User talk:Editor2020

31 March 2019
From the editors: Getting serious about humor News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive In the media: Women's history month Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding Featured content: Out of this world Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37 Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles? In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings
Single page Book Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
920		Abraham in Islam (talk)	Add sources
65		Young Women (organization) (talk)	Add sources
297		Jacob in Islam (talk)	Add sources
199		Puerto Galera (talk)	Add sources
25		Petroleum industry in Kenya (talk)	Add sources
951		Council of Trent (talk)	Add sources
69		Nimbarka Sampradaya (talk)	Cleanup
62		Moamoria rebellion (talk)	Cleanup
217		Sankardev (talk)	Cleanup
335		Biblical and Quranic narratives (talk)	Expand
5,006		Belize (talk)	Expand
16		Tom Flynn (author) (talk)	Expand
2,490		Prophets and messengers in Islam (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5,857		Cambodia (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
485		Antinomianism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
529		Christianity in the 1st century (talk)	Merge
939		Early Christianity (talk)	Merge
702		Paleoconservatism (talk)	Merge
103		Catholic ecumenical councils (talk)	Wikify
37		Reformation Papacy (talk)	Wikify
65		Mahanubhava (talk)	Wikify
4		Ilaram Das (talk)	Orphan
12		Anthropoid ceramic coffins (talk)	Orphan
2		Selected Manifestations (talk)	Orphan
400		Osu! (talk)	Stub
80		Trinidad Orisha (talk)	Stub
6		Alianza Islámica (talk)	Stub
9		Global Atheist Convention (talk)	Stub
6		Leman Copley (talk)	Stub
44		Parmalim (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Time for a break

Contending with the stupidity is bringing me down. Time to take a break. Editor2020 (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope that you take a well deserved break, then that you eventually come back. Thank you for your precious contributions, —PaleoNeonate – 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I second the wishes and the thanks by Paleo above. Hope to see you back soon, well refreshed and full of editing energy again. Thank you! warshy ^(¥¥) 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Male Authorship of the Bible

Dear Editor 2020, At the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible Authorship of the Bible NOT ONE female author is presumed or listed. Miistermagico (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

True, but unless you have a Reliable Sources that says all the authors were male, it's Original Research. Editor2020 (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I am a puzzler

Dear Editor2020, I realize the wikipedia is not a place for conversing. Yet you immediately responded to my entry at the Bible. May I ask what is your personal connection with Biblical Scholarship? If you are comfortable with this question please reply here soon.

 Sincerely, miistermagico Miistermagico (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Purely chance. No connection at all, except an amateur interest.Editor2020 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Editor2020, Thank you for your kind reply. Sincerely miistermagico Miistermagico (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

SMILE!! 8 OCT 2018

Hello Editor2020, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jewish royalty

Hi there. I must be confused.. how is Moses, an ancient Egyptian Jew and a prince of Egypt not considered "Jewish royalty"? Is this category for only royalty from Judea? I was under the impression it was for members of the Jewish faith/race that were also members of royalty. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Jewish royalty would include the royal families of the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), Kingdom of Judah and Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), the Hasmonean dynasty and the Herodian kingdom.Editor2020 (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Why Did You Delete?

I am new. Why did you delete? Thank you :-)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)

"4 August 70 CE (Tisha B'Av - 9th Day of Av) or"

Bob Tarver (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

BobTarver — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobTarver (talk • contribs) 11:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it added nothing to the article and didn't support the claim. It was just a calendar. Editor2020 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have put more in, as you can see, the 9th Day of Av or Tisha B'Av is 4 August 70 CE. Please see the Wikipedia article "Judea_(Roman_province)" in the right side of the article "Historical Era", and the Hebrew/Roman Calendar which details the Holidays at in end of the page.

How about this:

"According to tradition, on 4 August 70 CE, which would be the 9th Day of Av (Tisha B'Av in the Jewish Calendar), the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans."

Bob Tarver (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) we never use our articles as sources. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Your other sources are no better. Where is this tradition coming from? If it's authentic there will be scholarly sources discussing it. And hopefully explaining the difference in dates. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC) @BobTarver: Doug Weller talk 11:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I am found a source. said "According to Josephus, a Roman soldier took a torch and threw it against the beautiful tapestries that Herod had made for the Temple and that hung along its walls. When they caught fire the Romans attempted to put it out, but there was not sufficient water. Somehow the fire was so intense that even the stone took hold and the building collapsed. The Talmud says that it burned not only on the late afternoon of the ninth of Av, but the entire day of the tenth.[1]" Also, the reference [1] said "[1] In fact, there is an opinion in the Talmud that the day of destruction should be the tenth of Av instead of the ninth because the building was actually destroyed on the tenth. Nevertheless, since it started on the ninth, and because of the connection to the destruction of the First Temple, the ninth remained the memorial day for the destruction of both Temples." Now, using the Hebrew/Roman Calendar , the 9th Day of Av would be on 4 August and the 10th Day of Av would be on 5 August 70 CE. Also, Josephus (Judean War, 6.4.5 249-253) wrote:

   "So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the Temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the Holy House; but, as for that House, God had for certain long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of the ages: it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Av,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus's retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the Holy House fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning in the inner court of the Temple; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the Holy House itself. 
   At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the Holy House, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward the Jews made a great clamour, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered anything to restrain their force, since that Holy House was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard upon it."

Bob Tarver (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Category:Catholic terminology has been nominated for discussion

Category:Catholic terminology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian

I have initiated a discussion specifically about the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to History of Christianity you included material copied from Ante-Nicene Period. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• OK.Thanks! Editor2020 (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Editing new religion sites

On the Eckankar page, someone had added the following:

"...In addition, Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs are not genuine historical personages but literary inventions developed by Twitchell to conceal his past associations."

This was included as part of a larger quote. The rest of the quote is innocuous and non-controversial. However, this excerpt makes an accusation that has no basis in fact. It is written by an academic (David Lane) who has a strong bias against Eckankar and other similar religions, based solely on the author's own religious beliefs and not on any research or facts.

I had removed this part of the quote because it is simply inflammatory and argumentative. A Wikipedia page is not a place for a flame war.

I do not see any reason that this extraneous sentence should be included as part of the larger quote. What does the "..." skip over? Why did you undo my revision?

Thanks

--Sarunfeldt (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That is his opinion, and is indicated to be.Editor2020 (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Then shouldn't that paragraph be moved to a criticism section. Nothing else in that section is opinion. Everything else is factual. The first part of that paragraph is a factual statement regarding the Eckankar writings. But the inserted extract claiming that Paul Twitchell made up certain personages in order to conceal something, is not factual, but opinion. Perhaps it belongs in a separate section.

In my reading of the Wikipedia guidelines for religion pages, don't critiques belong in a critique section and statements on beliefs go into a belief section?

--00:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Sarunfeldt (talk)

OK. Editor2020 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some context from the intro of the book that was already cited, noting the types of criticism that new religions face and then including the quote from David Lane. This section may be useful for future critical additions. I think that they are part of the story that should be included in a Wikipedia article, but they should not be interspersed with the factual information about what followers of Eckankar (or any religion) actually believe.

Thanks --Sarunfeldt (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Editor2020, You are quite welcome! Glad i could help. GeorgeV73GT GeorgeV73GT (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Pauline epistles

Hi, in the Pauline epistles article you removed the sentence "although it's possible that Paul first collected his letters for publication himself" as unsourced. The source for this is Trobisch in the work cited at the end of the paragraph. This is from the article Marcionism#Recent scholarship:

David Trobisch, a New Testament scholar and curator of The Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., argues that comparison of the oldest manuscripts of Paul’s letters show evidence that several epistles had been previously assembled as an anthology and published separate from the New Testament, and this anthology as a whole was then incorporated into the New Testament. Trobisch further argues for Paul as the assembler of his own letters for publication.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Trobisch |first1=David |title=Paul’s Letter Collection |year=2001 |publisher=Quiet Water Publications |isbn=978-0-96639667-6}}</ref>

Could the sentence be re-instated? Perhaps reworded to make it clearer that Trobisch is the source. - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted. Editor2020 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

- thank you. Although I was concerned that the idea was not accepted by the majority of scholars and could be considered WP:FRINGE - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I just couldn't tell it was covered by the later source. Editor2020 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Why you convert?

Editor2020 why you connvert Meetei to Meitei. They have different meanings .Likewise Manipuri and Meitei. Awangba Mangang (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Meetei redirects to Meitei people. Please revert me if I changed incorrectly. Editor2020 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory lead RfC

Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Leviv ich 06:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Pandeism

You seem to know what’s what, and recently involved in Deism. An anon is complaining of Deism content being in Catholic Church and Pandeism. A second proposes expanding the page to one on “Catholic Church and Deism.” Discussion is at talk. What would you do? If you think it should be moved and restructured, propose it and I won’t oppose. Trust your judgement. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm flattered by your trust in me, but I'm no expert in either Pandeism or Catholicism. I would support a separate Catholic Church and Deism article, as I think that there is a significant difference in the concepts of Deism and Pandeism. Editor2020 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Deism already exists as a redirect to Catholic Church and Pandeism, so we need to review the content and history. A restoration of the article may be called for. Editor2020 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you have been there already. Editor2020 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ I've had a chance to look at the articles now. Since there is no previous article at the redirect Catholic Church and Deism, and there doesn't seem to be much information at Catholic Church and Pandeism that can be moved to the redirect, I don't see how an article can be written, so I'd leave it as is. If you think you can write a well referenced article, go for it. Editor2020 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate your taking the time. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Pauline Christianity

Glad you appreciate this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You've improved that article tremendously. Editor2020 (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)