User talk:Epinoia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Epinoia. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Epinoia/Anne Caulfield, Lady Charlemont has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Caulfield, Lady Charlemont, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Félix B. Caignet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to San Luis, El derecho de nacer and Mexican
Anibal de Mar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to El derecho de nacer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

- fixed - Epinoia (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of bass guitarists, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jesus Lizard and Face to Face. 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) 09:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

- fixed - Epinoia (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you please note when you don't warn vandals?

Hello User:Epinoia! I too am a Vandal Cop, and wanted to ask you if you could please note in your WP:ES whether or not you had warned vandals? This helps other RCP when they are checking out a vandal for possible reporting to WP:AIV to see if the vandal has been warned for previous behavior or not. Thanks L3X1 Complaints Desk 22:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Emma of Normandy

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/305_THE_FALL_OF_ORTHODOX_ENGLAND.pdf. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

- just a note that this was resolved and there was no copyright violation - Epinoia (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

Hallo, I see you've created redirects from Pseudo-Hierotheus and Hierotheus (Pseudo) to Stephen Bar Sudhaile although I can't see any mention of that term in the article. Could you please add a sourced mention of the term, otherwise the redirects may get deleted. Thanks. PamD 09:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

당신을 위한 반스타!

편집자 반스타
Thank you for your beautiful contribution to many documents. 칼빈500 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

fyi

WP:RED: "A study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow."--Tobias Epos (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a French article on Eugene Vintras - I added a link to that until an English article is created - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You've gotta be kidding!--Tobias Epos (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- oddly, your original link showed red without (fr) - I tried to make the link with :fr:, but it showed as red as well, so I deleted it, but when I tried :fr: a second time, it worked - your new link now shows up as (fr) - sorry for the confusion, glad it got sorted - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- ps: I am in a rural area and have very slow internet speed, so the reason the links to the French article didn't show up may have to do with my limited internet access - Epinoia (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Western esotericism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Text, Point of view and Magic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

- fixed - Epinoia (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Gospel

Have you read the source? Why is it unsubstantiated? I love when editors don't read the sources, although I must assume Good Faith

Cheers! Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

- if you have a source you need to add a citation to the article - Epinoia (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi,

I wandered in to your user space and wanted thereafter to make contact.

Shall we have a conversation? I may be the Devil, but I am no threat.

Thewolfde (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

- sure, I am happy to talk to people - Epinoia (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. Your user page caught my attention, owing to the interests you had listed. I would like your honest opinion on something; what do you make of the statement found on the Terra (mythology) page; "This article preserves the usage of the ancient sources regarding Tellus or Terra: Thewolfde (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfde: - if it was up to me I would probably delete it as the usage should be clear from the article - I suppose it is there to deter people from adding material about other earth goddesses, or about Earth, the environment, etc. - I see someone deleted references to Science Fiction and Games - I added a disambiguation hatnote, so that should help too - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Make a pause

Make a pause and just contemplate for a sec on what you just told me in your message on my "talk page" !? You just asked me: "Please don't edit war - if you disagree with another editor's edits, please discuss it on the article Talk page"; and you remembered this after you reverted my own edit without any discussion, but you expect me to restrain from the exactly the same move ?! But look, we are both within our editor prerogatives, you are perfectly within your privilege to try and revert my edit, as I am perfectly within mine. These 1-2 reverts are still well outside the "edit war", and with appropriate edit message/description summary they are perfectly in line with (acceptable) editor "MO". By the way, issue isn't that of a problem, it's matter of categorizing "dead religion" and connect it to its source. The more debatable the more appropriate is the categorization, especially if nobody debate origins of deity itself.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Contemporary Poets

Hi, I would like to create a page for "Canadian Contemporary Poets" who are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. It would be a list-style page with the writer's name, a brief bio and the books they have published. My question is: would an article like this meet Wikipedia notability standards? There are articles on Canadian poetry and a List of Canadian poets for those with Wikipedia articles. The "Canadian Contemporary Poets" article would be for those who are well known and notable in Canada, but mostly unknown outside Canada. There would be a requirement that anyone listed must have at least one book published to ensure that those listed have some notability. For several years I edited an online poetry magazine and I know that there are many excellent writers out there. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

As you've described your goal here, I'm pretty sure it would not meet Wikipedia notability standards. I think the answer to your question is perhaps covered by WP:NLIST. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jmcgnh: Thanks! - Epinoia (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

James Joyce

Epinoia,

I cannot understand why you reverted my small amendment to the James Joyce article.

It is possible to read the whole of the Ulysses section, without gaining the slightest idea of why it was considered obscene, and I feel that my mention of frank, intimate musings provides an adequate and suitably discreet explanation.

I also don’t understand what you meant about ‘restoring cited material’, since I removed nothing except a single word (somewhat redundant anyway, and not strictly encyclopedic) at the beginning of the next sentence, which did not follow naturally from the one before.

I realize of course that this is a Featured Article, and it would be more correct to raise the issue on the Talk page first, though the FA guidelines do say …if you can update or improve it, please do so. Valetude (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Valetude: - sorry, my mistake - when I first saw the edit it looked as if the whole section on the obscenity charge had been blanked - I see now that you made a new paragraph - I tried to undo my edit, but was unable due to subsequent edits, so if you want to restore your material I will not revert it - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Epinoia, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Everedux (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Everedux: - Thank you! Hope you have a great holiday season and a wonderful new year too! - Epinoia (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit to Rajneesh

Hi there. Please will you stop undoing my recent edit to the "bioterror attack" section of the Rajneesh page. Please note, the John Shelfer( Jayananda) is a primary source, as he was present for the whole period of the Ranch. In fact, he purchased the Ranch in 1981( see edit earlier in the Rajneesh page) . He is also mentioned in Ava's fbi testimony as being a close intimate of Sheela's group, Ava told the fbi that when Jayananda refused to kill anyone for Sheela, Jayananda stepped outside the room, and Sheela told everyone else present that "she would have to kill him". As far as Sannyasnews is concerned, I am familiar with the editor and creators of the site, and their policy is that no copyright is needed to republish their materials. Eternity5090 (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I see that other editors have reverted your edits for the same reasons I did and now you have been blocked - Epinoia (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Your editing behavior is being discussed on an article's talk page.

Your editing behavior is being discussed on this page. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

- I misinterpreted an edit, I apologized and the edit was corrected - can we let it go now? - Epinoia (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Existentialism

I wanted to get your thoughts about the edit you made to my post on the existentialism page a few days ago. Normally I would agree that "one" is better then "I". However, Sartre is replying to the skeptic believes his mind exists, 

but wants proof of Other minds. (The solipsist) This person concedes that "I" exist. (His own mind.) To use "I" is singular (One mind), where as, "one" implies many, (One of many minds.), and thus defeats the purpose of the argument by assuming what needs to be proved.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

Thanks,

Blakeman

P.S You helped me with my reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GTBlakeman (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The "I" wasn't in quotation marks in the original edit - the original edit was I have to become aware of myself - putting the "I" in quotation marks signifies a special usage or definition of the "I" which must be explained - it is acceptable to have I in a quotation, but I in a sentence is a personal point of view - you may have intended it to reflect Sartre, but to a reader it comes across as "I, GTBlakeman, must..." - see MOS:PERSON, "To maintain an objective and impersonal encyclopedic voice, an article should never refer to its editors or readers using I, my, we, us, or similar forms" - the rest of the article is in an objective style, e.g. "one's past is what one is, in the sense that it co-constitutes oneself." - see sections on Facticity, Authenticity, etc. for examples - consistency of style should be maintained throughout the article.
- and I hope you will fix the citations in the Schopenhauer article as they are not complete - see MOS:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES for proper citation format - you asked, "Why not use Schopenhauer's own words?" - the reason is that Wikipedia does not rely on primary sources, but mainly on secondary sources - the purpose is not to present what the author said, but an explanation of what the author said, supported by reliable sources - see WP:PSTS and WP:QUOTE, "Quotes shouldn't replace plain, concise text" - this avoids opinion and original research WP:NOR - Epinoia (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I think one is probably better. It maintains the objective form and is used consistently throughout the article. You have more experience then me. (Judging from how long you’ve been a member.) As for Schopenhauer, he is such a brilliant writer that it is hard to capture his thought without quotes. He took all the best words. All that is left is to bring his aphorisms to light after long obscurity. I’ll improve it if I can.

Thanks again,

Blakeman — Preceding unsigned comment added by GTBlakeman (talk • contribs) 00:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Nicodemites

See Nicodemite#Bibliography--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: an inline citation is required - see WP:VERIFY "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this good enough for you as an inline citation for the Reformed page, or would you still challenge it? * Livingstone, E. A. "Nicodemism". In The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000. Entry available here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover: - yes, if you want to add "leading some Huguenots to live as Nicodemites." with that inline citation I think that would be excellent - with thanks - Epinoia (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
p.s. - Epiphyllumlover, you added Nicodemite to the See also section of Deism - are there deists who lived as or were accused of being Nicodemites? - I couldn't find anything to support it in the article - I'm not planning on reverting your edit, just curious - always willing to learn - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The article says "or proto-Deist beliefs"--I didn't notice until just now that proto-Deist redirects to Deist. If you want to revert it, I will not object.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Your help desk question

You didn't get a response to this question. Did you get the help you needed?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: - when I didn't get a reply on the Help desk I tried the Village pump and was referred to WP:RFCEND and WP:Consensus - it seems that ending discussions is rather a grey area with no clear guidelines - thanks for your interest - Epinoia (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Good. If you want to answer questions and have the knowledge to do so just go right ahead. I used to but I miss out on new questions and responses if I don't wait until they are archived, and then I end up reading everything twice.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Nietzsche's career.

The assertion that Nietzsche began his career in classical philology then turned to philosophy is without foundation. If I am wrong please by all means refer me to one academic resource which testifies to the contrary. Nietzsche never had a professional career as a philosopher at all. His philosophical works were written outside of his professional career as a classics scholar. Therefore your assertion that Nietzsche didn't write his books in his spare time but somehow as part of his university career cannot be supported by academic references as you claim. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@82.27.90.157: - the article does not say that Nietzsche had a professional career as a philosopher - it states that he held the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel, resigned in 1879 due to health problems and completed much of his core writing in the following decade - so he was not the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel at the time he wrote his philosophical works and he did not write his philosophical works as part of his university career, he wrote them after he resigned from the University - the article is correct as it stands - Epinoia (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Calvin and Infant Baptism

Hello Epinoia,

I don't understand the revert on my addition of Calvin in the sentence about the assimilation of baptism under the New Covenant with circumcision in the Old Covenant. Calvin dedicated a whole chapter of his Institutes of the Christian Religion to the matter of infant baptism (Institutes, IV, 16), in which he states very clearly that « baptism succeeds circumcision » as a sign of belonging to the People of God and as a promise of salvation, resulting from the Covenant between God and humankind ; reference in French : Jean Calvin, Institution de la religion chrétienne, livre IV, chapitre XVI "Que le baptême des petits enfants convient très bien à l'institution de Jésus-Christ et à la nature du signe.", p. 488 [1]. Is there something I am missing?

Greetings, Pensées de Pascal (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pensées de Pascal: - sorry, did I misread the passage? My interpretation was that the paragraph dealt with adult baptism for those who have passed the age of accountability, not infant baptism, which Calvin condoned. My apologies if I made a mistake. If I am wrong, please reinstate your edit. - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Epinoia:, thanks for your kind answer, I agree that the passage is somewhat convoluted and confusing but the sentence in question just states that "Many Christian theologians", including Zwingli, regard baptism as analogous to the Jewish practice of circumcision. Since "many Christian theologians" attracted a question "who?" I wanted to add a name. I'll try and improve the passage when I come back to it. Greetings, Pensées de Pascal (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Books and knowledge

Books fade, compassion stays
Hi Epinoia. Thanks for your reply; heartfelt sincere. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

So-called

Hi Epinoia. It's funny/interesting; in Dutch, "so-called" would be "zogenaamd," but also "zogenoemd." The two phrases are almost synonyms, yet "zogenaamd" has an undertone of 'fake', 'not really so', while "zogenoemd" has a more literal meaning, as 'this is how it is being named'. Yet, Reverso translates "zogenaamd" as 'supposedly', while "zogenoemd" is translated as 'so-called'. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: - that's interesting - in English "so-called" can mean "commonly named, as in "fir and pine, the so-called soft woods", but it is mainly used to mean improperly ascribed, as in "so-called friends" or "we live in a so-called democracy." It's confusing so best to avoid it altogether. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

linking a modern day collusion case to Adam Smith is original research

Hello Epinoia,

I kindly would like to understand the reasoning behind the deletion of the edit where a very important link between Adam Smith's observation that business owners collude and the modern day example of collusion between Apple and Google that has been officially ruled in court. As editors, we need to show examples that either refute or confirm arguments made, this is an important part of critical thinking and it illustrates deeper understanding of theories. Such linkages help people understand what is going on and raises awareness. I understand that there is this Wikipedia rule of original research. However, in this case, I am citing my Google and Apple example and I am also citing Adam's Smith observation. The only thing that I added was a link between both, which is a natural human way of thinking that I do not think Wikipedia should stop. This is part of the freedom of expression that Wikipedia should promote instead of finding ways to stop, don't you agree? Especially that the linking of the example and the observation that I have done is for free and I am not claiming intellectual property in this case. What is ironic, is that I am writing about the freedom of thinking and how it is constraint by hierarchies, as per Adam Smith, and here I am finding myself protecting such freedom of expression!

I hope you find this message useful in some way and I look forward to your feedback.

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notyetthere (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Notyetthere: - if collusion between Apple and Google is an example of Adam Smith's observation, you need to provide a reliable source to support the statement. If you make the connection yourself, even if it is true, it is original research.
- see WP:NOR: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
- see also WP:RS and WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
- see also WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE and other guidelines - "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles...must be verifiable." "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged." "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable...is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines." "Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Notyetthere: - see also WP:RS/AC - "Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."
- see also WP:SYNTH - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." - Epinoia (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

My added content

The content added is historically factual and contains links to a recorded and written quote by Rajneesh.

If that is not allowed , all quotes by Rajneesh will have to be removed from the wiki page . Bamboobreeze (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

- if it is historically factual then it needs to be confirmed by a reliable secondary source - first-person accounts of events, as in interviews etc., are not considered reliable as they can be biased and not from a neutral point of view (see WP:INTERVIEW and WP:NPOV) - the Osho website, dedicated to Rajneesh, is not considered a reliable, impartial source - quotes by Rajneesh illustrating his philosophy are allowed to attribute a point of view or idea as per MOS:QUOTE - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

My edit

Hello . I want to add the fact that Rajneesh is on record stating that he has been made aware that Sheela bugged and took some tapes with her it shows that he is clear that she has nothing incriminating him. This is historical and I have provided the evidence.

We would have to remove large sections of the wikipage if blanket statements that were based on his statement were not allowed. We have to remove his ten commandments and all other boxes that have already been put on the page ( often based on qoutes he has contradicted)

I am sticking with this one as it is historical. Thanks. Bamboobreeze (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

- you may believe it is historical, but Wikipedia does not go by your definition, it goes by the Wikipedia guidelines - see WP:VERIFY - "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - verifiable means supported by reliable secondary sources - see WP:PSTS - also, please be aware of the three revert rule (WP:3RR) and please avoid edit warring - Epinoia (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- see also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and WP:BURDEN - Epinoia (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleting of contributions

I have provided the name of the interviewer and the news agency, , I have made an edit to the page , to show that Rajneesh was the first person to tell the world media and the FBI, and the US authorites that Sheela had not only bugged the commune , also his rooms, but he was also the first person to alledge that she has also taken some tape recordings with her , as he had been informed by people in his commune. You don’t want this information to be on the wiki page.


You objected to my edit, and reverted it. Can you explain why? Because the picture on the wiki makes it look more as if the US authorities had lots of tapes that Rajneesh didn’t know about, (which is a common myth) , and nowhere does it state that it was in fact he who alerted them to the tapes. You have also allowed people to add hearsay from members of the criminal gang who Osho accused of crimes, stating things that have never been proven, and there are other testimonies by members in the same group (during the same trial) that contradict those statements.

There are lots of other pieces on the wiki page where people have written sections on Rajneeshs ideas and philosophy, ( almost every one can be contradicted somewhere else in his talks), and these writers have used his quotes, and also used his books as sources for those quotes. But you have not deleted these sections. They should be deleted if the writing is backed up by Osho’s qoutes or recordings of his words, and that is not allowed. It has to be one rule for everyone. For example, someone has added a box that is themed around Rajneesh talking about the possibilities of genetic engineering, and this is based on Osho’s qoutes. However, in other talks, Osho has said that nature should not be interfered with.


Please explain what is your authority here and why you object. And what is your bias. I thought that the editing was meant to be non biased on wiki. Bamboobreeze (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

‘Reliable sources’

Have read the link about using reliable sources.

I have given an audio recording, as the source of a press interview which was broadcast on live U.S. television with the name of the press agency and the interviewer. ( This interview has also been videotaped) .

And you believe this is not a reliable source? Bamboobreeze (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

- @Bamboobreeze: - Answering all your posts on my Talk page at once:
- If you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources you would have seen that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
- Wikipedia is not based on what the subject of an article (in this case Rajneesh), or people closely associated with that subject, have to say about the subject. Information from them is regarded as a primary source (original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event - this includes tape recordings, videos and interviews). Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources where people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish material about the subject in a place with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. Osho.com and Oshoworld.com are websites associated with Rajneesh and so may not be unbiased sources providing a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV).
- If you need more help in properly sourcing and citing material for articles, you can try Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Teahouse - Epinoia (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Re reliable sources

I have added a discussion on the wiki page as I want to include my edit. However, cannot see it yet.

So, the recordings which are on oshoworld and Osho.com, are simply recordings of News press conferences that were shown on US prime time tv and are a matter of public record and history.

It would be ridiculous if you are trying to insinuate that OIF or Oshoworld are tampering with records that are part of the public domain, let alone tampering with the records of Osho’s own words and press interviews. I’m fact , they have a copyright to protect any tampering of his words ..

With all due respect, and not meaning you any insult, if you think that the people around Osho would do that then. you really should not be editing ( or blocking other contributors from editing) , the wiki page on Rajneesh , as you clearly have a very unclear idea of what Rajneesh or Osho, as he Is actually known nowadays, is actually about.

There are pieces being taken from what could only be described as ‘ yellow journalism’ that have been used as sources on this page. Some of it is natural, but the wiki has to be historical and should have quality sources that have been recorded and are accurate. Bamboobreeze (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

- @Bamboobreeze:- Wikipedia:Interviews says, "Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said." Just because an interview was shown on US prime time tv does not mean that the contents of the interview are true. The contents of the interview require verification from reliable secondary sources. They may be true, but still require citations from independent third party sources - see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I did not imply or insinuate that anyone tampered with the recordings, but the recordings are a primary source and Wikipedia is very clear that articles should be based on reliable secondary sources - see WP:PSTS. Hope that's clear - Epinoia (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

M

There are multiple qoutes on the wiki page that have been taken from Osho’s books. Do we have to agree that his statements are are true to use them on the wiki?

Of course not. Yet they are there. And the site is being used by those who wish to portray Rajneesh in a bad light, who will add any old stuff , this is going unchecked, things that have not been proven to be true, have been added , in a deliberate fashion to make Rajneesh appear guilty.

Other interviews have been used on the wiki. There is no reason why, my factual statement , that Osho announced to the world media, and let the US authorites know, that Sheela had taken some tape recordings with her to Switzerland or Germany. It is part of the public record. Whether you personally believe that Osho was complicit or not, has nothing to do with the fact that he announced it in a press interview .

Am the facts belong on the wiki, otherwise what is it therefore ?

You can’t just try to block out anything factual because you don’t personally trust Rajneesh. That is pure bias.

And what I am contribution Is just a plain historical fact. I want to possibly converse with a senior administrator about this if it is really a problem to add this simple text on the page. Bamboobreeze (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

- @Bamboobreeze: - MOS:QUOTE says that quotes "may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." - I hope you can see the difference between a quote confirming a philosophy, belief or idea and a quote describing events. If I said, "I believe that creativity is important," it would be a quote about my personal beliefs; but if I said, "I saw a truck go through a stop sign and hit another car," it would require confirmation from other sources that the event took place as I described. It has nothing to do with whether I trust Osho or not, it is a case of verification. I've already explained to you the difference between primary and secondary sources and provided links to the guidelines. One primary source is not considered reliable. My only bias is that the material be added in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Please don't make unjustified accusations (per Wikipedia:No personal attacks). - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

My addition

It is not a personal attack, Epinocia, but you are clearly biased in your view of what should be allowed to onto the wikipage.

What I am putting on is simply based on facts that are backed up by recorded press interviews. 

There is video footage of what Osho has said when he first alerted the US authorities and the world media about the crimes that he had been informed of(including by people who had been in Sheela’s group) , and he clearly mentions that he has been informed that Sheela has taken some tapes to Germany.

This has been recorded and cannot be disputed. It has nothing to do with a site dedicated to Osho, all they are doing is preserving hundreds of thousands of hours worth of his words for people to read. The words can be proof checked by audio recordings and is many cases video footage.

A lot of the content on the wiki is simply hearsay, which has never been proven .

I am adding a small piece of historical data which has been recorded. It matters not whether one likes Rajneesh or doesn’t like Rajneesh, that is what he said in the first press conference and that should be recorded on the wiki which is meant to be a used as resource for historical events.

And you are changing the goal posts. First you said that I could not use first hand sources, then when I pointed out that there are lots of qoutes being used by people on the wiki page which are from first hand sources, ( ie Osho’s qoutes) , now you are saying that is ok.

The qoutes about genetic engineering- I can easily find counter qoutes from Osho stating completely the opposite, that nature should not be interfered with and man is heading for disaster because of his interference with nature.

Anyway, it is a small addition, the press conference has already been mentioned, and I want to make it clear that it was Osho who first mentioned the tapes had been taken , and he was inviting the authorities to investigate and contacting Interpol.

Now please just accept. Otherwise it looks like you just don’t want to accept this , and the myth that Sheela had lots of tapes that Osho didn’t know about, that incriminated him, is being perpetuated here. Thanks I have tried to place a discussion on the talk page but can’t see anything there. Bamboobreeze (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

- @Bamboobreeze: - I'm sorry you don't understand. I don't think I can explain it any more clearly. You can read the guidelines for yourself. If you need more help, try the Help Desk or Teahouse or go through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process - Epinoia (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Mormon mention in Abrahamic religions

Mormon food restrictions may well be as valid as those of anyone else, but Mormons are not mentioned anywhere else in the article on Abrahamic religions for good reason: the faiths listed consider themselves to be monotheistic. Mormons are not. Per God in Mormonism, "Latter-day Saints also believe that there are other gods and goddesses outside the Godhead, such as a Heavenly Mother who is the wife of God the Father, and that faithful Latter-day Saints may attain godhood in the afterlife." Godhood - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism Jonathunder (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: - as another editor pointed out, "Mormons/LDS are Christian, therefore within the category of Abrahamic religions" - the LDS doctrine of exaltation is based on Christian scripture and is related to the Christian doctrines of apotheosis and theosis or divinization. The LDS accept both the old and new testaments as authoritative, and therefore they can be called Abrahamic - Epinoia (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Rajneesh

Epinoia, re your recent removing of my contribution to the Rajneesh page.

You are the only other editor who has objected to it. Are you an administrator or just another editor who doesn’t want my edit on there?

I have found the newspaper which Brian Ackre originally wrote in after his talk with Osho so I will include that with the book title that includes the full reply the Brian Ackre from Osho in Sep 1985 . Bamboobreeze (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

- I only object to edits that do not follow Wikipedia guidelines - (I missed this comment of April 24, 2019, as it was misplaced at the top of the talk page instead of in a new chronological section) - Epinoia (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Once again review S.R.Jangid article and determine whether it should be deleted. PLS... Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

S.R.JANGID

I did the article in neutral manner only. u can revise page history, that someone on had editted the article that much long with non-neutral manner.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC) 

"Comment - now I am being canvassed on my Talk page about this AfD" - See I am not a canvasser, i like to create articles in wikipedia, its my hobby. i don't knew about canvassing in wikipedia. i have never done it too. Famous men in tamil nadu were neglected here, i doesn't speak about jangid, but famous comedian Bayilvan Ranganthan, then manymore.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Kan Jong-woo

Hi, I see that you’ve deleted this article because the subject doesn’t meet the criteria. But the references provided was Korean national level newspaper and google level search engine whom verified his albums and music appeared on National TV. Could you please help me to retrieve the article please? I accidentally wrote draft without knowing the subject appeared in many other Korean related article, and moved from draft to article which created this confusion, which I’ll never do. The person who nominated for deletion doesn’t know korean culture nor Korean, but I apologize for my naive action. If you could even move it back to Draft stage, I will really appreciate it. Thank you. J2love (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@J2love: - I did not delete this article and I am not able to retrieve it - Epinoia (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Epinoia: - Ahh sorry, now I see you just voted. But thank you for replying J2love (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuchir Suri

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuchir Suri. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — MusenInvincible (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

IP at RW Emerson

[2] now that they are also at Lemba I doubt they'll go away quickly. Doug Weller talk 06:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Apostles

ApexUnderground (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

-ApexUnderground (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment at Talk:Apostles.>ApexUnderground (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Objection to Kierkegaard as being influenced by Jesus Christ

Dear Epinoia,

Appreciate the attentiveness paid to the SK page, but am confused about your rationale: "writings, teachings and traditions about Jesus may have influenced Kierkegaard, but not Jesus himself." In this case, would be it more appropriate to attribute influence to the Bible? And does that it make the case that no one can be influenced by Socrates but only by his commentators? Likely there is some criteria about attribution I am missing, but common sense seems to make Christ a clear influence on SK's thinking. Interested to hear your reply.

Best,

Riseabove2 (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

- it would be better to discuss this on the Kierkegaard Talk page and seek input from other editors - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Allness

Please take part in the discussion if you revert for no reason. There are sources that topic exists and this section can be expanded when sources for text are found. --Obsuser (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

- see discussion on this topic at Talk:God#Allness - Epinoia (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Middle ages date

I see you reverted my edit on the middle ages page.

If the fall of Rome is used in the article as the end of the ancient age, which is correct, why isn’t the fall of Constantinople (which is generally accepted as the end of the middle ages) used to date the middle ages in the same sentence? The renaissance for example is also generally regarded to have happened because of the mass migration of scholars from the east after the Ottoman conquest so it’s a very relevant date. I’ve posted my more complete thoughts in the Talk Elias (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Eliasbizannes: - the lead of the article gives the overall timeframe of the Middle Ages, from the end of the western Roman Empire to the Renaissance and more detail than that is not required in the lead ("without being too specific" MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH) - the beginning of the Renaissance cannot be precisely dated to the fall of Constantinople - there were already classical works in Europe from the Toledo School of Translators so the Renaissance may have happened (albeit in a different form) without the mass migration of scholars from the east - there were many factors involved in the transition to the Renaissance, of which the influx of scholars was only one - the transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance was a soft transition not tied to a specific date - the fall of Constantinople is already covered in the article in the Collapse of Byzantium section - as far as I know, there are no scholars who give the fall of Constantinople as a hard date for the end of the Middle Ages and the start of the Renaissance - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


@Epinoia: Well, to be consistent, then the end of the Western Roman Empire should also not be used. There is no hard date as it’s a historiographical point after all! The Western and Eastern Roman Empires were very much considered to be one of the same by its inhabitants, and so to pick one event seems wrong. It also violates ("without being too specific" MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH) and uses an inconsistent standard (matching a political event with a cultural, scientific and technological set of events.) I believe it is incomplete to not list The Fall of Constantinople, along with age of discovery and the renaissance — yes they were three independent events but heavily related spearheading trends that changed Europe and the world. For the record, I would also argue the printing press, which was independently invented in the same time as Constantinople fell, to be just as significant a point. Elias (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Eliasbizannes: - the article Fall of the Western Roman Empire states, "By convention, the Western Roman Empire is deemed to have ended on 4 September 476", which gives a hard date for the end of the empire and the beginning of the early Middle Ages - also, the end of the Western Roman Empire marks the transition between two eras, the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages - the fall of Constantinople does not mark the transition of eras between the late middle ages and the Renaissance, the transition to the Renaissance was already happening before the fall of Constantinople - what is relevant is what reliable sources have to say on the matter - see WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you correct your attitude

Leaving a comment after undoing a revision that reads "puffery that adds nothing to the article," is not civilized behaviour, or choice of words that is appropriate in an adult context. I recognize you have personal religious beliefs that would rather not highlight Plotinus' contribution to Christianity, but I don't plan to call it puffery. Canlawtictoc (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding I recognize you have personal religious beliefs that would rather not highlight Plotinus' contribution to Christianity, that's an insinuation which is not helpfull here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Canlawtictoc: - the influence of Plotinus on Christianity is covered in the section Plotinus#Christianity - Plotinus and Neo-platonism had a profound effect on Christian theology, especially Christian mysticism - Wikipedia defines puffery as "to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information", see WP:PUFFERY - it seemed to me that the material you added praised Plotinus, but did not add anything to the understanding of his philosophy nor provide any insight into how it influenced Christianity - Epinoia (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ditch, (magazine) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ditch, (magazine) 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/Ditch, (magazine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Riazul Islam BD (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Decision was Speedy Keep - Epinoia (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of GrOnk for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GrOnk 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/GrOnk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Riazul Islam BD (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Epinoia, you've made an eloquent defence, and you're perfectly entitled to formally !vote to go with that, indeed it is usual. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Decision was Speedy Keep - Epinoia (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Glauben können

I believe what you say about a song, if it's just a song, but a hymn in THE German official hymnal has passed a complex group decision to print it in there, and is available to thousands of churchgoers for free, - there's a kind of notability established that is beyond a self-published song. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: - that merely establishes that the hymn exists, not that it is notable - WP:GNG says that to be notable the topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail - so we need reviews or writeups of the hymn to establish notability, not just availability - how many other hymns are in the German official hymnal? - Epinoia (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
The list is linked in the deletion discussion, de:Liste der Gesänge im Stammteil des Gotteslobs. Some have articles, most have not. For the English Wikipedia, I believe that the list is nonsense, too much German, too many with no link from elsewhere. - The hymns by Paul Gerhardt from the 17th century are covered in sources, but they were not covered shortly after having been written, only hundreds of years later, when history beame interesting, and some of them only because included in Bach's music. - What in "any hymn selected to be printed in that official hymnal has a degree of notability* is hard to understand? Or in the diference between published in the most official book in the field and some self-published song? I know the guidelines but they kind of don't fit. - The last deletion discussion was initiated by Fram, DYK? - with similar arguments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- well, it's not me you have to convince, it's the closing admin - I'm just following the Wikipedia guidelines and, to me, it doesn't appear that this hymn meets the notability guidelines as there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Referencing about removal of a wrong un-referenced information

Hi,

I am new to wiki. I am confused after your comment. The information I erased from Grotowski's page was a wrong one without any reference. So I don't know how I can put a reference about removal of a wrong info. But if you personally are interested here is the fact: http://www.grotowski.net/en/encyclopedia/grotowski-marian I would be glad to know more on how to proceed in similar corrections, please advise me any link on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz9 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oz9: - see WP:BURDEN, when changing material in an article the burden is on the editor making the change to verify the change by citing a reliable source - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Reformation

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Reformation. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.208.254 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

- I have not engaged in disruptive editing - wrongly accusing others of guideline violations is strictly forbidden - please see WP:GAMING and WP:TENDENTIOUS - the procedure for contested edits is outlined at WP:BRD: discuss contested material on the article's Talk page and seek consensus (WP:CONS) - I see you now have been blocked for edit warring - Epinoia (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Disciples of Jesus

Yes, the disciples of Jesus are venerated in Islam and Muslim traditions. Look up disciples of Jesus in Islam. I have also provided sources for it. Don’t remove it. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.212.241.21 (talk • contribs)

You provided a source that said that some of the disciples of Jesus were identified in Islam, not venerated - two different things - Epinoia (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- if you disagree with my position, please discuss on the relevant article talk page and seek consensus from other editors, per WP:BRD - if your edit is valid, it should not be difficult to find consensus - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

According to the source, these are mentioned as disciples of Jesus in Muslim tradition and exegesis. ‘Historical Dictionary of Prophets In Islam And Judaism, Brandon M. Wheeler, Disciples of Christ: "Muslim exegesis identifies the disciples as Peter, Andrew, Matthew, Thomas, Philip, John, James, Bartholomew, and Simon"’ So why are you removing it when I wrote that according to Muslim tradition and exegesis these are the disciples of Jesus? This is according to the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.212.241.21 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

- to say according to exegesis is correct (as far as I understand from the sources) - to say "tradition" or "venerated" are not correct (as I understand the sources) - if you can find sources that say "venerated" or "tradition" then I stand corrected and you can cite those sources in your edits per WP:CITE - if you disagree with my position, please discuss on the relevant article Talk page per WP:BRD and seek consensus from other editors - and please remember to sign your comments - and please remember to use edit summaries - and if you wish to continue to edit Wikipedia I strongly urge you to create an account rather than use an IP address, per Wikipedia:Why create an account? - Epinoia (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I corrected the incomplete citation to Historical Dictionary of Prophets in Islam by Noegel and Wheeler - some of the apostles had a section on Islam in their articles; for those who did not I added an "In Islam" section copied from the Disciples of Jesus in Islam article with a citation to Historical Dictionary of Prophets in Islam - I removed the mention of Muslim exegesis from the lead of all the articles on the apostles since Muslim writings date from the 7th century and later, so they are not reliable sources for events of the 1st century - the gospels probably date from the first century and they can't agree on the names of the apostles (see Apostles#List of the Twelve Apostles as identified by the Bible for the differences), so writings from hundreds of years later can't be used to confirm the names of the apostles - if you disagree with this approach, please discuss on the Talk pages of the appropriate articles and seek consensus from other editors (see Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:BRD) - Epinoia (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Socratic philosophy

Hello. Perhaps you would be kind enough to draw our attention to the original research contained within the edit that you reverted. Many thanks. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

- Eleatics was added as led by Pythagoras, but the Eleatics were founded by Parmenides - also, paragraphs were copied from the Pre-Socratic philosophy#Overview section and added to the lead so they appeared in the article twice - when I first reviewed the edit I did not realize the material had been copied from the Overview section and it appeared as if new content was being added to the lead - I have since removed the duplicate material from the lead - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Religious ecstasy

Hi Epinoia, I just want to check re: the change of mine you reverted, of Hildegard von Bingen listed as a "Christian Mystic" -- indeed, she is (and calling her a Benedictine abbess, is enough to indicate she's Christian, and listing her under "notable people" in the "religious ecstasy page" would seem enough to indicate she was a mystic). I was trying to reduce redundancy but happy to let that go.

However, in the process a huge number of my changes seem to have been reverted -- including images (Pentecostals, Sufi dervishes, a close-up of Bernini's Teresa), as well as quite a few other figures listed that were more contemporary than your field of expertise in early Christianity. I can't explain how that happened, but perhaps you can? In the process of undoing one semantic issue you undid about an hour of my other work.

Thanks. Ansgouros (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ansgouros: - sorry, I did not undo any of your other edits - the Religious ecstasy: Revision history shows you last made an edit to that page on 14 March 2018‎ - so, are you sure you made the edits? - in any case, I only reverted the one, can't account for any others - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

They were edits made at the same time as the one you reverted -- so it would be odd for one to have been made and none others. Regardless... perhaps being less trigger-happy on reverting largely semantic changes would be a courteous approach. Ansgouros (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ansgouros: - check your contribution history - no other edits to the Religious ecstasy article are shown before the unexplained removal of material about Hildegard of Bingen - whatever happened, it was nothing to do with me - perhaps providing edit summaries (Help:Edit summary) would be good practice to help others understand the intention of your edits - Epinoia (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Epionia I saw your revert on Emma of Normandy" Thanks for correcting me! I have temporarily put the date as 984 as per what your biography said so it would be great if you could help me add that reference.

Thanks mate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.233.127.46 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@50.233.127.46: - I used to have a few books on Emma of Normandy, but the only one ready to hand was Strachen, Isabella Emma The Twice-Crowned Queen London: Peter Owen 2004 ISBN 978-0720612219, which gives a birthdate of 984. But I wouldn't take that date as certain. A quick tour of the internet found:
- the book you quoted on Beowulf says in the Index p. 541 980s, not specifically the year 980, but sometime in that decade. That may be as close as we can get. - Epinoia (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, ok i guess we just leave it at 984 then till there is a better reference. I think you can put down that book reference since that is the best we got

That being said i dont think 990 is likely because her son edward was born in 1003 and it is highly unlikely she could have gave birth to him at 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.233.127.46 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

Why did you revert my edit on Criticism of Christianity? I think some of the content should be in the lead section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.212.241.21 (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

- the lead is a summary of the content of the article - the information you added was already summarized in the lead and is expanded in the "Criticism of historical behavior" section - if you think more should be added to the lead, discuss on the Talk page per and seek consensus from other editors per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS - Epinoia (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned briefly in the lead section considering like an introduction to the article. I have added short sentences about the criticism of the scripture of Christianity, the Bible. 46.212.241.21 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

- please discuss on the article Talk page - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Its very important, and should be mentioned in the lead section very briefly. 46.212.241.21 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

- you may feel it is important, but that does not mean other editors will - please discuss on Talk page before making more changes of this nature - Epinoia (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I will rewrite the content and make it very brief in the lead section. Will do it on the talk page as well. 46.212.241.21 (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

- please discuss on the article Talk page BEFORE making the edits to avoid reverts - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I added some historical events and added link to Historical reliability of the Gospels in the lead section. 46.212.241.21 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have written it on criticism of Christianity talk page. 46.212.241.21 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my latest edit? I was simple adding few historical events that should be included in the lead section. I have discussed on Talk page. 46.212.241.21 (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

- you may feel they should be included in the lead, but that does not mean everyone does - seek consensus on the Talk page - Epinoia (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It was a small edit, cmon. I have written on Talk page. 46.212.241.21 (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sentences in the lead exist there for the purpose of summarizing the body of the Therefore the edit I made briefly should not have been removed. I really dont know why you reverted the edit I did on the article. 46.212.241.21 (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

- wait for other editors to comment and see if consensus is reached on the Talk page - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Tony Ricca on WikiCommons

I'm contacting you because you voted delete on the article on Tony Ricca. Over on the Commons there are a number of photos, one of which was used in a draft here that was speedily deleted under C4. I therefore believe all the photos there need to be deleted. I have nominated all of them, but Georgivac (who was banned from Wikipedia for socking) is still insisting on the commons that he is notable. I need help with delete votes. The Commons pictures are these; [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:B5DD:CEDF:C253:4630 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions

Socks of ANMC. I’m on mobile so I can’t really start a SPI case. Jerm (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandaeans

By stating they consider Mohammed and Islam as demonic along with Abrahamic faiths, you are trying your best to hurt them. Please keep this out of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

- I am not trying to hurt the Mandeans at all, but trying to establish their relationship to Abrahamic Religions - in The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics, Edmundo Lupieri writes, "The founders of hostile or enemy religions, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, are turned into demons." (p. 164) - however, I have now removed the reference to demons from the article.- Epinoia (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for polemics and use of words like "false prophets" or "hate". The sources which you put also say they consider Abraham a founder and a priest — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

- I do not believe there is any evidence that they consider Abraham a founder; Lupieri and Drower do not say so - Lupieri writes of the "theory of the four false prophets, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed," (p 116) and says, "they hate Abraham" (p 66) - I put "they hate Abraham" along with a similar quote from Ricoldo in a note to be clear that it was from a cited scholarly source and not my own viewpoint - Epinoia (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"I do not believe" is your opinion. The Telegraph, one of your sources, is a reputable newspaper. You emphasize on polemics regarding Mandaeans. There are other religions listed, but I don't see polemics emphasized for them. I believe having an agenda is against Wikipedia policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

- perhaps, "to the best of my knowledge there is no scholarly source that says Abraham was a founder" would have been better wording (WP:TALK says, "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages"); I will accept that I am wrong if scholarly sources can be cited - as for the Telegraph article, while the newspaper may be reputable, WP:NEWSORG says, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis" - in this case there are no sources cited for the article and it is anonymous (the photo is credited, but not the text, and if the photographer is the author of the text they are not a recognized religious scholar and WP:NEWSORG says, that content by "outside authors...are rarely reliable for statements of fact") and it is a "Picture of the Day" feature, not a news story, so (in my opinion) it cannot be considered a reliable source (we would need other editors' concensus on this), and that is only one weak source against more than one scholarly works, so it does not carry a lot of weight - everything I added to the article was based on scholarly sources and was intended to clarify the relationship of Mandaeanism to Abrahamic religions, not in any way to disparage the Mandaeans or their faith - Epinoia (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Considering they are a vulnerable middle eastern minority religion, an emphasis on polemics like "They regard the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as hostile or enemy religions" can only be harmful. I noticed in your previous edits you wanted to remove Mandaeans completely from Abrahamic religions. Now you emphasize on polemics! I believe there should be a more neutral edit about them in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored per WP:CENSOR. You clearly have a religious agenda. Jerm (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Lupieri refers to them as "hostile or enemy religions" (p. 164) and says that Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are the "four false prophets" (p. 116), so this is cited material - those wishing a fuller understanding of Mandaeanism can visit that article, but this article is about Abrahamic religions and the cited information provided clarifies the relationship between the Mandaeans and Abrahamic religions - you are correct that I do not think, based on the sources, the Mandaeans are an Abrahamic religion and their tenuous relationship to Abrahamic religions is mentioned by Dr. Dylan Burns who says that while they are biblically informed, they are "not-exactly-Abrahamic" - except for two sketchy sources, an unreliable newspaper article and a popular writer on Gnosticism, there is no scholarly support for considering them an Abrahamic religion - Epinoia (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I found a documentary with a Mandaean priest discussing their view on Abraham. Unfortunately its only in Arabic, but I got it translated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6CJWOrnS_s. They are considered the first monotheistic religion. He clearly states that they consider Abraham which they call "Bahram Rba" meaning "Abraham the pure" as one of their prophets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


The US Holocaust Memorial museum also concurs that they are a "religious minority with a distinct monotheistic belief system that predates Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and centers on the prophetic figure of John the Baptist."https://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/cases/iraq/background/people-of-the-book — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

- the Mandaean priest would count as a primary source and Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources (see WP:PSTS) - The US Holocaust Memorial museum says that they predate Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, not that they "accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham" as per Abrahamic religions#Common aspects - being monotheistic does not mean Abrahamic - Epinoia (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, YouTube documentaries can be used as souces. Also, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view." "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." This is from Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

- you would have to show that the views of the Mandaean priest interviewed reflect the official views of Mandaeans and their written texts - YouTube videos from reliable sources can be used, such as the McGrath lecture, but not all YouTube videos are acceptable - see WP:YOUTUBE and Wikipedia:Video links, "If using the link as a source to support article content, then you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source." - you have objected to words like "false prophets" or "hate Abraham," but these are from reliable sources and, as you noted, WP:NPOV says that we should not be "excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." - Epinoia (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for TOPCAT (software)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TOPCAT (software). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 2 ) Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Please, come here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gospel#This_article_needs_heavy_improvement --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Should I start a new topic?

I see that, after hours of work, and trying to correct my editing errors, no sooner had I lifted fingers off keyboard, you then deleted everything I contributed. I refer to my edits on this page: Genealogy of Jesus. You stated the reason is because the idea that Jesus had a Persian prince for a father is a 'fringe' theory. Well, yes! You are correct. However it is a theory that has been mentioned often in history in connection with the appearance of the magi. It is absolutely in keeping with seeking the genealogy of Jesus. How may I introduce this theory to Wiki readers? Should I start a new page? What would it be called? Or, if a page exists that would incorporate this theory, what might it be? Thank you for your suggestions and help. Hanif15 (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Hanif15Hanif15 (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hanif15: WP:1DAY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@Hanif15: - your best approach is to read the guidelines Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and other related guidelines - if you can find a reliable source (Suzanne Olsson and Chuck Missler are not reliable sources) that these beliefs are held by the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, it could be added to the Ahmadiyya article, but be sure your sources are solid, scholarly works and not popular sensational speculation or your edits will be reverted as fringe theory - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrew the Apostle

Thanks for setting up the citation for Andrew's (approximate) date of birth. I'm on an iPad, and it would have been extremely inconvenient for me to do that this evening. I'm planning to change "Saint Andrew" to "Andrew the Apostle" in that sentence because it's less ambiguous, less sectarian, and more consistent with the rest of the article. This isn't a permanently assigned IP address, so if you want to reply, the best place to do so may be right here. Thanks again. 208.53.227.233 (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


Albert Camus

Hi! I saw your recent involvement at article's Talk and I 'd like to ask you a favor. Could you peer review the article? I think we can nominate it for GA, but before that a peer review will help improve the article even more. A peer review issued in the Summer didnt get any responses.Wikipedia:Peer review/Albert Camus/archive1. If you have some spare time and the good will, I 'd be grateful! Cinadon36 08:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: - I have not participated in a peer review before, but I read over the GA requirements and will take a stab at it - hope there's no rush as there are major constraints on my time at present - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはEpinoiaたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you take a look ...

DRP discussion on the Heidegger article here. I think it is worth one last attempt to get a mediated process on this and this could be it -----Snowded TALK 07:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Malicious Intent?

I offered no research material, no essential changes in the meaning of the sentences changed simply rewording. Couldn't you talk to me or discuss it through "edit" first? Did you even read what I wrote? Cuvtixo (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

- @Cuvtixo: - you added a new concept of "non-dualistic Gnostics" which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article and so requires a citation - reverting original research or unsourced content does not require a discussion - remember to assume good faith (WP:AGF) - accusing others on malicious intent or acting in bad faith is against Wikipedia policy (see WP:AOBF) - I am going to revert your edit again, please do not reinstate it until you can provide citations - thanks, Epinoia (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The variations is admitted in the beginning sentences in Gnosticism and by definition, a belief that one god is supreme and the other god is an inferior god who may have good intention- by definition, that is not dualistic. The sentence says only some believed that, and others believe in an god of evil and a god of goodness. Again, by definition, the latter IS dualistic. There is no research cited in the original sentence, let's git rid of it altogether! Gnosticism is tricky because there were various groups throughout both the Middle East and Europe, and almost all their writings and scriptures were deliberately destroyed (check Nag Hammadi scriptures- a group of the nly surviving writings including Gnostic Gospels). That's why I wondered about malicious intent. As someone a bit familiar with Gnosticism, it is patently obvious to me how there were Gnostics of both dualistic and non-dualistic doctrine. PS I was actually editing some other articles on the subject when I looked up this article, it's a little blurry to me exactly what you were referencing originally, that's another reason I was suspicious about malicious intent Cuvtixo (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Cuvtixo: - your statement "a belief that one god is supreme and the other god is an inferior god...by definition, that is not dualistic" is your own interpretation - you need references to reliable sources that say such a belief is not dualistic - in The Gnostic Gospels Elaine Pagels writes "Some scholars today consider Gnosticism synonymous with metaphysical dualism" (p 31) - Valentinianism stressed the oneness of god (p 31), but Valentinius believed, along with other Gnostics, that the demiurge was the creator god of the material world and reigns as king and lord (p 37).
- sources are required to support your claim that "it is patently obvious to me how there were Gnostics of both dualistic and non-dualistic doctrine" - otherwise you are interpreting statements and drawing conclusions - this counts as original research:
Wikipedia:No original research states that original research includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."
Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia states, "This is an encyclopedia, so remember that it's a necessity to include references listing reliable...sources"
Wikipedia:Verifiability "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it"
- I restored your original header for this section per WP:REDACT, "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment...should be avoided" - Epinoia (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
NO English "DUO" from LAtin ,meaning TWO!!!! This is not an interpretation !!!!!!!!! ITS THE MEANING OF THE DAMN WORD IN ENGLISH!!!!!!!!!1 Cuvtixo (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

dualism Jump to navigationJump to search

Contents 1 English 1.1 Etymology 1.2 Noun 1.2.1 Derived terms 1.2.2 Related terms 1.2.3 Translations 1.2.4 See also 1.3 Anagrams English

English Wikipedia has an article on: dualism Etymology dual +‎ -ism

Noun dualism (countable and uncountable, plural dualisms)

Duality; the condition of being double. (philosophy) The view that the world consists of, or is explicable in terms of, two fundamental principles, such as mind and matter or good and evil. (theology) The belief that the world is ruled by a pair of antagonistic forces, such as good and evil; the belief that man has two basic natures, the physical and the spiritual. (chemistry, dated) The theory, originated by Lavoisier and developed by Berzelius, that all definite compounds are binary in their nature, and consist of two distinct constituents, themselves simple or complex, and having opposite chemical or electrical affinities. Derived terms Cartesian dualism predicate dualism property dualism substance dualism Related terms dual duality

NOTHING FUCKING ORIGINAL ABOUT THAT IS THERE???????????????????????????

Stop shouting, and search for sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
-@Cuvtixo: - you are correct that dual means two, but that does not mean equal - in the examples of duality in the definition you provided, many would say that good is stronger than evil, that mind prevails over matter, spirit is stronger than the physical - so it is with Gnostic dualism - there are two fundamental principles, the transcendent god and the creator god or demiurge, but that does not mean the two are equal - the transcendent god may be the superior deity, but there is still a duality - therefore, your statement, "a belief that one god is supreme and the other god is an inferior god...by definition, that is not dualistic" is incorrect - unless you can provide a reliable published source (WP:RS) that confirms that the Gnostics were not dualistic, this statement is your own point of view - Epinoia (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

E. E. Cummings

Hello, with regard to my edit at E. E. Cummings's article some moments ago, I just wanted to make it clear that my reference to MOS:INITIALS was particularly in the context of this section: "With initials, it is not necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. For example, H. P. Lovecraft has that title, H. P. Lovecraft appears in his infobox, and his lead sentence just gives Howard Phillips Lovecraft ... was an American writer ..., without "explaining" to the reader what "H. P." stands for." As Cummings's full name, Edward Estlin Cummings, is spelled out in the article right there, and the "e e cummings" name is spelled out right afterwards, I'm not sure it's necessary to restate his initials as they appear in the title of the article and in the infobox in the lede sentence as well.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sunshineisles2: - Cummings signed himself as E.E. Cummings and so that is his preferred name - this has been a long-standing convention in the article so if you feel it should be changed it would be best to address it on the Talk page and seek consensus from other editors - Epinoia (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

cannot simply be bypassed or dismissed

Dear Epinoia, You have made in ERROR in removing my material from Mind-Body d Dualism. I have NOT EDITORALIZED ANYTHING this is the DIRECT QUOTE from the source! What makes you think you can read my thoughts and intentions? Please put my material back at Mind-Body Dualism (and grow up and stop hounding me?) I am sorry if the evidence from the scientific community makes you uncomfortable. But that is just the way it is. Miistermagico (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

- the edit was not presented as a quote, but as a statement without quotation marks – but even as a quote it doesn't add anything of significance to the article, it's the POV of one writer and WP:WEIGHT says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" – if you think it is significant, then it would be best to discuss it on the article Talk page and seek consensus from other editors – you say, "What makes you think you can read my thoughts and intentions?", but then you go on to say, "I am sorry if the evidence from the scientific community makes you uncomfortable" as if you could read my thoughts and intentions – scientific research on dualism are well represented in the article, the Alcock quote adds nothing to aid our understanding of mind-body dualism – and I didn't say you had editorialized anything, the editorializing was from another edit in which I removed the word "Furthermore" which is listed on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch page under WP:EDITORIALIZING - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

No comment other than I abhor brevity, Miistermagico (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Mysticism

Dear User: Epinoia, thank you for saying that you would be interested in starting a WikiProject on Mysticism. If you would like to join, the best thing to do would probably be to go to Wikipedia: WikiProject Council and indicate your interest in the section on "New Proposals". Vorbee (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vorbee: - it looks like the WikiProject on Mysticism was not properly created - the other proposals follow the format [[/Brass bands|Brass bands]], but the Mysticism project is simply a link to the Mysticism article - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Vorbee:- I added some categories to the proposal and corrected the formatting of the article links so they wouldn't show as redlinks - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help here - it is appreciated. Let us hope it will not be too long before this WikiProject is founded. Vorbee (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Unknown years of Jesus

Interesting - I've just reverted a new editor there trying to add Suzanne Olson as further reading, and another new editor at Fida Muhammad Hassnain deleting critical material. Their edits were only 18 minutes apart. Any more and I'll go to SPI (I'm too involved to do a CU myself). Doug Weller talk 08:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

3 now. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I see you got me banned so your ego is still damaged

Let me add to it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

Alexander III of Macedon (Greek: Αλέξανδρος Γʹ ὁ Μακεδών, Aléxandros III ho Makedȏn; 20/21 July 356 BC – 10/11 June 323 BC), commonly known as Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, Aléxandros ho Mégas), was a king (basileus) of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon[a]

and note A states: Macedon was an Ancient Greek polity. The Macedonians were a Greek tribe. Historiography and scholarship agree that Alexander the Great was Greek.[279]

Are you burning up even more?71.174.128.111 (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@71.174.128.111:- I had nothing to do with getting you banned - until I received your message on my Talk page I had no idea you were banned - Epinoia (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note these special rules for editing Eastern Europe and the Balkans

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.--Dr. K. 23:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Why did you revert my correct edits on the page "Existence of God"? The edit was not reductionist. I think that you do not know the meaning of reductionist. It certainly was a neutral point of view edit. It is you who edit from a biased point of view. Glazing680 (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glazing680: – if you believe your edit is an improvement to the article I suggest you take it to the Talk page and seek input from other editors – by reductionist I meant it oversimplified scientific approaches (perhaps not the best word, but I was trying to be succinct in an edit summary) – the source cited was published in 1935 so not the most up to date source – scientific approaches to the existence of god are covered more fully in the article – the lead provides a summary of information in the article and your edit was not a good summary of the information in the article – cheers – Epinoia (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you are not an expert in english like me. That is why, you do not understand the meaning of the word reductionist until now. I suggest you to read the Wikipedia article first. As for the editing, I am correct in this case atleast. Therefore, you should accept my edits from a NPOV. Glazing680 (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glazing680: - if you believe your edit is an improvement to the article I suggest you take it to the Talk page and seek input from other editors – the Wikipedia article on Reductionism is about the special use of the term in philosophy – the Cambridge English dictionary definition of "reductionist" is, "considering or presenting something complicated in a simple way, especially a way that is too simple" and it was in this sense that I used the term – perhaps I could have said "simplistic" instead, "treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are" – Epinoia (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Getting a new WikiProject started

Dear User: Epinoia, thank you for saying you would be interested in joining Wikipedia: WikiProject Mysticism at Wikipedia: WikiProject Council. I see somewhere on the talk page, it says a new WikiProject probably needs six to eight Wikipedians to stay active. If we could find another three Wikipedians who would be interested in joining, we could probably start this WikiProject. I wonder whether you would be interested in looking at Wikipedia articles related to mysticism, and advertising to editors of them about this WikiProject proposal? Thank you in advance for your co-operation. Vorbee (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

– the project Germanic Mysticism has three members and the project Spritiuality has 37 members – so perhaps potential members could be found there – or perhaps Mysticism could be incorporated into the Spirituality project – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality of Jesus

Since Metanoia2019 has violated the 3RR rule by reverting at least five or six times in the last 24 hours despite being warned, we should file a report. I could do it, but I'm extremely busy today. BillsYourUncle (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@BillsYourUncle: – before a report can be filed there must be an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page – I placed an edit warring warning on the User Talk page, but the user has ignored warnings in the past and repeatedly blanked the User Talk page – Epinoia (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
You've warned Metanoia repeatedly and they refuse to even comment on the talk page, so it's time for a report. I could do it if you want. BillsYourUncle (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@BillsYourUncle: – I have filed a report – 17 edits to the article so far today, continued to edit war after Talk page discussion started, ignored edit warring notice on User Talk page – we'll let the admins take it from here – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@BillsYourUncle: – user blocked for 48 hours – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Epinoia/Archive_1&oldid=1145952340"