User talk:Arlen22

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Fahadsadah (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Trouble in Amish Paradise
A tag has been placed on Trouble in Amish Paradise, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Postcard Cathy (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Esther vs. Vashti
One of them said that all the women in the empire would hear that "The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not." Then the women of the empire would despise their husbands. And this would cause many problems in the kingdom. Therefore it would be good to depose her.

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Wikipedia:WikiCup/2010 Signups has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup/2010 Signups
A polite reminder to choose a country, city, state or other place to represent. Your last choice was not one of these and has been removed (sorry, we altered the rules since then). Thanks! weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  20:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol in the Bible
Hi, has been notified of Featured article candidates/Alcohol in the Bible/archive2? Generally, primary contributors are the ones who should be nominating articles for FAC. Also, maintainence tags need to be resolved outside FAC. I suggest withdrawing and discussing with Flex about a peer review before FAC. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I see your point. Arlen22 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Like what?"
"Discussion directly pertaining to a specific article belongs on that article's talkpage. Where such discussion is erroneously posted here, I may move it to article talk, or (if I'm feeling lazy, crabby, or for any other arbitrary reason) simply delete or revert it -- so best to post it where it belongs in the first place." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Beekeeping
Hi Arlen. Thank you for your interest in the featured article process! Nominations should only be made at wP:FAC when the nominator is either one of the significant contributors to the article or has checked with the significant contributors to the article. This is to ensure that the nominator is confident enough of the content (or can rely on those who are) to answer any issues that reviewers might raise. Because you have not edited Beekeping before, I have removed that nomination. I encourage you to read the FA criteria, work on the article, and nominate it again at a later date. If you need assistance, you might check the list of featured articles to see if you can find one similar to this article, and ask the editors of that article to help. You are also welcome to leave questions at WT:FAC. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright Arlen22 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the shift-key advice. It is a key problem, and if I tap it hard enough, it fixes.Noghiri (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation! (reminder)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating.  iMatthew  talk  at 22:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Last chance to confirm your WikiCup participation!
Hi ! This is the last message that will go out to remind you that in order to participate in the 2010 WikiCup, you MUST remove your name from this list! Again, the reason for this reconfirmation is to ensure you've looked over the updated point values (which were different at the time you signed up) and to ensure that you are still interested in competing! If you don't have time to participate or no longer wish to, ignore this message and leave your name on the list. All names on the list will be removed from the contestants list before the Cup starts. Cheers!  iMatthew  talk  at 14:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of AstroAnswers
A tag has been placed on AstroAnswers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Claritas (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, AstroAnswers, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Claritas (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Flood myths
Please stop and discuss this at the talk page. There is no such word 'legendology', you cannot change the names of books, and there is no recent discussion of a name change. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * NPOV changes get blocked anyway. Shall I call in admin action? Arlen22 (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with NPOV, see the article talk page where I'll explain. There's nothing for an Admin to act on right now. Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Flood legends
There has been no consensus for the article name change and to change every instance of the word myth to legend is simply absurd since many mentions are book titles!  Teapot  george Talk  20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Arlen are editing warring and you are close to violating WP:3RR. Please do not move the page back and use the talk page to discuss.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Arlen telling me to stop reverting your disruptive moves only digs you a deeper hole. Relax and discuss this on the talk page instead of insisting on your version of the title.  Clearly many editors oppose you.Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Others suppport the move. Arlen22 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 2 editors whose only edit was to support the move, another with only 55 edits since 2007. this the only edit since October 2007. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you move a page maliciously, as you did to Flood legends, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jesstalk edits 12:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Deluge myth. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a hopeless case. Arlen22 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what you are doing. This search-and-replace edit is extremely pathetic, and basically vandalism. Seeing that Wikipedia actually manages to stop you dead in your tracks before you do any real damage goes to show that far from being a "hopeless case", Wikipedia works very well. Please either find a topic to write about on which you have some basic background knowledge, or else be prepared to submit to such editors as do have such knowledge and can back it up with literature. --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I know. I meant about the NPOV thing. Arlen22 (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Please note: I've brought this issue up on AN/EW here. This is just to let you know what's going on. Jesstalk edits 14:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Warring at Deluge myth
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at Deluge myth. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Petition
I agree with the petition, but it may have little effect, as neither involved user has been active for a while. The code has been handed over to some coder (I don't remember his name), but before he fixes it he wants to be registered to a Toolserver account. For whatever reason that's wrapped in red tape. Perhaps you should then change the petition to that...? Res Mar 22:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide references? I don't have many resources about the situation. Also, the operator has a tool server account, is that good enough? Arlen22 (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My reference is a conversation with User:Headbomb over IRC. You can ask him for details :) Res Mar 01:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. At first I thought you meant the one who wrote the code. I saw that conversation somewhere. In any case, I have the code, but I won't take down the petition till it is fulfilled. Now I am looking for someone who can take over. Bot_requests Arlen22 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well done! May the issue finally be resolved! <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 17:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work
Kudos! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Articlealertbot
Hi, I was told to contact you for the code for the Article Alert Bot. <font color="#0000DD">Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This user has volunteered to take over the bot. If you could send them the code, this issue can hopefully be resolved. Gage (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would also be interested in a copy of the code, in order to write an alternate implementation in Perl. Mostly for my own amusement (I'm not particularly interested in taking on the burden of operating a bot on Wikipedia), but I'd certainly put any code I might produce up on Github or somesuch in order to ensure there is an easily available starting point should anyone ever be in need of it (cf. the problems we had with the old code base until you managed to solve it). I'd also be happy to help out any way I can with the actual “official” code, but given lack of time and lacking familiarity with Java I'd probably not be much help. --Xover (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have the updated version yet, should get it in a day or so, I will get back to you about this soon. Arlen22 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Any possibility that the new version could be inserted into the "Latest Updates" section of Portal:Horses? The script in there now is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Horses/Opentask&action=edit   Montanabw (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We're talking about the bot code itself. It should work the same once we get it running. Arlen22 (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Updates are here: Bot requests/Archive 39 Arlen22 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I have no clue how to implement any of this, it's gibberish to me. (smile)  Will the code just show up in the portal box by magic, or does a real human have to do something to replace the old with the new?  That's my question...  Montanabw (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like it is already implemented. There is nothing to do but wait till the bot is running again. Arlen22 (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, so the code is fine as is? I guess I thought the bot was running already...my apologies.  I hear we owe you big time for fixing this thing...  Montanabw (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I only got my hands on the source code, but I am also working with Joe, who is fixing the bot. I guess you could call me the coordinator. Arlen22 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dating method
Hi. I just reverted your change of era dating style on Timeline of historic inventions. You had changed all of the BCE to BC and CE to AD (or removed). I know this probably took you a lot of time, so rather than have you do the same work on another article and have it reverted again, I figured I'd point out a policy, WP:ERA, which is a part of the Manual of Style. The last part of that guideline states "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." Thus, you can't go into articles and unilaterally change from one style to another without first discussing on the article's talk page why you think the change should be made and getting consensus. In that particular case, for example, I would be opposed to such a change, because the article is primarily scientific/historical in content, and thus should follow the more standard academic practice rather than the one common in non-academic writing in the US. Of course, if a consensus of other editors found some good reason to switch, I would follow that consensus, but I do know that such a change must be discussed first. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Arlen22 (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

January 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Noah's Ark. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. You really need to start using edit summaries regularly. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM
I'm not a nautical engineer, but the following should be blindingly obvious: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Excessive size for crude materials and construction techniques;
 * 2) This would be aggravated by its long, thin shape -- I would expect it to 'break its back' in heavy seas.
 * 3) Lack of keel, meaning it is likely to capsize in heavy seas.
 * 4) Difficulty in steering -- making it difficult to keep its bow into the weather


 * In response:
 * I will just say "git 'er done".
 * The length to width of 6:1 ratio is very common. I am compiling a list of ship lengths and widths on my userpage.
 * I don't get the point. How do modern ships happen to have keels?
 * Would you need to steer? Besides, as AIG has mentioned before, most ancient ships had an enormous "thing" in front, and this would catch the wind.
 * Arlen22 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving this to user talk as article talk is WP:NOTAFORUM

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Large wooden ships require large forests, large amounts of transportation, large amounts of sawmilling and large amounts of construction. Essentially a miniature mass production set-up.
 * 2) I rather doubt if those dimensions scale well.
 * 3) Large keels require large drydocks (where would Noah have found one?). Also the Ark is normally conceived of as a keel-less barge.
 * 4) (i) To keep it headed into the wind/waves for stability. (ii) AIG is not a WP:RS. (iii) I have no idea what "thing" you're talking about. A ram perhaps?


 * 1) He had 100 years to build that thing, which sounds like plenty of time to me.
 * 2) Did you research it? I did. Most of them have those proportions (so far).
 * 3) Why wouldn't a field work for a drydock?
 * 4) Most ancient ships have a mast or something like that sticking up above the bow.

Arlen22 (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Termites? Rot? Etc? After 100 years I'd expect the original parts to have disintegrated.
 * 2) How many are completely wooden, and that size?
 * 3) Because it would fall over.
 * 4) Most ancient ships weren't that big. The amount of mastage that you'd need to control a ship that big would be huge -- and would create enormous stresses.


 * 1) It says that he daubed it with pitch. Don't you think that that would have helped?
 * 2) Not many, true, but that isn't the point. The point is that those dimensions are used.
 * 3) Have you ever heard of props? If someone is going to build a ship, surely they wouldn't just put the beams up and expect it to balance!
 * 4) That's not what I mean. Here is a picture.

Arlen22 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) That much pitch would be a fire hazard.
 * Yes, and the Empire State Building is 381 meters tall -- but I wouldn't want to build something that big out of wood. The materials one uses places limitations on the size of what you can build.
 * 1) Have you ever thought about how much a boat that big would weigh? Have you ever thought about how much wind it would catch?
 * 2) Mast+sails=stress -- regardless of where they're "sticking up". And most ancient ships weren't very seaworthy (as they only had to survive the relatively calm Mediterranean).


 * 1) But that doesn't mean he didn't do it.
 * 2) That is tall, not long. The ark was only 45 feet tall. Of course there are limits, but people regularly build chicken houses that are that big. It certainly isn't impossible.
 * 3) Yeah, it would probably be a lot lighter than something the same size made of steel. Wood floats, you know. Of course it would catch the wind, but I don't think that would affect much, unless you are talking about capsize.
 * 4) As you can see above, I wasn't talking about mast or sails. I don't think it had any need for either.

Arlen22 (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Only that it's unlikely.
 * 2) Gravity isn't the only stress, and so height is not the only limitation.
 * 3) You don't think the likelihood that it would be blown over would "affect much"?
 * 4) That's a viking longship -- a very different design to Mediterranean ones -- small, open-decked, designed specifically to be ocean-going, designed more for raiding rather than large-scale transport. The largest were only 45m long -- and I doubt if they'd scale much further. I also doubt if they'd be manoeuvrable lacking their sails and oars. Also that's just the prow -- the rudder and steersman is visible at the back.


 * 1) But the fact remains that he was instructed to, and so probably did it.
 * 2) Right
 * 3) I said "unless you are talking about capsize". But please tell me why modern ships don't capsize in heavy seas?
 * 4) Toward that end, allow me to point you to . Item number 1 is what I am talking about. Also Item 5 is related.

Arlen22 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing the least bit "probable" about anything to do with this narrative.
 * Water ("capsizing") supports a boat far better than props ("blowing over") would, and exposes considerably less of the side of a boat to wind.
 * Allow me to point out that (i) this is nothing like the longboat prow, (ii) that the AiG claim appears to be WP:Complete bollocks. I've never seen any serious claim that high stems made a ship 'self-steer'. See for example Trireme for discussion of ancient ship construction.


 * I see what you mean, I thought you meant on the water. Why should Noah not have taken care of all those little problems that you seem to have on the top of your head.
 * Well that is what I was talking about. Of course it has to be bigger because it is a bigger ship.

Arlen22 (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * <Scottie from Star Trek> 'Cause ye canna break the laws of physics!</Scottie from Star Trek> <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What about Tessarakonteres? There is your proof that it can be done. Arlen22 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You should perhaps read the article in question before citing it: So yes, a very wealthy empire, out of shear pig-headedness, could build a ship that big, but it couldn't make it practical or seaworthy, because "ye canna break the laws of physics!" <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It was a Mediterranean galley, not an ocean-going cargo ship
 * 2) It may have been a catamaran for stability
 * 3) It was a one-off, indicating that it probably wasn't particularly practical. Further: "But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger."
 * 4) "A hull of such size would involve great bend-induced stresses"
 * 5) The craft required a massive crew of rowers and sailors
 * 6) It was built and maintained by a major ancient empire, not a single family.

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/NewHome


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Arlen22 (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

God is perfect?
I found this statement on your talk page hilarious: "When God created everything, he made it perfect. Soon, however, Satan became jealous of God and tried to be like him."

Well if God created everything perfectly, then humans would have never chosen to be evil creatures when imbued with free will, Satan would never have became jealous, etc, etc. You can't say something like "God created everything perfectly, but then his perfect creations were subsequently imperfect"
 * Hmm. You've got a point, didn't really give it much thought. The Bible says he made it "very good", not "perfect".Arlen22 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And I think it's funny there are still people who actually buy into Noah's Ark as being a literal account. Haven't you ever thought about how impossible it would be for the account to be true? Or do you just use the Christian "well God just fixed that problem with his magical powers"? Just curious. SuperAtheist (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't really say anything to just use a catch all. But as far as whether it actually happened, the Bible says it did, and the Bible makes a lot more sense, in my opinion, than evolution does. I'm not going to quit believing it just because everyone attacks it. Besides, I have yet to find an example where the Bible was actually proved to be wrong. Arlen22 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Meinsla/templates/kansas
I have declined your speedy deletion nomination: I do not think G3 (vandalism) applies, nor (though it is more arguable) G10 "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." If you think it should go, nominate it at WP:Templates for discussion. JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> In this issue...

- Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus
Hello, I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Template:Bibleverse
Greetings, Arlen22 I found you in Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible. Template:Bibleverse needs to be edited by and admin. The source code links to http://bibref.hebtools.com. That website is no longer active. User:Atethnekos edited Template:Bibleverse/sandbox which links to http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/bibleversefinder.php
 * { { Bibleverse|BOOK#|BOOKNAME|c:v–c:v|SOURCE } }   are not working.
 * { { Bibleverse/sandbox|BOOK#|BOOKNAME|c:v–c:v|SOURCE } }   are working.
 * The source code of Template:Bibleverse needs to be changed in its entirety to:the source code found found in Bibleverse/sandbox
 * Can you take care of this? Kind regards,  --@Efrat (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind It's been fixed.  --@Efrat (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the User WPMed template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter
<div style = "color: #F4C430; font-size: 3.5em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #0000FF; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em">

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress


 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short


 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives


 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message
--UTRSBot (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 31 May 2020 20:15:07 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ProjectBarnstar
Template:ProjectBarnstar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TheImaCow (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Bible welcome
Template:WikiProject Bible welcome has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)