User talk:Editor2020

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Re: Mediation

You seem like a straight shooter, so i'm down. Regarding MOSISLAM and WP:NOT, i've read them countless times, mainly from referencing them when discussing edits with people such as you know who. I feel like i'm fairly familiar with them. But seeing as how you're a third party looking in, I think your mediation could be very effective. Where do you want to start? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Category question

Hello 2020:

To aid in my education, please tell me why you removed the category Islam from the article Muhammad?

(Understand this is purely a question, not a complaint.) Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite question. I seldom find good manners on Wikipedia, and yours are appreciated. Muhammad has so many articles that he has his own sub-category in the category 'Islam'. In Wikipedia the articles go under the most specific category, therefore it goes in the category 'Muhammad'. The entire 'Muhammad' category is already in the 'Islam' category.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. So if I understand this category nesting, an article about an "American socialite" should be tagged as such, but not also as "Socialite"?
As to politeness, I've found a very broad spectrum of editors. Some I would love to meet. Others who, if they are editing an article, I'm not.
Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. --Editor2020 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Categorization reverts

Hi; thanks for the recategorizations on Eastern Christianity and Non-denominational Christianity. Some of these pages have been subject to disruptive removal of categories, and so I am perhaps not cautious enough about checking out the basis for a category removal. Obviously yours are helpful! Thanks for repeating them, with edit summaries. Tb (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikilinks to Date Fragments

Hi E.2020, I notice in your recent edits at Brahmoism that you removed all the wikilinks to Years within its History and Timeline section. On comparing this article to the Brahmo Samaj page there seems to be a consistency in formatting theme for these related articles (which are clearly under upgradation and expansion recently), the intention apparently being for easy quick-link to these dates for scholars/ visitors. This is not a gripe, just a share. 91.84.248.29 (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style (See WP:date) "solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations" are not supposed to be Wikilinked.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks 4 your edits at Brahmoism. So does this mean that "non-solitary" dates like 20 January 2008 can be Wikilinked? I was under the impression that only important dates/events are to be Wikilinked, so would normally Wikilink as January_20 and 2008 etc. 91.84.248.29 (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking only important dates would make more sense, but my understanding is that the linking is not for the date itself, but so it will display according to the users date preferences. That is, as (January 20 2008) or (20 January 2008) or (2008 January 20) or (2008-01-20). (see Autoformatting and linking).--Editor2020 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] AfD nomination of Comic book original art

An article that you have been involved in editing, Comic book original art, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comic book original art. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BTfromLA (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yahweh

The RSV does, in fact, translate the Tetragrammaton as "I am". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The problematic part is the next part, "which indicates that the name Yahweh is itself a euphemism, invoked by God when Moses asked Him what His name is."--Editor2020 (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That part is also true. Names were susperstitiiously thought to have great significance. Moses was trying to get God to tell him what His name was, so he would "have something" on Him. God's answer was a polite way of saying "mind your own business". I didn't make that up. That's theology (as taught in my church, anyway). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can provide a reference, I won't have any problem with adding it.--Editor2020 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll ask my minister the next time I see him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)