User talk:Entheta/Archive3

Could you add something to millenarianism image please?
Hello! You created Image:Millennial views.gif right? Thank you for that; it is very useful in quickly visually conceptualizing the various schools of though on the End Times. I was wondering whether you could add the resurrection of the dead to it and show when the various viewpoints on the End Times place the timing of that event. Thanks. —Lowellian (reply) 14:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks. This picture was created by User:Tonicthebrown who uploaded it locally, I only uploaded it to Commons. I'm reading about the subject at the moment, and will see if I can do something like what you're asking for but my knowledge is a bit limited at the moment so I don't know when orif that will be. Entheta (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay, I see. Though, on second thought, it might be better to leave it off, because the more I think about how complex Christian eschatology is, adding that event would then raise the question of why not add other events, like Armageddon, etc., leading to the diagram becoming ever more complicated. Either way (adding more events or leaving the diagram as is) is fine with me; I don't have any strong opinion on the matter at the moment. —Lowellian (reply) 15:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it seems very complicated. As far as I understand it (looking in Mark Hitchcock's 101 Answers to the Most Asked Questions About the End Times) according to premillennialists, the resurrection of the dead and the "translation" of living saints (Christians) is at the rapture, while the amillennialists and postmillennialists think the resurrection of the dead is at/after the Second coming of Christ. According to the premillennialists, when christ returns to set up the millennial kingdom on Earth, those who were raptured will then return in glorified bodies. Entheta (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

George Kadish
Thanks for bringing to light the citation of the wikipedia article.

Have a great day! Dogru144 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Always fun to see Wikipedia mentioned in literature. Entheta (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Paul Meier (author)
A tag has been placed on Paul Meier (author) 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 a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 biographies.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Vianello (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding this article that I speedied...if the person is genuinely notable (meaning that the person meets the requirements of WP:BIO, then your article should state that from the outset. You might consider writing the whole thing in a user wp:sandbox first, get your refs in line to demonstrate notability.  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but I thought speedy deletion was for obvious cases, and that others should go through SFFR. I'll try again and see if it lasts more than five seconds... Entheta (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want the article to last, I'd suggest adding some reliable sources. Notability is conferred by documentation of independent 3rd party sources, of which the article currently has none.  AK Radecki Speaketh  13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientology filmography
You added a bit of new info here but it was unsourced. Any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources for this info? Cirt (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but IMDB and a blog post are not the best sources for WP:RS/WP:V. Cirt (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then you can remove most of the films on the list because several of them only have a reference to IMDb, or no references at all. How come you didn't remove them?. --Entheta (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Priscilla Alden (actress)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Priscilla Alden (actress), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Non-notable person by standards for actresses, biographies in general, and even more generally, WP:N

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Charles "Tex" Watson
Regarding this comment: again, please review WP:AGF. I clearly explained the problems and stated I was trying to find a usable reliable source. Even if you can't or won't appreciated the issues regarding posting links to copyright violations, do yourself a favor and go ask at WP:RS/N. I'm not taking exception to the actual A Current Affair as the source, it is the link to a site that violates United States copyright law, which Wikipedia, as a whole, takes very seriously. It's not good enough to acknowledge that the link might be a copyright violation but use it anyway. If I didn't take it out, it wouldn't be long before a bot came along and removed it as well. I'm sorry you see this as something other than it is, but basically, that's your problem. This is an issue I've been dealing with for weeks now and it isn't trivial. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blackemanuelle.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Blackemanuelle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Entheta! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 12 of the articles that you created  are  Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current  article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:


 * 1) Mats Helge -
 * 2) Ewa Strömberg -
 * 3) Janet Agren -
 * 4) Paul Müller (actor) -
 * 5) Erica Carlson -
 * 6) Jimmy T. Roberts -
 * 7) Hans Arnold -
 * 8) Lina Romay -
 * 9) Arja Saijonmaa -
 * 10) Matt Cimber -

11. Dan van Husen 12. Frans Tumbuan

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Andersson image
An image from an article that you edited, Harriet Andersson, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. - DonCalo (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DASHBot
Hey Entheneta, I saw you shut off my bot, DASHBot. I was wondering if you had seen the bot make an error? Could you provide me a diff (responding on my talk page) of where the bot erred? If not, and you were simply annoyed by the bot, I will restart it, and suggest that you add   to your talk page to keep the bot from warning you again. Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your personal attacks
You should move on and stop personally attacks on other editors without justification. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may not think my criticism is justified. Fine. I do think there are things worth criticising and that's hardly the same as "personal attacks". Entheta (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)