User talk:Basileias/Archive 1

Texe Marrs
If you're willing to help with this article, I'd be very grateful. It just has to be made encylopedic. I think he is notable enough to be on wikipedia.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there's unsourced information we could probably remove. How would you like to proceed? Basileias (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ronald F. Youngblood
Hi. I don't know your area of expertise or interest, but I would appreciate your input on this new article. Ἀλήθεια 18:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that article is put together really well. It's clean and well laid out. If you need assistance with anything I'm willing to help, but with my time constraints being a minor self pointed change patroller, that's about all I've been able to offer the wiki lately. These guys might need some help if your game; New American Standard Bible and American Standard Version. Basileias (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hank Hanegraaff
There is prejudicial editing on the Controversies Page. Primary source material is continually deleted. Unfortunately, this TruthBringsLight (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)supports the fact that Wikipedia is a free-for-all, with no way to answer (or defend against) editors who repeatedly edit to promote their point of view. Easy to see why Wikipedia has no credibility in the academic world.


 * Basileias can speak for her-or-himself, but there are wider venues you can take your concerns to:
 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, if this is primarily of point of view problem, or
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, which may be more relavent.
 * Keep in mind that three editors with considerable experience are finding your edits contrary to multiple policies and you will need to carefully state your case in order to get a more favorable response at the noticeboards. If you do go to a noticeboard, it is polite (and transparent) to inform other editors who are involved. ✤ JonHarder talk 16:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth
Twinkle makes nominating things for deletion so much easier. It creates all the pages and notifies the proper users all in one step. :-) Killiondude (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Message (Bible)
Took a minute to read here. Looks like you have a knack for argumentively editing. I don't appreciate the neutral point of view (NPOV) I carefully added to the article being labeled my "obvious POV," and brashly reverted with no finesse. You've done this before, and know to make the revert harder to undo, perform additional edits. Your actions appear out of variance for the wikipedia community, but your own POV about this article is obvious, and thus your actions are not surprising. grubbmeister (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I responded here. Basileias (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You responded apart from factual reality. Apart from that, your inability to submit your work to the Wikipedia community is apparent. Your demand for editorial control is out of variance with the wikipedia community, and others have offered you links to the guidelines (above). Your evident love for the subject of this article, which is factually a paraphrase and not even a consciencious translation, robs you of a Neutral Point of View and the graciousness to allow things expressed evenhandedly if it differs from the way you wish to see the world and from the way you wish others to see the world. It is also apparent you have this demand for things to be expressed on your terms in other areas, and I challenge you to add a new topic to your watch list, an article that needs your scrupulous attention, control freak. You are asking to be eventually blocked by wikipedia for engaging in pointless editing wars, and I am beginning to lose my NPOV on that coming reality ;) grubbmeister (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Biblica
Perhaps it would be useful with this article to create a subsection which distinguishes the earlier IBS accomplishments/information from the new Biblica one? That might clear up the issue with the merger. Otherwise, since merging articles is a manual process (see WP:MM), you'd need to split them (which is also manual - see WP:SPLIT)--Lyonscc (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul Washer
I saw you deleted some of my unreferenced claims on Paul Washer. Thanks for pointing out my error. I'm a very frequent Wikipedia user, but an almost-first time editor, so I'm somewhat new to this. However, I'm very knowledgeable on Christian Fundamentalism, so I will find valid references to my claims and then repost. There is a site that offers sermons where Paul Washer discusses my claims directly. Jeffmm1 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Zondervan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ''Your last edit removed sourced content from an article that is currently undergoing a major edit. Please refrain from interfering with active edits from other users, especially sections that are being marked as in use. If you disagree with this well-sourced information, feel free to discuss it on the article's talk page.'' Jsharpminor (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It was covered on the talk page here. Basileias (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Zondervan. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Nice try, but when something is moved to the talk page you just don't go re-inserting it. Basileias (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to engage in an edit war, no matter how eager you may be to get into one. The material will be perfected under my namespace, and then re-inserted. We can discuss this article further on its own talk page.
 * That's where I've been trying to get you to go. ;-) Basileias (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * New messages on the talk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More messages. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More. Talk:Zondervan Also, see User:Jsharpminor/Zondervan, it has a partial rewrite. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still more. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I try to be a bit rational with you? I'm not saying that Zondervan is a bad company; in fact, I do own several of their products. However, there's been a stink in the evangelical Christian community (read: far right; most of whom are tea-partiers or politically uninvolved; most are part of the anti-abortion crowd, some of whom are part of a King James Only movement) regarding buying Bibles from a company who also distributes porn. Although their concern is easily understandable, that's not the point: the point is that the stink exists, and I'm simply trying to document it. I've included Zondervan's response to try to be NPOV. Could you try to give it one more read and see if you still think I'm trying to be a loudmouth proponent of a nutty theory? Thanks. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You've solicited help from other editors. Let them come and offer their input. Basileias (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As that always is, it's a good plan. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

New American Standard Bible
Hi,

Is there any reason you are removing the external link to http://www.literalword.com? In accordance to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, I have disclosed my identity as one of the site's creators, and I do believe that having a fully-searchable online NASB will be a positive contribution to the article on the NASB. We do not make any money from the site, nor do we plan on ever monetizing traffic to the site. Please let me know.

Biblestargate (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you had read what I was referencing, you would have seen "...you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." Basileias (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

NIV and Metzger
Hi. What Metzger actually writes is as follows: (I believe. I'm relying on quotes on the internet, I don't have the physical book in front of me.)


 * It is surprising that translators who profess to have a "high view of scripture" should take liberties with the text in omitting words, or, more often, by adding words that are not in the manuscripts... in Jeremiah 7:22 the translators have inserted the word "just" for which there is no Hebrew authority. In the New Testament at Matthew 13:32 concerning the mustard seed, they inserted the word "your" ("the smallest of all your seeds") and the word "now" in I Peter 4:6 ("the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead.")-neither of which is in the Greek text.

So, there's no mention of Exodus in Metzger's paragraph. Regardless, it's pretty straightforward:


 * You need make for me only an altar of earth and sacrifice on it your burnt-offerings and your offerings of well-being, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you. (Exodus 20:24; NRSV)


 * For on the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices. (Jeremiah 7:22; NRSV)


 * For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices. (Jeremiah 7:22; NIV)

Do you really feel it's unreasonable to say that the NIV's treatment harmonises? We could, if you like, leave out any discussion of the translators' intentions, and simply state that it does harmonise, which is true. Evercat (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"First, I want to apologize if that was your edit. I was not trying to stamp it out but there was a clarification notice from another editor."

Oh don't worry about that; it's quite normal :)

There is no quote from Metzger; and there's probably no source that would count as encyclopedic, for the idea that "just" is inserted specifically to harmonise... though I might be able to find something relevant in some study Bible somewhere. Evercat (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's ultimately from here. Certainly two of the examples Metzger chooses (burnt offerings and "all your seeds") seem to give the impression of "helping the Bible out". I know less about the "the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead" issue he mentions. Evercat (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Please see the discussion of this article, which you contributed to: Articles for deletion/Texe Marrs (2nd nomination). Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Joel Osteen Edit Warring
Please do not engage in edit warring as you have on the Joel Osteen page recently and in June. This censorship by you and one other evangelical wiki user has caused a Joel Osteen Wikipedia Censorship Watch group to form. This is your warning to stop censoring and reverting sourced edits. Let's be civil. Your practice of 'bait and switch' with new made up reverting reasons each time you undo a legitimate edit is underhanded. Additionally, to add to the refutation of your last reversion, please review the Reliable sources rules in regards to Criticism/Statements of opinion of a living person by a professional freelance journalist. Remember, wiki is not here for you to censor and own. It is not your promotional tool for the evangelical cause you are a part of. You have used four different reasons for having the same edit removed. Each time your argument is refuted with a valid Wikipedia rule, you switch to a new reversion reason. This is not honest, and this is not good for an encyclopedia. The Criticism section on the Joel Osteen page is there for a valid reason and so is the inclusion of an opinion article by a professional freelance journalist. The article "Joel Osteen Lives Luxuriously in His Heavenly $10.5 Million Mansion" belongs in this section. It is the perfectly appropriated place and it is a perfectly appropriated inclusion. Also the information has in the article and photos have been crosschecked with two independent news sources. They are as legitimate as can possibly be. Please respect other editors. This is your warning to not engage in this vandalistic behavior. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Markelmonument (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC))

(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) You should not have reverted that edit. As per the reliable sources rules regarding criticism or statements of opinion of a living person, they are acceptable if published from a legitimate source. This is an article from a website using a blog formatted CMS, and under a top-level domain. This issue is specifically allowed per the reliable source rules. This is accepted all over Wikipedia, especially when the site's article is published by a published professional journalist. You are vandalizing by reverting it blindly, because you have been informed of this many times now. The site in reference is published by a professional freelance journalist. This is an article by a published author and the information has been cross checked with two other news sites now. You and user Basillieas baited and switched reasons each time your edit summary was refuted by a legitimate Wikipedia rule. From your initial reversion, you have gone through four different reasons why you are vandalizing. This is a clue that you don't care about the rules. You are just looking for one to use as an auspice. When that did not work, you waited seven hours to perform your latest vandalizing revert of this properly sourced edit. After seven hours of no editing activity, within seven minutes, an editor added a protect, then you quickly reverted the edit, and another user edited the semi-protect. Seven hours of nothing and then 7 minutes of quick team work vandalism. This is clear collusion of a small gang of click editors who attempt to control the page. It is not even known if you three editors are indeed three different users. This censorship of other editors will be the cancer that drives more and more editors away. Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. (Angelsteps (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Problems regarding this issue should go here. Basileias (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that this was discussed on the article's talk page, but just in case the "team" is watching here--y'all are wrong about WP:RS. WP:BLP explicitly states, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)."  The only exception are things on newspaper pages called "blogs," but that article is not hosted on a newspaper site, and thus is not "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."  That blog will never, in any situation, be allowed as a source on any article about living people. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A noteworthy correction, thank you! Basileias (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page strikeout
I make it a point not to alter other user's additions to my talk page (bots are another story), so I thank you for recognizing what I thought was a rather perfunctory and unwarranted templating of my talk page. Thanks again. VanIsaacWS

Mark Driscoll
Why did you delete my addition to the Ted Haggard statement saying "unable to verify source"? It was properly sourced from Real Marriage, a published work. And it was directly relevant to the Haggard situation. You're aware of the Three Revert Rule I imagine. You violated it yesterday. I did not violate it because with each edit I made, I tried to incorporate the previous concerns of other editors. I did not simply undo your edits over and over again as you did mine three times in a row. ArturoDan (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A brand new account created on 13 March 2012 at 05:53. Your purpose has been focused on Driscoll, inserting controversial information. Most I believe is unnecessary. I performed two reverts and a removal edit that a revert didn't catch. Violation is to be determined by other experienced editors, not a brand new account. No, I do not believe I have undone your edits over and over. You're also in conflict with another experienced editor. I am sure the list will grow. Basileias (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not in conflict with another experienced editor. We worked out our issue, which included leaving in the sourced comment giving additional information about the Haggard incident.  The edit in question that you keep deleting is perhaps controversial, but that is irrelevant.  The fact is that it is 1) true, 2) properly sourced, and 3) relevant.  I am temporarily focused on Driscoll because his page is so inadequate based on the wealth of relevant information in respected sources since the release of his NY Times bestselling book.  ArturoDan (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

'The Shack' POV
Hi. Saw your re-instatement of the 'neutrality' POV tag at The Shack. I have been through the talk page, and can't see which discussion is not resolved. Can you please add to the new section I've created there what the outstanding problems are? Thanks peterl (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As Above So Below
Hi Basileias, regarding your revert, perhaps the best place to flag up Eugene Peterson's extraordinary translation of "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" as "As above, so below" which is well know as an occultic phrase, is on the Hermeticism page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism Journalist492 (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)