User talk:StAnselm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, StAnselm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Thanks for your edits relating to the Presbyterian Church of Australia (I think I sat in from of you at the opening of the Victorian Assembly). You might be interested in taking a look at the tasks to do over at WikiProject Calvinism or browsing the other articles in Category:Presbyterianism in Australia.
Again, welcome! Blarneytherinosaur talk 05:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sinaiticism
Level-headedness on the internet? On Wikipedia!? On AfD, at that?! Sir, I'll have you know that April Fool's Day was several days ago! I urge you to snap out of it and become a hot-headed troll like the rest of us - it's miscreants like you that convince members of the old guard that some good remains in the human race, and next thing you know they're lettin' their ol' guard down, and next thing they know, they find themselves pwned by a noobey. :-D (But, seriously now, thank you for participating - AfD can use more folk like yourself) --Action Jackson IV 10:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Invite
| You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Calvinism
The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
 |
--Flex (talk|contribs) 12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Usage of Template:Main
Hi! I deleted the {{main}}s that you put in John Calvin's view of Scripture and Institutes of the Christian Religion and thought I had better explain my actions to you. According to that template's documentation, it should not be used at the top of articles. It is intended for linking sub-articles from a central article, not back to that central article. So for instance, John Calvin might include a section on the Institutes, which summarizes the full article covering Calvin's magnum opus, with a {{main|Institutes of the Christian Religion}} at the top of the section. A sub-article, on the other hand, needn't have a tag referring back to the central article, though certainly the connections-cum-wikilinks should be apparent in the sub-article lede. Anyway, thanks for your many contributions! --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dealing with vandalism
Hi StAnselm,
I see that you reverted some vandalism at Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Vandalism for more info about dealing with vandals. I find the warning templates particularly useful. Blarneytherinosaur talk 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mark
I don't know why is wrong with them either, and that's because no one has bothered to say. All that has been said is that I am forcing an as yet unidentified pov into the article, which just seems like an immature way to "argue" against the edits without being useful or helpful. That's for being a nice source of rationality in the process. I restored the edits just before you made the initiative in talk, mostly so people would get talking about it (I mean the actualy points, you see). Lostcaesar 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Denomination editing
I notice that you've got some denominations down on your list of pages to expand. I thought you might find the following useful: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Calvinism#Denomination articles -- especially the template which has some useful headings for that sort of thing. Also, while I'm noticing things, I also notice that you're more active on Calvinism-related pages than many of the people in WikiProject Calvinism are. Thanks! :) In fact, when I look, I think the PCA (Australia) might be one of the biggest contributors :).
-- TimNelson 13:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category renaming vote
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_4#Changing_nomination. --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Geoffrey Blackburn
Hi, your article says a fair bit about Geoffrey but it doesn't really assert notability - all the links do document facts, but none of them point back to material written about Blackburn - they are about the various organisations he is/was a part of.
Has anyone written about him? If not, I really think he may not be sufficiently notable for inclusion.Garrie 05:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Geoffrey Blackburn
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Geoffrey Blackburn, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Garrie 00:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
(this follows over a week with no reply on this matter)Garrie 00:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:GAC
I'm an occasional contributor to the Good Article Candidates page, and I got a heckuva laugh out of seeing StAnselm fail Thomas Becket...cheers Chubbles 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah ha! rofl My, that's good. Alastair Haines 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Geoffrey Blackburn
Put me down as someone who knows Dr Geoffrey Blackburn personally and am surprised - even from the material St Anselm has included in the article about him - that anyone would doubt his notability. As St Anselm wrote, he's one of the half dozen best-known people in his denomination. And is known, I think, worldwide because ot his status in the Baptist World Alliance (if I recall I read somewhere he was a world vice-president). There's a joke around Presbyterian and Baptist circles among clergy that they want 'Geoff' as they call him affectionately to conduct their funerals (he's 90-something and still in active ministry with Scots' Church, Melbourne!). I'll revisit the article and see if I can do a little bit of extra work on it. Ron Cameron 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Poythress
I saw that you wanted to create an article on Vern Poythress. I have done so, and if you have time, I'd appreciate you helping to help fill it out (e.g., a section on his thought, links to the listed books and articles from frame-poythress.org, a free picture, etc.). In particular, I'd like to get an interesting fact or two in there that would make it a good candidate for WP:DYK, but we'll have to move fast to make it in the 5 day time limit! --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unfulfilled predictions
Hi Anselm, I would really appreciate it if you read some of my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians regarding the potential future of the article, including the criteria I have set up. --One Salient Oversight 11:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vern Poythress
 |
On 9 May 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vern Poythress, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--howcheng {chat} 07:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unfulfilled predictions
The first thing I've done is removed every uncited prediction. I'll look at the individual merits of those remaining next. EliminatorJR Talk 12:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shalom!
Hi, my supervisor is a graduate of Westminster -- John Davies. He's the principal of the Presbyterian Theological Centre here in Sydney.
Feel free to build up that page. My project is to make a good list of theological journals, including internal links and web-links. To place links on all references to those journals, and to create stubs for journals cited in existing articles.
What is your area of Old Testament study? What area in mathematics? :) Alastair Haines 08:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- PS, I linked to your Vern Poythress article a week ago. ;) Alastair Haines 08:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wow! Sister colleges then. I had the great good fortune of having Greg Goswell as a lecturer for one semester. He's one super-smart, super-knowledgeable cookie. :D Alastair Haines 13:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Quick work mate! Like that template. Avagoodweekend. :) Alastair Haines 17:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Calvin and his view
Please see Talk:John_Calvin#RfC. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please see about the page on Reprobation? i dont believe that Wesley's views on reprobation are appropriate there. It would be rather like putting why cristians reject Islam's opinion on the the Christ's divinity on the Islam page.Die4Dixie 09:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:JETS.jpg
 |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:JETS.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:JBL.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:JBL.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Two points
- Just dropped by to ask if you could send me a copy of your honours thesis, when it's all done.
- Saw the bot comments above. That bot needs reprogramming (or speedy deletion, lol). It's good Wiki takes copyright seriously, but I find it a real drag rephrasing and rereferencing copyright rationales for images. I emailed an academic for a personal photo. He kindly provided one. Then someone removed it, saying he hadn't explicitly given Gnu license permission. Now I have to hassle him again. Alastair Haines 06:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NTS.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:NTS.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bib Sac.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bib Sac.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CBQ.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CBQ.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from Five points pf Calvinism
Please lend your latest comments to Talk:Calvinism#RfC:_Merge_from_Five_points_of_Calvinism. We've requested outside comment. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Engagement ring
What would you like balanced?? Bridesmill 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] IF YOU COLD HELP ME IN ANY WAY
Hi! First I would really thank wikipedia and, foremost, the people that make it going - people like you. I come from a village in Herzegovina, and throughout this century it has vittnesed many atrosities. So I desided to make a page about it, on wikipedia. Among the thing that I wrote is the genocide aginst the serbs in 1941, in Prebilovci. And on the title I used genocide - a user named rijeka, from croatia, has just removed that bit.
600 women and children from my village, were in 1941 slaughtered and thrown into pits near surmanci, the place were virgin mary is said to have apeared. I wrote abut this -- and rijeca removed that bit. Maby he just doesn't want people nowing about it -- that virgin maty apears to some vroats near were they cilled serbs during a genocide.
I've also created a page valled Prebilovci Massacre, and because of that, he claims, has removed a great bit of my article on Prebilovci. Among that article, he has removed of what happended in 1991, the bodies of thoose who were massacred in 1941 were blown up by a bomb.
I just think this is unfair. I see it this way: that's he's missusing his power on wikipedia. Chek it put yourself, then contact me and say what do you think.
Yours Very Thruly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebsterMasters (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JSNT.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:JSNT.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JSOT.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:JSOT.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Edwardses
Could you cast your two cents into the ring over at Talk:Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)#Requested_move? I think your input might be particularly valuable since you may be familiar with both the JEs under discussion and can provide insight to those of us who are much more familiar with one than the other. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Evangelical Catholic
No problem. Your content removal explanation referred to OR but hadn't mentioned quite why (that it isn't a recognised term, for example) so I was looking for the real reasoning. Thanks for your contributions! Aepoutre 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Under the Southern Cross I Stand
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Under the Southern Cross I Stand, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Collectonian (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Free Reformed Churches of North America
lol -- you maybe didn't find the history of the FRCNA interesting, but I sure did! Is one opinion more valid than another? :) But fair enough, I will keep your edit. I wonder, what is the history of the Presbyterian Church in Australia? Is it interesting? God Bless. Swisher6 —Preceding comment was added at 03:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PTC logo.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:PTC logo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unconditional election
Your input would be welcome over at Talk:Unconditional_election#Church_Fathers_on_the_doctrine. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, John Duncan (theologian), was selected for DYK!
|
On February 27, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Duncan (theologian), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DYK notice
|
On 5 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Active obedience of Christ, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Congratulations! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I just have to say
God is that than which nothing greater can be conceinved...Balloonman (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of ommitted verses
Why did you revert the List of ommitted verses article? This name was suggested in the talk page and I waited two weeks until I changed the name. I don't see what kind of consensus you want. Tavix (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Inappropriate Warnings
Please do not place unjustified warnings on my talkpage. Doing so does nothing to further the project and promotes a hostile environment. --God Save the South (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Brown Memorial Presbyterian Church
St Anselm, Thanks very much for taking the time to do the GA review and for your thoughtful comments. I've gone thru the article and implemented the recommendations. Let me know if it looks OK now. JGHowes talk - 21:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jehovah / Yahweh
Jehovah is a corruption of the Almighty's personal Hebrew name, Yahweh, as revealed in Exodus 3 and elsewhere. Hebrew was originally written in with consonants. In Exodus 3 it is clear that Yahweh was meant to be spoken aloud. By the third century BC, however, the divine name was not normally pronounced out of respect. This probably arose out of the command to not misuse God's name found in the Ten Commandments. While YHWH was still written, readers in Hebrew said Adonai, "Lord," instead. Around 1000 AD vowel markings were added to texts for pronunciation (Hebrew letters are consonants only) like footnotes. Since YHWH was not read it was not written with vowel markings for Yahweh, but markings for Adonai. This was done in fact to remind the reader to say Adonai rather than utter the personal divine name.
While Wyclif's translation renders Exodus 3:14 as "Adonai," Tyndale, in the 1500s, become to first to put the vowel markings for Adonai with the consonants YHWH to form "Jehovah." While Tyndale was the first to do this in English, the mistake had apparently been made before in other languages. It was just because Jehovah was falsely considered authentic that it was rarely used in the King James Bible, so as to avoid uttering it, and it is rendered LORD.
Lest anyone think I am advocating avoidance of the personal divine name, using euphemisms for God's name in hopes of not violating the third commandment seems like just the sort of human rules Jesus condemned the teachers of the law for teaching.
Someone might say, "Even if Jehovah is a human construction, we can still use it for God's name, like a nickname." In worship, we want to be where God is and honor him in every way. Nicknames generally come from meaningful words or names, and Jehovah is not meaningful. It is more a mispronunciation and people are rarely if ever honored in a mispronunciation. Even a nickname is typically not a source of honor when given to you by a subordinate. Perhaps because of the history of its use by now, God will look at it like a nickname in some ways, like the sounds of an infant who does not yet know how to say "Dad." I see purpose in using Jehovah in a song, perhaps, when the lyrics cannot be restructured to fit Yahweh, or in speaking to a group to which the term Yahweh would be a hindrance, but let us who know better speak of God and his name with full reverence and set an example for others to do the same. --Carlaude (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- 1 What is the point of having two "dubious statement – discuss" markers for one statement?
- 2 The "dubious statement – discuss" make are for things that, among other things, do not for cited sources.
- 3 Everyone is agreeing with my points-- and just disagreeing with other more minor points among themselves.
- You are the only one in it with your view, and not even you are trying support your view in the discussion anymore. --Carlaude (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- One for each reference - one of the issues is that neither reference supports the argument that יְהֹוָה cannot be transliterated, but let's discuss each on its on merits. The references seem to be dealing with the legitimacy of "Jehovah" as a rendering of יהוה, which is a totally separate issue StAnselm (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please take to the talk page. --Carlaude (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:18-4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:18-4.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
-
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
[edit] Pillars of the Church
I have begun the task of referencing this article, and hope to do more in the upcoming months. Could you remove your recommendation for deletion, please? John D. Croft (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I am aware that the references that I have inserted are not standard to the field in some instances, but I am not a Biblical scholar. Could I solicit your help in getting the article up to standard? John D. Croft (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Could you express the countervailing point of view in the article as a way of adding balanmce to the article. I have seen "Pillars of the Church" mentioned in a number of references to "Jewish Christianity". Regards John D. Croft (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Talk page etiquette
When beginning a new discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism or any other talk page, please put your comments at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by clicking on the "+" tab at the top. I have moved your comments accordingly. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:18-4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:18-4.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jehovah
I see that you added [citation needed] twice to an earlier intro of Jehovah. Usually such labels are added when people doubt the truth of the statements they are added. But maybe you really only wanted references? In fact such statements are extremely easy to provide with citations: almost every encyclopedia and almost every Hebrew grammar says these same things. In a scholarly publication I would know what to refer to. In Wikipedia that is not so clear. Most people here do not have access to sources not on the internet, and sources on the net are rather unreliable. Would you really be happier with a ref: see Encycl. Brit.? 213.84.53.62 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] cafeserv links
I am a little puzzled about your comments about the links i have added to wikipedia. I have recently opened a coffee shop myself and did a great deal of research before hand. I have added the cafeserv links because they explain the article well and should be added for research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehollycroft (talk • contribs) 21:08, 20 April 2008
[edit] Can't we put a collapsing option in Template:New Testament people?
Not sure what or how you mean? Can you tell me.--Carlaude (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chattos
Please discuss it on the talk page rather than just reverting. Notability has not been established. Charles 06:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, to have a temper if you will is only human. The truth is, even when articles should be deleted (there are articles that should have been deleted that even I wanted to stay) AfD is almost always the place where it fails. People assume that the information, no matter how trivial or non-notable at times, is simply going to just disappear forever. Sometimes it should because it doesn't matter (but I digress). That's why redirect and merge is usually better and that's why it is suggested at times. It's also why I don't go to AfD all of the time (I used to put everything through there) because I was told most often to merge/redirect by administrators. It seems that mergers have more success than deletions because I have to be absolutely and completely honest at the risk of offending a lot of people: it seems a lot of people live in AfD for when they are logged on to Wikipedia and all they do is vote without really knowing about a situation. Really though, it draws the project away from being encyclopedic and more into being a society directory where we list the favourite school subjects of essential nobodies. Oh, but so-and-so's grandmother also happens to be a countess or something ;-) That's always the snag. Charles 12:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Lady Marina-Charlotte should be merged, by the way. There are a lot of issues with articles like these. Charles 12:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Joint edits
Hi, I am half-way through my edits for a merger based on the talk page. Please let me finish in 30-45 minutes, at which point I was going to invite re-edits from the experts. Thanks History2007 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request to move article Lazarus and Dives incomplete
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Lazarus and Dives to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.
Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:
- Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
- Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
- Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.
If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hey
Who are you, St. Anselm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearcat3454 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NT boxes
A page on a harmany of the gospels is a good idea but I am not sure where to find one in the public domaine. I am working with chrononlogical but plan to label any that are "disputed." For not I am focusing on getting them done, so I have not labled any "disputed" but it would be mostly, if not entirely, the events in, John's gospel. This is partly because only some gospel events have WP article.
I could do a harmony (based on my own work) of only the events that have a WP article-- if you think that would be a good starting point. It would make a place to dispute any that are disputed. --Carlaude (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- See Gospel Harmony --Carlaude (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
