User talk:Editoreditorman

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Editoreditorman! Thank you for your contributions. I am WereSpielChequers and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Ϣere SpielChequers 16:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Saint Joseph without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Saint Joseph seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Gordon and almah

I'm sorry that you're feeling frustrated at being reverted all the time when you add the reference from Cyrus Gordon. The thing is, he's simply outdated. Yes, he was a major scholar, but that article dates from 1953 - it's almost as old as I am! We want to give readers the current, contemporary scholarly view, as of the early 21st century. For that, Marvin Sweeney is a far more pertinent authority. As you know, he's a leading modern scholar, and if he says "scholars agree" on something, we can take his authority for it. So that's why I've reverted Gordon - his article is from over half a century ago and doesn't represent modern scholarly opinion. In any case you seem to have misread Gordon - he's saying that the translators of the LXX were Jewish, that's all. He goes on to say that "almah" means a young woman who may be a virgin but is not necessarily so - exactly what Sweeney is saying. PiCo (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says Cyrus Gordon is outdated? That thinking could toss out Galileo, Newton, etc. Sweeney is not in the majority Evangelical view. Basileias (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting comparison. In fact Galileo and Newton areoutdated - Newton's theory of gravity described planets moving around the Sun in circular orbits, because he saw space as an absolute; in fact they move in elliptical orbits and have "precession", because space is in fact not absolute; as a result Newtonian grqvity was replaced by the theories put forward by Einstein. Even Einsteinian gravity has problems (doesn't mesh with quantum theory), and will probably become outdated someday itself.Scholarship builds on the past. Not that Gordon was wrong, by the way - he agrees with Sweeney on the meaning of almah :). PiCo (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia noticeboard: edit warring: Almah and Isaiah 7:14

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. PiCo (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed PiCo's report at WP:ANEW, and it appears that you are insisting on your edits without discussion. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and may result in your being blocked for edit warring. I suggest you stop reverting at both articles and discuss your changes with other editors (edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion). There is currently a discussion at Talk:Isaiah 7:14 about the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the talk-page of the article Almah. Please discuss there before making more edits in the three articles. It would be useful if you could somhow let us see the relevant page from the book you use as your source - just type out the relevant paragraph, perhaps. PiCo (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin birth of Jesus

I've opened a new section in Talk for discussion of the recent edits (only to the lead - nothing else was edited). Since you put the tag on the article you might like to comment. PiCo (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]