|1 December 2018|
- 1 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 2 Hebrew Bible Reversion
- 3 A cup of tea for you!
- 4 Changes by User:Mikeoregan1
- 5 article titled "Will of God"
- 6 Jainism-related sockpuppetry for JBM1971
- 7 Messianic Age
- 8 Omniscience lede
- 9 July 2018
- 10 Value added tax
- 11 You should know better!
- 12 Huh.
- 13 Mulek
- 14 Gospel
- 15 A barnstar for you!
- 16 Changing the text may change the meaning
- 17 Your removal of honorifics in the Mercaz HaRav article
- 18 Christian ethics being debated at ANI
- 19 A plea for better edit summaries
- 20 Eastern Christianity
- 21 Time for a break
- 22 Male Authorship of the Bible
- 23 I am a puzzler
- 24 SMILE!! 8 OCT 2018
- 25 Jewish royalty
- 26 Why Did You Delete?
- 27 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 28 Category:Catholic terminology has been nominated for discussion
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hebrew Bible Reversion
I came across your reversion of Hebrew Bible, because the redirect and undoing of the redirect caused the page to appear on the WP:NPP feed. Your editing note says there was no discussion. I would point you to Talk:Tanakh#Proposed_Merge which was properly tagged on Hebrew Bible. I am not involved in that discussion in anyway, nor do I plan to be, but wanted to point you to where discussion had happened (and for which there was no new commentary in over a month). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm in the discussion there now. Thanks for the heads up.Editor2020 (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|Thanks for all the work on the Christianity-related articles which I keep changing and changing! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)|
Changes by User:Mikeoregan1
Hello User:Editor2020, I notice that you also reverted User:Mikeoregan1, who is making edits across a slew of articles that involve removing "Western Christianity", despite the fact that many of the traditions of Western Christian Churches, such as the Catholic Church and Lutheran Churches, are identical. I have reverted User:Mikeoregan1 on the Easter and Pentecost articles for making the same kind of edits. What are your thoughts? I look forward to hearing from you! With regards, AnupamTalk 22:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- That was a while ago, so I'm afraid I don't recall it. I'm not sure if they are confused about the meaning of Western Christianity or what. Perhaps a word on their Talk page?Editor2020 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
article titled "Will of God"
I disagree with Your rollback in the article Will of God. There are the following reasons:
- Does the following sentence have any source? In Christianity, some assert the Law of Christ, a supersessionist view that Jesus "commandments" superseded Jewish law. . I deleted that sentence because supersiossionism is just developed in the article Law of Christ.
- Many readers of Wikipedia are unaware of Weatherhead's biography. My edit added the following sentence: Leslie Weatherhead (1893-1976), English theologian and nonconformist Protestant of the Liberal Christianity movement,..." That is, I have added a minimal historical context, which is also present at the beginning of the article. The informations i have added t the article "Will of god", are still published in the article Leslie Weatherhead, and in the related template, even if not sourced.
- Wikipedia's articles are used to repeat this kind of basic informations, such as the year of birth and death, the place of birth and death, and three main activities listed in a biography.
- Liberal Christianity was a prominent theological movement in the Biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. It seems not to be related to the Christian orthodoxy. For this reason, it is appropriate a short historical introduction in the article "Will of God".
- For the christianity, Bible has to be considered as a primary source about the Will of God. I added a short paragraph, which summarises the Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew. There are no original researches, and the contents are just referenced in the related article. Even if other Jesus'discourses has been classified as sermons(here), the "Sermon on the Mount" is the only one with that word present in its title. It contains the Eleven Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer, the most known one in all the Christianity. Those maybe a good reason for explaining the Word of Jesus before any other theological interpretation about the Will fo God.Micheledisaverio (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- As I said, you need WP:Secondary References. If not it's WP:Original Research.Editor2020 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. I will do my better, but it isn't a very simple task to do. for the paragraph Will of God#Chistianity, I suggest to add a template:Main, which links the three following articles: Samaritan Pentateuch, Sinaitic covenant, Law of Christ (related to the supersessionism, mentioned in the previous version).
Maybe I am wrong, but the second article has to be titled as "Sinaitic Covenant", with all capital letters, like the first one: please, look at there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheledisaverio (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
article titled Will of God: paragraphs "Abrahamic religions", and "Christianity"
Good morning @Editor2020: , I wish to propose the following edit for paragraph "Chirsitanity":
- rename the title in "Christianity's" to make it coherent with the upper level title which is "interpretations", as it means "interpretation of the Christianity, of deism, and so on"
- paragraph's organization: I suggest to have a sequence of paragraphs related the three main Abrahamic religions. Therefore, I wish to add an intermediate subparagraph titled "Abrahamic religions".
- it may have as its sons 4 titles: "In the Bible" (which is not an interpretation, but it's basics as
one of the religious texts), "Christianity's", "Hebraic" and "Islamic". Perhaps, the Hebraism paragraph has still to be written at all in the questioned article.
- subparagraph titled "In the Bible": I wish to quote the Book the Book titled "Knowing God" (J. I.Packer) in the edition of 1973, I am controlling a second time for the article, with the following text:
The Gospel of John (1:John 4:8-10) defines God is Love, Light, Spirit and Truth.
God Father send His Son to humans and let them to sacrify Him on the cross, as a propitiation of the human sins and become the only door of salvation. Gospel.
For the definitions I will add the biblical passages. Quotation by "Konowing God" book is only referred to the first of John's definition. Packed called called it "definition of the Love of God".
- The Book of John and Knowing God quotes seem to be off topic for the Will of God article. Editor2020 (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- good evening @Editor2020:, I don'think so. Definition of "Will OF God" logically follows a possible definition of God, as the Will is a quality (property) of someone. Secomdly, the two mentioned books rely with a definition God, since their title:
- the Book of John (which wrote more than one, in the Bible, the Christian's religious text)
- the book "Knowing God" of Packed. I am reading now the edition of 1973, page 21, and quoteas follows: "Thus, to the fourth question in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, What is God? the answer read as follows: God is Spirit, infinite, eternal, and uncheangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and Truth. This statement the great Charles Hodge described as probably the best definition of God ever penned by man".
I wish to add it the article Will of God, in the subparagraph Christianity, for the following qualities:
- in respect of the Christian orthodoxy (the Nicean Creed)
Personal god is a much more generic article, as the God one. In the following days, we may point specific quotations for each quality attributed to God by that saint Pope.Micheledisaverio (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Editor2020: I receive this impersonal notification for one-single-word anonymous edit. Aside from that,I completely dislike with your reverted on Personal God and the new section about the Most Holy Trinity.
- I think that if it there is a wide quotation on the section titled "Islam", then in the following sectiin titled "Christianity" it can be added a quotation coming from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, with which milions of christian believers are familiar. It is also quoted by a best-seller like the book Knowing God. Do you really adfirm that "wisdom, power and justice" are "off-topic" about the Christian personal God? Each of them is uniqueky related to a personal entity, not to an universal and impersonal force (or architect) common to all religions. I will modify the article again or move the present talk in the discussione page of personal God.Micheledisaverio (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Editor2020. I don't know how much you've noticed, but there's some edit-warring and sockpuppetry going on in Jainism-related articles. I'm searching for anyone who might have noticed it long term, or is knowledgeable enough to sort out and clean up what's going on. I've not found any detailed discussion so far, and am assuming it's all related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JBM1971. I've repeatedly seen your editing in articles where it's been happening, so thought you'd be able to help. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't get involved in sockpuppet investigations. Editor2020 (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I shouldn't have used that section heading...
- The problem isn't the sockpuppetry, as much as the articles could use review, further cleanup, and watching.
- From my asking editors like yourself, it's appears this is just the latest bit of religious and cultural pov-pushing. I expect you're probably much more familiar with the problem that myself. --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies, I should have put it in the edit summary. Your edits are WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH based on WP:PRIMARY SOURCES. Editor2020 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
As someone who recently edited the lede of omniscience, would you mind providing a third opinion on the current discussion regarding undue weight on Jainism in the lede? I'd rather not get dragged into an edit war with an editor that clearly has not learned anything from getting unbanned. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Scientific racism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page gnome) hmm templating a regular for such a small thing... —PaleoNeonate – 19:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Value added tax
Hi, is there a particular reason you keep reverting my edit to Value-added_tax? The sentence that "VAT is an incentive for a company to expand on infrastructure" is a summary of the harder to read sentences before and after. The introduction paragraph is a really difficult read and it needs a sentence that clarifies or explains it simply Dagelf (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't edited that article since 19 June 2018, and it was to revert an unreferenced change not made by you. Editor2020 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
You should know better!
I saw your recent edit to Messiah. I do not have the foggiest idea how I added that text to the article. Good catch. 02:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I messed up your edits because I did not see them as correct in sequence, which they were. In any event, after a few tries, I think I finally restored the edits that you intended. Sorry for my confusion, if you see it on a further review or watchlist, I wanted to say that I am reasonably sure I got your edits restored as you wanted them. Donner60 (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Writer's Barnstar|
|For your articles relating to the history of social and cultural aspects of anatomy. Many thanks for your contributions! Tom (LT) (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)|
Changing the text may change the meaning
Consider that not all texts have "whom the Lord Jesus will kill" but rather indicate by "whom the Lord [Jesus] will kill" that the word 'Jesus' is not in the original texts. You may consider this a minor point, but it potentially changes the meaning, and you are asserting 'Jesus' as if present always.
At the very least, don't just say '(version)' and "<ref>2 Thessalonians 2:8–11</ref>" as if all texts are the same, but include something like "changing to NIV" *and* "<ref>2 Thessalonians 2:8–11 (NIV)</ref>". Shenme (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Your removal of honorifics in the Mercaz HaRav article
Sorry, but your changes to Mercaz HaRav did not improve the article but just the opposite. The title "rabbi" is not just an honorific but also indicates a profession, similar to faculty members on the Harvard_University#Faculty page who are referred to as chemists, philosophers, etc. Why should Chief Rabbis Kook and Shapiro be without titles or any indication of profession?
Before you start deleting all the rabbis in Wikipedia, please look at the accepted style used in other articles on Jewish institutions, such as Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Yeshivas Ner Yisroel, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, and Yeshiva_College_(Yeshiva_University)#Notable_alumni. Thank you! Cm613 (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. I attempted to remove only those instances where Rabbi is an honorific while retaining those in which it indicates a religious role. I do the same for Doctor X, Prophet X, Guru X, etc. which also have these dual usages. Editor2020 (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Christian ethics being debated at ANI
Since you have recently edited the page, it's possible you have an opinion on whether admins should become involved. The thread is WP:ANI#Disruptive editor at Christian ethics. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
A plea for better edit summaries
Hi. I saw this edit of yours and had to spend a bit of time figuring out that it wasn't vandalism. If you had left a more useful edit summary such as, "deleted mal-formed reference", it would have saved me some time. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Check the article this link goes to, and understand.UltimateHope (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC) To be honest I am not really sure why you reverted me, could you please explain?UltimateHope (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- I can't figure this one out. Could you provide some details please. Editor2020 (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- The reason why the sentence says “Abrahamic religions” even though three prominent Abrahamic faiths are crossed out as “Western” is because monotheism is an essential part of Western civilisation and the Abrahamic religions are monotheistic and Platonist in nature. Eastern Christianity is an exception because it is what created the East-West dichotomy in the first place.UltimateHope (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to have misread the meaning of the sentence. Here is the sentence:
- The section in parentheses is giving examples of Abrahamic religions, i.e. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are Abrahamic. Editor2020 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Time for a break
- I hope that you take a well deserved break, then that you eventually come back. Thank you for your precious contributions, —PaleoNeonate – 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Male Authorship of the Bible
Dear Editor 2020, At the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible Authorship of the Bible NOT ONE female author is presumed or listed. Miistermagico (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- True, but unless you have a Reliable Sources that says all the authors were male, it's Original Research. Editor2020 (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I am a puzzler
Dear Editor2020, I realize the wikipedia is not a place for conversing. Yet you immediately responded to my entry at the Bible. May I ask what is your personal connection with Biblical Scholarship? If you are comfortable with this question please reply here soon.
Sincerely, miistermagico Miistermagico (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Purely chance. No connection at all, except an amateur interest.Editor2020 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
SMILE!! 8 OCT 2018
Hi there. I must be confused.. how is Moses, an ancient Egyptian Jew and a prince of Egypt not considered "Jewish royalty"? Is this category for only royalty from Judea? I was under the impression it was for members of the Jewish faith/race that were also members of royalty. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Jewish royalty would include the royal families of the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), Kingdom of Judah and Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), the Hasmonean dynasty and the Herodian kingdom.Editor2020 (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Why Did You Delete?
I am new. Why did you delete? Thank you :-)
"4 August 70 CE (Tisha B'Av - 9th Day of Av) or"
- Because it added nothing to the article and didn't support the claim. It was just a calendar. Editor2020 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have put more in, as you can see, the 9th Day of Av or Tisha B'Av is 4 August 70 CE. Please see the Wikipedia article "Judea_(Roman_province)" in the right side of the article "Historical Era", and the Hebrew/Roman Calendar which details the Holidays at in end of the page.
How about this:
- (talk page stalker) we never use our articles as sources. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Your other sources are no better. Where is this tradition coming from? If it's authentic there will be scholarly sources discussing it. And hopefully explaining the difference in dates. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC) @BobTarver: Doug Weller talk 11:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I am found a source.  said "According to Josephus, a Roman soldier took a torch and threw it against the beautiful tapestries that Herod had made for the Temple and that hung along its walls. When they caught fire the Romans attempted to put it out, but there was not sufficient water. Somehow the fire was so intense that even the stone took hold and the building collapsed. The Talmud says that it burned not only on the late afternoon of the ninth of Av, but the entire day of the tenth." Also, the reference  said " In fact, there is an opinion in the Talmud that the day of destruction should be the tenth of Av instead of the ninth because the building was actually destroyed on the tenth. Nevertheless, since it started on the ninth, and because of the connection to the destruction of the First Temple, the ninth remained the memorial day for the destruction of both Temples." Now, using the Hebrew/Roman Calendar , the 9th Day of Av would be on 4 August and the 10th Day of Av would be on 5 August 70 CE. Also, Josephus (Judean War, 6.4.5 249-253) wrote:
"So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the Temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the Holy House; but, as for that House, God had for certain long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of the ages: it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Av,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus's retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the Holy House fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning in the inner court of the Temple; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the Holy House itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the Holy House, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward the Jews made a great clamour, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered anything to restrain their force, since that Holy House was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard upon it."
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Category:Catholic terminology has been nominated for discussion
Category:Catholic terminology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Roman Province of Judea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_(Roman_province) 
- History and Headlines https://www.historyandheadlines.com/august-4-70-ad-romans-destroy-second-temple-jerusalem/ 
- Roman Calendar 70 CE http://www.cgsf.org/dbeattie/calendar/?roman=70 
- The Destruction of the Second Temple 
- Roman Calendar 70 CE http://www.cgsf.org/dbeattie/calendar/?roman=70