User talk:Dr. Ryan E.

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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Hello, I wanted to let you know that your request for a third opinion at Ascension of Jesus has been declined due to lack of discussion. I see you have started a discussion on the talk page today; this is the correct first step. Please allow other editors time to respond and see if the issue can be resolved through discussion. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  06:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
WP:NPOV does not mean "no point of view", but a point of view upon which most WP:RS seem to agree. See WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEUTRAL. In scientific matters, NPOV means rendering the scientific consensus. In historical matters, it means rendering mainstream historical scholarship. Mind you, Bible scholarship is about history. It is not theology, wherein correctness is only in the eye of the beholder. Or, as the saying goes, orthodoxy is my doxy, heterodoxy is your doxy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Satyan Devadoss
Hello, I'm David Eppstein. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Satyan Devadoss, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources are needed for a tag? Please see:

WP:FOLLOWING
Hello User:Dr. Ryan E., I hope that you are doing well. I noticed that after you edited the article about the real presence, you immediately started editing the article on the impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on religion (just after I had created it) and then today, you moved to edit the article on evangelical theology, despite never ever having touched that article before, when I edited that article only a few hours prior. I would like to assume good faith and think that this is a coincidence, but I suspect that you are following my edits. Could you kindly clarify your recent editing behaviour? If you have made a mistake, I would ask that you kindly please cease this activity and focus your efforts elsewhere. Thank you, AnupamTalk 16:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have been patient to not open a dispute resolution on the Real Presence page assuming Good Faith. However, there appears to be a bit of WP:OWN over on that page and on the the impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on religion. You seem to keep introducing theology to the latter and claiming the structure of the "views" should separate the ordinance view. Notice I did not do a POV push here. We are NOT a Catholic encyclopedia. We must maintain a WP:NPOV. So "views" cannot separate into Real Presence and non Real Presence because groups disagree on what counts as Real Presence. So I simply titled it "Views" not preferring one or the other Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response User:Dr. Ryan E. I have addressed your concerns on the talk page of both articles and have let most of your edits stand. In my opinion, asserting that Memorialism is a view of the Real Presence, when no Church teaches that, is unwarranted. That being said, I have no plans to revert your edit as long as you do not try to move the article, etc. However, with regard to the WP:FOLLOWING issue, I trust that you will discontinue this pattern. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * please post 1 time where I posted to a user's talk-page. Not WP:CANVASSING Cheers,Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The template is boilerplate. Pinging is exactly the same thing. Elizium23 (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't deal with users who are constantly twisting words. Let's simply peruse that article shall we? It says:
 * An "Appropriate notification is...talk page of one or more directly related articles" Done!
 * "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". Maybe I wasn't brief, I'll give you that.
 * "Limited posting" - yep done! I only posted it to ONE talk page AND they are all involved in Christian articles already!
 * "Neutral" - Yep, I pinged multiple people Christian, non-Christian, Mennonite, atheist, agnostic, skeptic, whatever so on and so forth.
 * "Nonpartisan" - yeah see above besides we already have POV pushers involved in the article
 * "Open". Well I didn't PM/DM anybody so again yeah!
 * NOT "Campaigning" well I didn't push a Protestant or Orthodox or Catholic POV did I?
 * NOT "Vote-stacking" - well I didn't base this on any userbox! I've interacted with all these editors in the past.
 * NOT "Stealth canvassing" frankly you have to take my word for this, but I didn't email anyone outside of the Wiki or call or text or anything.
 * Cheers! Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Please revisit
your edit at Psalms. Your edit summary "(→‎Themes: more scholarly, really "worst of all" ?)" objects to the previous language/expression, yet you've left the sentence in noticeably worse shape - with a typo, and not scanning even as apparently intended. Shenme (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)