the books of the Hebrew protocanon in its entirety as divinely inspired and authoritative." Yes, of course translations differ, but nobody disagrees on the books that are included in the Torah. --Thnidu (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that quote actually in Wikipedia? Oy we need to fix that. Outside of that what you are saying is true - Torah is in everybody's "Bible". it just not everybody means the same thing by "Bible", and in the context above, naming Abraham as being someone in "the bible" and the quran just excludes (in my view) Jewish traditions about Abraham in a way that is both casual and unhelpful and we really should never do. There is sometimes reason to be sloppy but why be so when there is no need? Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to give a shout-out to every possible religious group so that no one feels left out, maybe we should have the infobox read "Torah, Protestant Bible, Roman Catholic Bible, Greek Orthodox Bible, Coptic Orthodox Bible, Tawahedo Bible, Mormon Scriptures." That way all the different Bibles belonging to groups with 15 million members or more are included; all of these religions have populations equal to or greater than the number of adherents of Judaism. Otherwise, some of our readers might think instinctively of Protestant Bibles, without stopping to take a minute to appreciate the full, rich tapestry of religious traditions. Alephb (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm! My biggest concern was the very different things Jews and Christians hear and mean with regard to "Bible". Do people actually refer to the Book of Mormon as a "Bible" If so I was completely ignorant of that. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, they don't call it the Mormon Bible -- they use the King James Bible. There was a distinctly Mormon Bible produced by Joseph Smith, but it's current status is . . . complicated, in part due to a schism and a legal battle over the copyright. Alephb (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that "which Jews do not consider part of the Old Testament" is inappropriate. StAnselm (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Berkeley situation

I went through the course pages and created a list of the Berkeley student project articles by status. Feel free to use it to keep track of the cleanup. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Natoli

Justlettersandnumbers has removed much of the Joseph Natoli Wikipedia page. Does this seem justifiable to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CA03:4940:49CF:3324:34A3:C4B0 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article on "History of Fair Use proposals in Australia"

As per your original suggestion on the Australian wikipedians' noticeboard - and as 'seconded' by Capitalistroadster and Lankiveil - I and a couple of others (notably Damph & Trishhepworth, and also Tango Mike Bravo) have taken your advice and made the draft article Draft:History of Fair Use proposals in Australia' - an attempt to make a normal Wikipedia article discussing the issue of the various proposals/arguments around Fair Use in Australia over the years. I believe it is now up to beyond-minimum-standard for Wikipedias normal article creation criteria (whilst still not being 'finished' obviously), but I've put it up for article-creation-review just for the avoidance of doubt in case someone is worried my launching the article myself is a COI. If you, or others tagged here, would like to edit and improve the draft article - go right ahead! If you (or others) feel comfortable approving it for mainspace, feel free. Sincerely, Wittylama 13:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's quite ready for article space yet. There is nothing, for example on the response by Copyright Agency Ltd to proposals (which was mentioned in the original discussion). Also, the "Example use-cases" is very strange: it says "Arguments have included", but the list that follows is of examples, not arguments. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please discontinue your disruptive editing at Coal mining in Appalachia by blanking the page with a redirect [3]. "disruptive editing...disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." Please stop and let editors work on content. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are way out of line here. You were seeking to influence the outcome of a move discussion by creating an article at the proposed target. That is certainly tendentious editing. StAnselm (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious five years!

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


May 2017

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's 3rr and edit warring, as you did at Michael Pearl. ContentEditman (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ContentEditman (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Adams

Hey, I've seen your revert and read the header of Category:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States. But what's written there is pretty weird, because antisemitism is something completely different than criticism of Judaism. Criticism pre-supposes scholarship, demonstrated by e.g. writing books or articles about the topic, which is not what antisemitism is about. And Judaism refers to the religious beliefs and practices, while antisemitism refers to ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have no opinions about whether he can be categorised as a "critic", but the scope of the antisemitism categories were fixed a few years ago, and it was decided not to have antisemites in them. This was mainly due to BLP concerns, but it was applied to all biographies. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we then allow Category:Anti-communists? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because it's less pejorative? People might be much more willing to describe themselves as "anti-communist" rather than "antisemitic". StAnselm (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you don't see

I'm pinging you in a post on WT:CRIC. Courtesy notice so that you are involved in the discussion, if one arises. Bobo. 23:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image on Clementine Ford (writer)

Hi there, I just noticed that you removed an image I had added to the Ford article of her book. I took the photo myself and uploaded it, which I thought meant it was ok, but you've taken it down as "copyvio"? Could you point me a policy/page that I can read up on this as I thought a photo taken by oneself was acceptable. Thanks in advance! MurielMary (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should have come across it when you uploaded it at Commons, where it says "Works which contain other copyrighted works (derivative works) - these are not permitted, so don't upload them!". Even though you took the photo yourself, the book cover is still under copyright. StAnselm (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks very much for pointing that out! MurielMary (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Bible and homosexuality. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in the New Testament

Hi StAnselm, I've been trying to get your attention so that you might rejoin the discussion on the talk page of Homosexuality in the New Testament. I'd like to know whether you agree with me that Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 should be discussed in the article in question. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I've replied now. StAnselm (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An advice

Hi! i have an advice for you : Improve your knowledge first, then talk about other cultures. i studied literature and i am journalist, it's so simple what means "Proverbial people". --ސ ޚ ލ ٰ ا (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StAnselm&oldid=789156871"