- 1 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 2 Pandeism images
- 3 Reza Aslan
- 4 Removal of sourced text
- 5 Reversion of Edit on Yahweh article
- 6 July 2017
- 7 Revert of Omnipotence article edit
- 8 Please revert citation of textbooks by Geisler and Nix at 10p
- 9 Edit Warring Notification
- 10 2601 IPv6 IP you reverted recently
- 11 Revert to Soul article
- 12 Lead section deletion on artist page
- 13 Your edit on "Torah scroll (Yemenite)"
- 14 Islamic calendar page
- 15 One true church
- 16 Catholicism redirect
- 17 Problem of Hell
- 18 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 19 New Page Reviewing
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!
Let's engage on this. I'm no expert in pictures in Wikipedia articles, but looking around it seems the "rules" are much less strict than for sources. That the pictures have "nothing to do" with Pandeism: the one I added, a sort of generic "pretty Universe" picture, is what they claim was directly created. The second, the Universum woodcut (has been there long before), is a famous symbolic illustration and of man breaking through old ideas into new. Both are the sort of images liberally associated with Pantheism and Pandeism. Google search these words and these are the kind of images to come up. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would prefer that images had a connection to pantheism but will not object if you restore these. Editor2020 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I will. If you have another idea of an image having a connection I'm all for it. Since it's an abstraction, there's not a picture "of" it like there is of a panda (see ). In fact, compare Universe. Impossible to show the entire universe in an image, so there are many abstractions, pretty pictures of stars and concept illustrations. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- My mistake above, the woodcut is named Flammarion engraving. The symbolism, a reasonable enough fit. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Editor2020. Happy Thursday. Why this revert? Neither of the cited sources properly supports the preceding content, but the one I dug up does. Also, "human brain matter" seems more precise than "part of a human brain" (Can we be sure it was from a single brain, not more than one? And which part was it, the hippocampus? Cerebellum?) and that phrase was used in the source I cited. I'm probably missing something really obvious, but I don't get it, and your Twinkle-generated edit summary—"Restore"—isn't very enlightening. RivertorchFIREWATER 07:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it really matters what part of the brain he ate, of if it was just one brain, just that he ate human brain, and none of this is explained by "brain matter" but if you want to change it go ahead. Editor2020 (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Removal of sourced text
As per wiki guidelines, you do not remove sourced text from an article, you clearly went against it when you removed Obeah from the article Occult you also did not make proper use of your edit summary as per WP:ES which postulates that we give a short but detailed summary of our edits, you clearly werent thinking about that policy because your edit summary read "Clean up" when in actuality you removed a text which had 3 citations affixed to it, "Clean up" isnt good enough reason to remove sourced texts from an article so until you are able to provide a plausible explanation as per your actions i am afraid the information would be re-inserted, not reverted but re-inserted as you positively have improved some aspects of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Reversion of Edit on Yahweh article
Hi, you reverted without comment the statement:
"The Hebrew Bible gives the impression that location of the Ark of the Covenant was intended to be the central or even sole place of worship of Yahweh, but archeological evidence suggests this was not the case"
"The Hebrew Bible gives the impression that the Jerusalem temple was always meant to be the central or even sole temple of Yahweh"
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to San Escobar. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. The "San Otaku" (or whatever) thing was a huge, obvious pile of BS. KMF (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Revert of Omnipotence article edit
- From WP:PRIMARY
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
Please revert citation of textbooks by Geisler and Nix at 10p
Geisler and Nix are std textbooks in world-wide classrooms. I filled in all pertinent citations. Please revert to add these. Thank you
- I disagree. Please discuss on Talk page before reverting, per WP:BRD.Editor2020 (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Edit Warring Notification
This notice is a designed to bring attention to the last reverts that you have done for edits by Camille G. Weston (talk). Although the edits have occurred across differing pages, they share contextual relevance in that they are causeless, unsubstantiated and specifically regarding the topic of Christianity and the Biblical concept of the Trinity. At other times edits have been inconspicuously removed, as in the article on Omnipotence. Edit warring is prohibited at Wikipedia and the next incident will be formally reported. Thank you for understanding.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -User:Camillegweston144
- I think perhaps you don't understand what WP:Edit Warring is. Editor2020 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's WP:BRD, Bold, Revert, then Discuss on the Talk page. You might as well get used to being reverted, as it is going to happen a lot, especially starting out.Editor2020 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
2601 IPv6 IP you reverted recently
Revert to Soul article
- Your addition was not based on a WP:Reliable Source which does not support the claim made ("however, that the Soul is the true form of all mortal life, and is responsible for having the body to be sentient")and was placed in the WP:Lead section rather than in the article. Editor2020 (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Lead section deletion on artist page
Recently, I summarized some of the section on "Market reception" for the Willem de Kooning biography article to add to the lead section there. Another editor deleted it as being unreferenced. Is it proper to now add the references back into the summarized text and put it into the lead section with references? Maybe I have misread the other editor's intentions, if you could glance at this. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- You need to discuss it on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD. Editor2020 (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Your edit on "Torah scroll (Yemenite)"
User:Editor2020, shalom. I noticed where you deleted a sentence where we mentioned Rashi's view, and where he, ostensibly, writes in his commentary on Genesis 25:6 that the Hebrew word "pilagshim" is written in "defective scriptum," based on what we also read here. Have you found some other reason why the edit should not stand? If I was mistaken, please let me know. Have a good Shabbos!Davidbena (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's almost exactly the same as the previous sentence. Could you vary the wordage so I understand the difference in meaning? Editor2020 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Here, the second reference is referring to a different word which has the exact same problem as the first word, meaning, both (according to Rashi) are written in "defective scriptum," although in the Masoretic text it is not written in "defective scriptum," but in "plene scriptum."Davidbena (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Islamic calendar page
One true church
I think One true church was a good one. None of this stuff has any sources, though, and I was wondering if this is a subject area of interest to you, and if you could find some references? Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)of content at
- If the are discussed in the article, with sources, then the don't need them in the Lead section. If not, they shouldn't be here at all. –Editor2020 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I've restored the previous redirect that was the outcome of an RM in August. Given that this is such a controversial naming area (currently especially, but also in general historically on Wikipedia), changes to titles or targets in the area typically should have discussion. I'd suggest RfD as the best place to have the discussion if you still think it should be retargeted. ; OK. tTonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Problem of Hell
I reverted your revert of my revert (heh) on Problem of Hell. I want to be clear, you are welcome to reintroduce the change, and this would not be edit-warring. In fact, I expect that's what you'll do. What you aren't welcome to do is revert it. I was reverting an edit from a sockpuppet of a banned user, Apollo The Logician (talk · contribs). Again, I expect there's a good chance you'll undo my change and you are welcome to do so, only not via a revert. Specifically, if you undo my change, you take full responsibility for it (which is fine). --Yamla (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
New Page Reviewing
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,