User talk:Gabby Merger/Archive 1

Disambiguation link notification for January 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baucalis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Schism, Council of Constantinople and Meletius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cornell NYC Tech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy-efficient (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cornell NYC Tech
Nice work on the edits to Cornell NYC Tech. I'm not sure what you meant by information that was removed but this is what the article looked like before a couple of us had a crack at cleaning it up. Scary stuff. I actually went to the Cornell Wikiproject to ask if more editors could chip in and add some info - not sure if you saw it there or just stumbled across it but thanks for contributing. Cheers, Stalwart 111  12:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Van Allen radiation belt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Solar activity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon edits by Kennvido
I think we might have a troll onhand. Kennvido also removed reliable, cited info about the claims about a suspect that I and another editor had placed. I've replaced it, but looks like this person has a habit. It's been awhile since I've edited Wikipedia, but this kind of behavior sure is frustrating. — Yksin (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And he or she just deleted the stuff you replaced, again. Again, with no explanation. I can't keep up with it... I'm at work. Is an admin needed? — Yksin (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Yes, I believe I remember this character from the past. Not sure what his problem is. But it's not something I would ever even THINK of putting up with. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy
I'll thank you not to accuse me of violating some nebulous "policy" by reverting your incorrect edit. Elizium23 (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Read what I wrote on your talk page. There was NO "incorrect edit" on my part. And it's not "nebulous" that you should always leave a comment or explanation when reverting someone.   Also, NOT to revert at all if it's not vandalism or incorrect. You failed to explain just how my edits were "incorrect". But just rudely reverted.  Not cool...and NOT something I would tolerate.  Explain at least why you felt the need to disrespect my edits.  Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edit was incorrect, and I have partially reverted it for that reason. The "Orthodox" section covers both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions. "Eastern Orthodox" is unnecessarily specific and incorrect for that section. You are more than welcome to cite chapter and verse of which policy I have violated by reverting you. I'm just dying to hear it. Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If in the context more than just "Eastern Orthodox" was being referred to, then maybe I can understand... But then again, why not have "Eastern and Oriental Orthodox"? Saying "Orthodox" can sound a bit incomplete. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556197791 your edit] to Nontrinitarianism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nontrinitarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristotelian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562909571 your edit] to Epistle to the Hebrews may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Christian Resource Institute. Accessed 17 Mar 2013

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Debra Nelson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seminole County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bible: Pseudepigrapha on July 23
Hello Gabby,

My name is Jeremiah, and I noticed that you edit the Bible article plenty on times_ Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible _I just want to ask you for a favor in that article. I have scrolled the article plenty of times, and I didn't see much mention or if any information regarding the Pseudepigrapha. Can you please insert some information about the Pseudepigrapha I only read the articles to give suggestions to users who are dedicated to their articles, but I try not to edit the articles of dedicated users such as yourself. I hope that the Pseudepigrapha would be noticed by readers. That is all... -Jeremiah A. Thank You  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIBLEDIT SENTINEL (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Asiocentrism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, East Indian and Polynesian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dominican Republic
I'm still waiting for your reply to this message since yesterday. I assumed you had found better things to do in the meantime, but clearly this is not the case as you found the time to revert my changes with the bewildering explanation that "you never wrote anything in the talk page for me to answer" and even dropping me a vitriolic message on my talk page, complaining that "You wrote zero. So as I said, ADDRESS IT IN TALK". The message for you to answer is there, if you can't or won't read it it's not my fault. And I told you twice already, your manners are terrible and if you don't make a little effort to be a little more civil don't be surprised if people respond in kind. Regards.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I opened a dispute resolution request here about this matter.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A decision was taken at DRN, if you revert again I will report you to WP:ANI.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There was no final decision made, just an arbitrary closing of the discussion...with my last comment un-answered. Not cool.  Hardly anyone even participated, so don't give me that.   Report what you want...  It doesn't matter.  Save your threats.     The discussion was never completely finished, no matter what TransporterMan wrongly prematurely did or said.  Finish up what we were talking about, and try addressing my last point and last question, instead of dodging it.  Thanks.  Gabby Merger (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * it remains closed now. Fine.  I won't pursue this nonsense.   I leave it alone.  As TransporterMan's big issue and hang-up was "if you don't provide reliable source for that pronunciation" then so forth....but the problem is that last point was un-answered...and discussion was closed prematurely... it's whatever though.


 * I'm not pursuing this thing anymore. It's too trivial overall. It just seems that French dominance and involvement in DR's very formation seem to be under-played and watered down too much by certain parties. And Wikipedia should not be that way, when it comes to historical facts and points. That's all I was saying really. The pronunciation issue is debatable admittedly, but made its point in a way. Obviously France had the pronunciation from way back, and its pertinent (arguably) to the point (factual and historical point) that France was also involved in DR's very existence, formation, and development, and culture.


 * But even so, instead of dodging my last point and question, why not address it? The last thing I wrote was in RESPONSE to what YOU wrote just before that, about "French rule and involvement" supposedly coming much later, etc.   If that's the case, why is the whole "French rule" matter brought up so early in the article?   Instead of evading that point (which really refutes your claim that it was so much later etc) why not address it?   That's all I was saying.

Your comments about Twinkle
Hi Gabby, re your edits to the Twinkle talk page: please be aware that Twinkle is merely a tool that users may use to roll back others' edits. As the Twinkle information page states, users who use Twinkle take full responsibility for their edits made using Twinkle. Please contact the editor who made the edit in question to discuss this issue. Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposing to rename the page Nontrinitarianism to Non-Trinitarianism
Since you are a contributor to the Nontrinitarianism page, please share your thoughts regarding renaming the page in order to try to reach consensus. You can find the discussion here: Talk:Nontrinitarianism

Many thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies
I tagged Taylor Business Institute under speedy deletion criteria A7, yet I must have been something else because such criteria does not cover educational institutions, so I removed the tag almost instantly. Sorry for any stress or inconvenience it might've caused. Ging287 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited God the Father, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=603421370 your edit] to Roman numerals may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elder Gods. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Hades
I'm not saying the references are unreliable because you added them, but because they are from unreliable, non-academic sources. As for the first ones, are afterlife.co.nz and tentmaker.org authorized to speak for the groups listed? If not, they are just two guys opinions. The last one already has a bible ref, so another source is not needed unless you are making any additional claims about the meaning of the text or interpreting the quoted text. Editor2020 03:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Hades as per User:Editor2020 reverts, including that website, please discuss on Talk page. Do not add back into article without discussion, per WP:EDITWARRING, sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent AFD comments
Regarding your recent comment at Articles for deletion/Children's immigration crisis, please remember to assume good faith on the part of other editors and refrain from ad hominem attacks. Keep your comments related to the content of the article, and not the nature of the person making the nomination. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but some editors are a bit uptight about certain news events and articles. But point taken. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pestilence. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of "bioethicists"
The word "bioethicists" is not hyphenated in common usage, nor is it on Wikipedia (see: Bioethicist. 132.216.227.193 (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * maybe so, but at first you totally undid it even as a WIKI-LINK that I put (which was the main point of what I was trying to do). You undid that part of it also, unnecessarily.   You could have just changed it to remove the hyphen, only...at first.  I see that you did that afterwards, which is fine.   But not with your first revert, because that removed even the wiki-link I did, which was totally valid on my part.    But yeah, if you prefer "bioethicists" even though "bio-ethicists" is NOT necessarily "wrong" per se, then fine.    Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks so much for the explanation. I had kept the WIKI-LINK that you had created (see old version, though I did not specify this in the 'Edit summary'. This was an oversight on my part and I sincerely apologise for the misunderstanding. Your addition of the WIKI-LINK was a very relevant one and I did not mean to remove that, and I am sorry it must have looked that way. 132.216.227.250 (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Resurrection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eternal life. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No edit warring
If you disagree with my edits to an article, please discuss them on the article's talk page. See Edit warring. I began the discussion on Talk:Taylor Business Institute after your previous revert. Reverting without addressing my points is not a useful way of trying to resolve a dispute. Ground Zero | t 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I DID address your point.  You just don't see it that way.  I left a comment in the edit revert, as to why the word "presently" should be left...because of historical context. How is that "not addressing your point"?  Don't lie, and claim "edit warring".   I addressed your point, and I gave reasons.  YOU are edit-warring also, if that's the case.   Gabby Merger (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Your recent editing history at Moon landing conspiracy theories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Neil N  talk to me 18:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael (archangel)
Just thought I would say thank you for finding the reference for Spurgeon on the Michael (archangel) page. Dromidaon (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Book of Elchasai
Hello Gabby Merger, I just created my first article ever on Wikipedia: Book of Elchasai, and I would like for you to expand this article as much as possible. I used this site as a reference: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/elchasai.html, but within the site contains many references for sourcing by scholars and church fathers. Perhaps this may give you some interest as this article is around your editing field -- Thnx & Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. LeadSongDog come howl!  01:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Gabby Merger: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabbatarianism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabbatarianism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Handling copyrighted sources on Wikipedia
Hello, Gabby Merger. :) As an admin who frequently works copyright, I was asked to look at the situation at ANI with the content you recently added to Uterine cancer. I just wanted to stop and have a word with you about our approach to using copyrighted content. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:

I have bolded the content that is taken directly from the source, but some of the other text represents a problem of close paraphrasing. The first version is, as you acknowledge, clearly a problem, but the second edit is an issue as well, as you are retaining much of the language and structure of the original.

I realize it is disconcerting to have content removed, but every time you save a page on Wikipedia you receive a notice that says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." The correction of copyright is the most urgent thing, however that's done. Straightforward removal is well-within policy, and editing articles to remove copyright problems is actually exempt from the prohibition on edit warring for that reason.

It is critical that content you place in articles conform to our copyright policies. We have had to blank and delete articles that are years old because of content such as that, losing the work of multiple editors. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for writing that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

If you believe that you have added content in the past in this manner, please go back and address it now. It is far better to remove and rewrite content within a relatively short window than to have to excise it years down the road. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ransom theory of atonement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Russell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism nominated for deletion.
I've nominated the above article for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. As you were the only "big" contributor to the article that I could see, I'm letting you know. Debate is occurring at Articles for deletion/The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!  TALK  00:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solomon's Temple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idols. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Is a term
Wikipedia generally avoids "is a term" as it is not about the words, but the concepts behind the words. But I'll not revert this again. We'll see if anyone else cares. Editor2020, Talk 05:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

DB page
Hi Gabby, I want to sincerely apologize to you for any trouble I have caused you while on WP. I've learned a lot this past few weeks about WP and what's needed (albeit a lot about DB as well). I'd like to work with you (instead of against each other) to make an unbiased article on DB's page that we can both agree on. I admit, I did not see the bias at first, but you are right, the current article needs a lot of improvement. That said, I'd like to take the sources I have found on the delete-request page (positive and negative) and make one unbiased article about DB that would inform the public, but do it in a manor that would not harm his Christian ministry, but also I don't want to do it in a way that would flatter or boost egos. It's important to me, as a Christian, to never boost any pastors ego, it is morally damaging to give to much praise to any human. Anyway, I look forward to working with you in the future. Bradburns (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Arius
Your changes seem to be for the worse. First, my main complaint against the article was that it implied that Constantine and Licinius "legalized" (and "formalized" whatever that means) Christianity. This is incorrect. Christianity was made illegal by Diocleatian in 303, and was legalized when the persecution was ended by Galerius in 311. You might be thinking of the so called "Edict of Milan" in 313...but this wasn't really an "edict", had no legal force, and anyhow Licinius and Constantine could not have legalized something that was already legal. So the current version of the article still contains the major error. Introducing Gallienus makes the paragraph worse, since he made Christianity legal a half century before the time period being spoken of...it would be better to have no reference made to him, especially since as it stands it seems to imply that he just acted, since Christianity is "newly" legalized. Anyhow I'm not sure where you are coming from. I have made clear my point...the current article implies that Constantine legalized Christianity...he did not. Are you arguing against this point?Ocyril (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * hello. I understand what you're saying in a sense, but the problem is that the current established and SOURCED view and position is that Constantine "legalized" the Christianity of the time. You can disagree with that view or conclusion all you want, but if you don't have sources for your own view, then it's just personal POV and SYNTHESIS. And then removing stuff you personally don't like or have problems with. You act as if this "Constantine formalized or legalized the Christianity of the time" is some concocted view of some past Wikipedia editor...when it's not. Your position is what needs to be sourced and proven. Wikipedia does NOT care what is "true", only if something is SOURCED. And the view that Constantine did in fact issue an "edict" in 313 A.D., etc etc, is the sourced and established view. So again, your constant removing and deleting of sentences you don't like or don't agree with is against WP policy if the sentences you are removing are established and sourced views and positions. You can have personal disagreements (and even be correct theoretically, though in this I do NOT think you really are correct), but your personal view on the "edict" (and even discounting it as even being an "edict") are NOT what are to guide your editing decisions, in true NPOV and referenced manner. Constantine legalized "Christianity" at the time, by DE-CRIMINALIZING it, and where it was NOT an arrestable offense to be a "Christian". What exactly is the big problem? Gabby Merger (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. I'm not sure how to include a source for something that I think needs to be removed.  But as it stands there doesn't seem to be a citation for the claim that Constantine "legalized" Christianity.  Here is a quote from Barnes, "...the Christians did not obtain legal toleration for the first time in 313, but had already obtained it in 311."  (Constantine, pg. 95, 2014).  Also, Frend, speaking of the "Edict of Toleration" (of Galerius, in 311), "The edict formally ended persecution, freed imprisoned Christians, and restored Christianity to the de facto situation which it had enjoyed for a generation prior to 303." (The Rise of Christianity, 480).  Or, again, see Henry Chadwick, "The intensity of Galerius' feeling is shown by the edict he issued on 30 April 311 when he was dying in great pain.  He explains that he had tried to persuade the Christians to return to the religion of the forefathers...and he now grants them toleration and the right of assembly..."  (The Early Church, pg. 122).  Also, i disagree with your suggestion that "Constantine did in fact issue an 'edict' in 313 A.D. etc etc, is the sourced and published view.".  I don't think any modern reputable historian would refer to the edict of Milan as an edict (although they very often refer to it as the "edict" of Milan, or the so-called "edict" of milan, to conform with the general consensus that it wasn't an edict), and even if it was an edict all historians would recognize that the Edict of Toleration in 311 was what ended the persecution and legalized Christianity, not the "edict" of Milan (whatever its legal character).  I think that the idea that Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 is more like a common historical "myth", like Columbus being the only one who thought that the earth was a sphere in 1492, rather than anything like an "established view".  Anyhow it should be removed because it is wrong and doesn't make any sense.  I have provided three citations.  Is that sufficient?Ocyril (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Where in the paragraph do you see the word "313"?   It doesn't even actually say that.   So it could be "311" as you say, as "Emperor Gallienus" is mentioned there now too.   The point is that it's an established fact that "Christianity" was ILLEGAL for a while around the time of Constantine and around "311" and "313" ish.  So?    But the actual date "313" is not even in the paragraph.  So the argument here about that is somewhat moot anyway.     Gabby Merger (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't that is true. But it does say that Constantine legalized Christianity (I assumed that you thought that he had done so in 313--but you are right that is besides the point).  But the point is that it says that Constantine legalized it; he did not.  I think I have made myself clear...Christianity was legalized by the emperor Galerius in 311, not by Constantine.  Constantine did not "legalize" Christianity.  Any statement implying that he did needs to be removed. I would remove the entire first sentence.  It would be better if it could be replaced with something that gets at what you are trying to say (that it "was ILLEGAL for a while around the time of Constantine" etc.).  I invite you to make the edit since you keep reverting mine...just edit it so that it does not imply that Constantine (or Licinius) legalized Christianity.  Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * O one more thing...I suspect you are confusing Gallienus and Galerius. Gallienus made Christianity legal in the 260s, for the first time in Roman history.  Galerius ended the Great Persecution in 311.  That's why i object to your including Gallienus in the article.  You should also remove any reference to him.Ocyril (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I made the correction to make it Galerius.   And since HE is mentioned there then the "legalized" is fine, because it doesn't just say "legalized", but also "formalized", which Constantine definitely had a part in. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you that is an improvement. But I still don't think it is ok.  It reads, "After Galerius and later Emperor Licinius and Emperor Constantine legalized and formalized the Christianity of the time..."  To me this means that Galerius, Licinius, and Constantine legalized and formalized Christianity (the latter did so "later"...though how you can legalize something after it has already been legalized is not clear to me).  It still clearly states that Constantine legalized Christianity.  This is incorrect.  If you are suggesting that the sentence is saying that Galerius legalized Christianity, and, later, Licinius and Constantine "formalized" it, then that should be made more clear.  I still wouldn't like it very much, because I'm not really sure what "formalize" means in this context, but i suspect that it means something so vague and insubstantial that it can't really be untrue (because it doesn't really mean anything).  I think it would be preferable to say something meaningful, but would be satisfied if it merely was not false.  Why not just remove any reference to Constantine or Licinius and get rid of "formalize"?  Or how bout, "After Galerius legalized Christianity, and Constantine and Licinius continued a policy of toleration...etc." or something to that effect.Ocyril (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It does NOT "clearly" say that Constantine "legalized" it, NECESSARILY.   You're wrong for saying that it "clearly" says that, as there's at least (because the other fellows are mentioned there too) some AMBIGUITY, in that sense.    Because the "formalized" could theoretically be the only thing applied to Constantine, in the sentence, and the "legalized" more so to the "Galerius" character.   The point is there's NO big need to fuss THIS MUCH over THIS, bro.   Seriously.    Constantine DE-CRIMINALIZED it by saying "you're all Christians now".   It was NOT always "legal".   By your own admission, it went back and forth to some degree.  But again, the "formalized" word would be (per your protests etc) more with the Constantine, and the "legalized" more with the Galerius.   There's no super "clear" anything that the "legalized" is by Constantine, necessarily, in that sentence, the way it's worded.    Gabby Merger (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * First...just to be clear, I'm still unsure of where you stand on the main issue we are arguing about here: whether Constantine legalized Christianity or not. You say, "Constantine DE-CRIMINALIZED it by saying "you're all Christians now"."  This is incorrect.  Constantine did not "de-criminalize" Christianity...Galerius did.  I have provided several citations to the effect that it was Galerius, not Constantine, who legalized Christianity.  Can we agree on that point?  I concede that the sentence does not necessarily imply that it was Constantine who "legalized" it (although, at the least, it is badly written...its like saying that "Bill Clinton, and, later, George Bush ran for president on the Democratic ticket and went to Yale" ?! this doesn't "necessarily" imply that George Bush was a Democrat...but that would be the most natural interpretation of the sentence), but since you agree that it is ambiguous, it would obviously be preferable to resolve that ambiguity (assuming you concede that it is incorrect to assert that it was Constantine who legalized Christianity).  Also, I think I have made it pretty clear why I think this is so important: there is widespread belief, DESPITE the academic consensus, that Constantine legalized Christianity.  I think, since you do not think its important, I can edit it in a way that you would be completely satisfied with.  Can I give it a try without you instantly reverting it?Ocyril (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree. I told you that.  Constantine legalized Christianity, by ending the persecution (legally) of Christians.  For some oddball reason you want to minimize or deny that fact.  But National Geographic says this:   "Emperor Constantine I is often credited with converting the Roman Empire to Christianity. In fact, though he ended the persecution of Christians and eventually converted, some historians debate the true nature of his faith."   Did you catch that?   It says clearly that Constantine ENDED (how so? BY LEGAL "EDICTS" OR "DECREES" OR WHATEVER THE HECK YOU WANNA CALL IT...but it was a LEGAL degree) the persecution of professed Christians.   Logically thereby LEGALIZING it.   Not sure why you have to be so super uptight nit-picky and fussy over THIS point in this article!!!!   Look what else it says in the National Geographic article on "Constantine the Great" article, farther down in its page:  "Constantine faced Western Roman Emperor Maxentius at the Tiber River's Mulvian Bridge in A.D. 312....The next year (meaning 313) Constantine, now the Western Roman Emperor, and Eastern Roman Emperor Licinius signed the Edict of Milan, which finally ensured religious tolerance for Christians. The agreement granted freedom of worship to all, regardless of deity, and brought an end to the Age of Martyrs, which had begun after Jesus' death. Christians were also given specific legal rights such as the return of confiscated property and the right to organize dedicated churches."    "Legal rights" were given.  Thereby "LEGALIZING" it. So as I said, no, I do NOT (and never did) actually "agree" with you on this.  Ok, so from this, it seems there are (reliable) sources that at least kind of sort of disagree with your view on this matter.   Let's LET IT GO already.  Because if you delete either the whole paragraph again, or even that part of the paragraph, you will be reverted.  Because in fact, I'm now putting this National Geographic ref IN the paragraph.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't want to minimize the fact for some "odd ball" reason. I want to deny the fact because it isn't true.  According to Wikipedia on 'reliable sources': "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."  The National Geographic Web Page does not trump the academic peer review sources that I have cited (3 to your 1).  The National Geographic web page is contributing to the problem.  You understand the historical sequence of events in the early 4th century correct?  Initially Christianity was legal, then Diocletian initiated the Great Persecution in 303, which lasted until it was ended by Galerius in 311.  After Galerius' edict Christianity was once again legal.  Constantine did have a policy of returning Christian property, so he did give them greater legal rights after 313 (and even before then in territories he ruled)...that is perfectly true.  Maybe you can add something to that effect...that Constantine gave greater legal rights to Christians (but he did not make Christianity legal--How could he? it was already legal.  How could he make something legal that was already legal?).  I will gather more sources...as I said, that Constantine did NOT legalize Christianity is the academic consensus, and peer reviewed articles from the academic community should trump a web page on National Geographic I would think.  Let me quote all of the Timothy Barnes (the leading scholar on Constantine) citation that I quoted earlier to try and convince you:  "'In the year 313 Constantine guaranteed legal toleration for the Christians in the Roman Empire through the Edict of Milan.'  So have we all learned at our school desks, and yet not a single word of that sentence is true.  For the Christians did not obtain legal toleration for the first time in 313, but had already obtained it in 311; the originator of this legal measure was not Constantine, but Galerius; and there never was an 'Edict of Milan' which concerned itself with the questions of the Christians.  Admittedly, a document which people are in the habit of calling bu this name is still preserved in its original wording.  But, first, this document is no edict; second, it was not issued in Milan; third, it was not issued by Constantine; and, fourth, it does not grant legal toleration, which the Christians had already possessed for some time, to the whole empire: its content has a much more restricted significance."  (Barnes, Constantine, 95).  Although I disagree with Barnes suggestion that the so called "Edict of Milan" has limited significance (I think it is extremely important and indicative of Constantine's continuing policy of general religious toleration), everything else he says is spot on, and you will have a hard time coming up with a modern academic historian to contradict him.  Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your own words "After Galerius' edict Christianity was once again legal. Constantine did have a policy of returning Christian property, so he did give them greater legal rights after 313 (and even before then in territories he ruled)".   So the point is that AT LEAST IN SOME SENSE Constantine (it could be said in some broad manner, given even admitted facts) "legalized" Christianity.   National Geographic IS a "reliable" source.  Just because you personally don't like it or don't like (or don't agree with) their article on Constantine.   National Geographic website is definitely considered a reliable source by Wikipedia.   I can maybe agree with you that there was some legal toleration in 311 A.D., but NOT 100% (arguably) as in 313 A.D.   In other words, it's NOT necessarily such a black and white issue, as you seem to be making it out.   Constantine definitely at least had something to DO with it all (on or before "313 A.D.")    Do you know that some theologians, by the way, who are basically what's called "anti-Catholics" (of Protestant ilk mainly) who believe that the Roman Catholic Church actually had its infancy in 313 A.D., and that it did NOT start with Christ and the Apostles in the first century.   (The argument being that there was no such thing as the "Vatican" or "College of Cardinals" or "pope" this or that, or fish hats and mitres and "nuns" or the usual Catholic nomenclatures such as "Mary Mother of God" and "Father Peter" etc etc, in the first century.  But that type of stuff actually was a corruption that began later, and really became more so in "313" (or maybe 311, depending on your view))  Side point.   Anyway, bro, again, the fact is that Constantine played a role, and had some parts in the matter, so you ARE minimizing a historical (and sourced) fact, that IS true (at least in some ways).  You ask in your comment "how could he make something legal that was already legal?"   Well in that in 311 it was NOT 100% legal in every aspect necessarily...as there was arguably a PROCESS.    311-313.     In other words, it could be said, that Constantine made it MORE "legal".   As (by your own concession it seems) the professed "Christians" did NOT have all the legal rights QUITE YET before 313.  Not everything.  That's all, man.   Please.    I appreciate you being careful and trying to keep things accurate, but let's not go overboard here.    You can't deny that at least some (reliable and used) sources do say that Constantine had a hand in the formalizing and legalizing (more so) of the Christianity of the time, in Rome etc.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Gabby you are really reaching. I agree that Constantine gave Christians the right to reaquire property in 313 that had been lost in the Persecution.  He did not make it legal.  It was 100 percent legal in 311, after Galerius's edict of toleration.  He certainly played a huge role, the major role,of any emperor in the process of the empire transitioning from a pagan to a (later) Christian state. He preferred Christians and gave them all kinds of legal benefits, preferences in appointments...he gave bishops legal jurisdiction of cases (and didnt allow even allow an appeal), he made laws obviously beneficial to Christians etc. etc.  Your suggestion that he made it "more legal" by allowing Christians access to property is...I dunno...a really silly argument (sorry to sound insulting).  I agree that Christians acquired more legal rights after 311...under Constantine, under Gratian, or Theodosius etc. (why not say that Theodosius legalized Christianity, since he made it "more legal" since Christians had more legal rights under Theodosius than under Constantine...you see the absurdity of your argument?).  I do admit, however, that you can find many sources that support your contention that he did make Christianity legal...even many more than I can...but this is only because it is a widespread misunderstanding which has even been taught in schools.  But it isn't true, and you cannot find academic, peer reviewed material that will support your contention; I can gather many citations.  It really is a very clear cut issue.  I guess we cannot come to an agreement but...since my argument, and my citations are superior to yours (in my opinion), I think we ought to go with my suggestion rather than yours yes (lol)?  We have to have this issue resolved by someone else.  I don't really know how it works but...I am pretty sure that objective non-interested observers are going to find my argument more persuasive than yours.  (But its not really MY argument, its the consensus of the academic community who specialize in this area of study).  At any rate I am willing to let someone else decide the issue.  There does not seem to be much interest on the talk page.  You clearly know much more about editing than I do.  How can we have this issue decided by some sort of arbitrator?  Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can post this entire discussion on the talk page? and some other contributors will chime in and establish a consensus? Just one more attempt to convince you...consider this thought experiment...Lets say marijuana was legalized in Colorado in January 2014...Lets say in January 2016, the state of Colorado decides that all of the property that it had confiscated in marijuana drug busts should be returned to the owners...now, when did Colorado legalize marijuana?  Clearly they did so in 2014 right?  They didn't make it "more legal" in 2016...you agree?  The same is true in the case of Constantine and Christianity.  It was illegal when being Christian was a criminal offense, and it was legalized when being Christian was no longer a criminal offense.  It was no longer illegal to be a Christian after Galerius and the edict of Toleration in 311, and Constantine had nothing to do with it.  Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I was gonna ask you that myself!  Why have you been writing all this stuff on my personal user talk page, instead of on the ARTICLE talk page?  Anyway, you do admit that there are sources supporting the view.   But you bringing up "Theodosius" does NOT necessarily negate my point that Constantine ADDED more legal rights to the professed Christians of the time, and in effect "made it more legal".  So what if maybe others did too?   Doesn't necessarily cancel out the factual point.   Anyway, yeah, why did you even do this on my page in the first place, and not the article talk page?   But regardless, there are valid sources that support the GENERAL AND NOT-SO-BLACK-AND-WHITE POSITION THAT CONSTANTINE AT LEAST HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE "LEGALIZATION" OF THE PROFESSED CHRISTIANS IN THE EARLY FOURTH CENTURY A.D.  Gabby Merger (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I see now, looking at the history, that you do disagree with me. You say, "it mentions both emperors, and is valid and overall accurate. "Christianity" before those two emperors was NOT "legalized"...but actually considered criminal." You are incorrect, for the reasons I have stated. I will get you some citations that you can look at so we can avoid an edit war. But, again, you are incorrect to assert that Christianity was criminal before Licinius and Constantine in 313...Galerius made it legal again in 311.Ocyril (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence is certainly inaccurate. First, it implies that the Catholic Church was "newly" legalized...as if for the first time, which is incorrect. The Christian Church was legalized by Gallienus in the mid 3rd century. Second, although it was made illegal during the "Great Persecution", it was not made legal once again by either Constantine or Licinius; Galerius made it legal once again by promulgating his Edict of Toleration in 311. The rest of the paragraph is, strictly speaking, not inaccurate, so i will leave it...even though (maybe) it anachronistically suggests that "homoousious" was a watchword for Athanasius from the very beginning, whereas the truth is he only emphasized that term long after the initial "controversy" (after 340). I think it would be better just to eliminate the whole paragraph, but will compromise by eliminating only the first sentence which is incorrect. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocyril (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Luke was Jewish"
Regarding your message. I am not following you around. Your edits are simply bleeping on a number of pages I have watch-listed. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. It just seemed a bit weird. That's why I asked.   I didn't want to assume 100% for sure.   Overall, I've noticed your hard work on WP, and I've appreciated it, and agreed usually.  So I don't know where this stuff is coming from recently.    Anyway, as I said...


 * it actually IS a notable opinion, held by a number of scholars, regardless or not if it's the "majority view". The point is why delete or hide that sourced information?    No valid reason to do that.  The edit is accurate and sourced.  Stop edit-warring and disrespecting valid edits and additions, that are referenced and are apropos to the context and paragraph.  Just because you (or maybe some others) DON'T LIKE.   That's against WP policy.   And suppressing information and points from potential readers is not the wise or proper course.


 * As for your wrong statement that "Paul says Luke was uncircumcised". Paul never EXPLICITLY said that.    It's not worded that way.  Read it again, in Colossians.    This idea that Paul clearly said that Luke was "uncircumcised" is an old sloppy TRADITIONAL talking point.   But doesn't hold up, under more careful, more critical, and closer analysis.


 * The argument is made that, as Luke is not mentioned in the list of those of “the circumcision”, he therefore must not be a Jew. However, this is very slim evidence, indeed. In the above reference, Paul is speaking of his fellow workers in the preaching ministry. However, Luke was not ever described as being actively involved in the work of preaching, but was rather Paul’s personal physician and historian. It would not be appropriate to put Luke in the list with those who were active in the preaching ministry, regardless of background.


 * Thus, there are reasons other than background why Luke would not be included in the list of “the circumcision.” It is risky to build a concept on evidence which is so weak, and this is the strongest evidence in the Bible that those who believe Luke was a Gentile use to prove their point.


 * Also, to be honest, NONE of that really matters anyway. As it doesn't matter what YOU (or I) think Paul meant or said, and even what the "majority view" of drone-ish "scholars" think or write.   The mere fact that you have even a few theologians, writers, and ministers, and sources, saying that they believe Luke was either definitely Jewish or probably Jewish (a Hellenic Jew, etc), is enough to warrant at least making mention that some scholars think that.    Like, as one of many examples, this one right here.  So what??


 * Just because you personally think Luke was a Gentile is irrelevant.  A number of notable scholars and writers (past and present) don't buy that, and say clearly that he was a Hellenic Jew.   It's fairly copiously sourced.    Don't start an edit-war, over this.  Because it's not worth it.  The info is valid and sourced, and it stays.   Thanks.   Revert again, and I revert back.   Or bring to article Talk.   Gabby Merger (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm also not following you. In ictu and I watch similar Christian pages. Ckruschke (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Greek Orthodox Church
Abbey, you really need to read and understand wp:verifiability. You don't have to like it. You just have to accept that this is the basis on which Wikipedia works. Of course Dr. K.'s edits are biased. Of course they are selected because they support his POV. That's the way that Wikipedia works. Getting yourself banned won't stop that happening and it certainly won't correct any mistakes in the article. You need to learn to work within the system that is Wikipedia. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, if something is verified by a reliable source then t is verified. That's the end to the story. You can't remove it, you can only find other material that challenges it, and let the sources speak for themselves. You would have achieved much more by doing a simple Google search to find those sources than by getting engaged in an edit war and arguing ion the talk page. When you find your references you can add whatever you like. It doesn't matter how much you revert or how much you argue, you won't be able to change a single damn thing. Those are the rules. You need to accept them and learn to work with them. If you can't learn to do that, your time here will be brief and frustrating. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said that those refs can't be used to make the general point or statement. That's fine.  What you're not grasping or maybe just not understanding where I'm coming from (or the WP policy regarding this) now is that it doesn't matter how those refs word things, as those refs in question are NOT neutral encyclopedias, and those refs are valid to bring in (no problem) only as far as giving the point that "it's believed"...when dealing with cases like this.  I know about "verifiability, not truth". I told you appreciated your time and attention to this matter, but now you seem to missing the point yourself, about simple NPOV wording...that's all.  It's not about which ref can or can't be used, per se, to make the general point.  But for WP to state dogmatically is another thing.   Other refs (do you even agree with that), don't even come close to agreeing with the words or notion that "Greek Orthodoxy came directly from the first century apostles" or "making the sign of the cross was from the apostles" etc?   I don't disagree that those refs can be used, but the point is neutral tone...and that WP is not to endorse one position like that, especial in cases like this.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I hadn't even noticed that it was your edit at New Testament. Your change to the punctuation isn't even related to my edit, which addressed a broader issue. Actually two broader issues. 1) opinion of one person given as the view of a few; 2) redundancy of repeating the mainstream view twice.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it seemed a bit coincidental, try looking at it from my position. But anyway...it's meant as an EXAMPLE of the "few", so instead of removing whole statements, why not find other sources to bolster up (per WP recommendation) instead of total removal? To make it "few". (Sproul source is more than just a blog, but ref for sample...) So instead of the constant uncivil BAD FAITH accusations, with "weasel" this and that, why not follow WP rules on Civility and Assuming Good Faith? But again, the point here is to find other sources to support the "few" word, instead of removing everything because you don't like the statement, and feel the need to hide or obscure facts that you don't think are important? Yes, the first statement of "general view" gives the notion that it's not the total view, but elaboration is not necessarily to be removed, and a valid source that makes the point. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to retain the statement about "a few", at least find a source that directly addresses the subject (i.e. the author's view of why they believe Paul is the author) rather than a comment in passing in an article about a tangential subject.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And what's with this prattling about 'bad faith accusations'. It wasn't even your edit I removed from the article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the general point that I made a simple punctuation adjustment on something, on a religious article, that you right away checked out (because the article being on your watchlist) and removed stuff from the very thing I did a minor thing on, that you would think I most likely support, in general.  I made the correction in punctuation and separated the statements, because as one sentence it was very redundant indeed.   You removed what I did there in terms of the overall punctuation and presentation of that paragraph.   Also, I believe that that paragraph, from what I remember, has been that way for years now.   I correct the punctuation problem (that made the sentence really repetitive in the wording), and you removed the reference, though not the best one.  It just seemed a bit confusing.   The very reason I even did what I did (as I said) was because of redundacy.  My fix made the thing at least a little less redundant in a sense.   But yeah, the source is poor in that it's not about Hebrews per se, but one from Sproul on that is hard to locate. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop being a drama queen. Your minor punctuation edit was trivial (and it did nothing to address the redundancy either). The diff for the recent edits of the article made the problematic content evident. That is all.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * While I do understand your point, and I may have jumped to conclusions (a bit) on this particular matter, try to remember that it stems from last week where you blatantly (no mistake about it and by your own admission) followed me around and checked recent edits of mine on recent articles, because you saw the "607" edit I did (a long time ago) as a big "weasel-ish" thing etc etc, where you (dramatically) put a cute "weasel" icon on my page, and accused etc, and thought it was something worth checking on my other recent edits in other articles for, and thereby (arguably) you were being a bit of a "drama queen" with that, if that's the case, (and though we got into a cool debate and discussion on your talk page regarding the "70 years" etc, and I never even reverted the removal of the edits on the 607 article because I did admit that it was not necessary to have it there, though the motivation was only to inform and maybe make complete, etc). But the "drama queen" stuff (though you of course won't admit this, lol) kinda sorta started with you last week, because you went off on me and got flustered (maybe with some slight justification, though a bit of an over-reaction in a way) over that 607 article thing.  Where I made clear it was a minority view of just one or two churches.    So (again) if I over-reacted a bit in this case, understand why, and where it stemmed from.   Last week with your admitted checking and following was not that long ago.  And I thought (maybe wrongly in this matter) that you jumped on a simple edit or punctuation thing I did, and assumed the whole paragraph was wrong, simply because I myself didn't totally remove the redundancy.   So that's basically it.    But again, getting to the point, yes there was redundancy for sure (which is why I separated the sentences in the first place) and the ref source is weak for that particular statement.  But it's a fact that R.C. Sproul (a noted theologian etc) believes Paul wrote Hebrews.  Anyway, good day. And good editing... Gabby Merger (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I clearly told you last week, I did at that time review your recent edits&mdash;after I came across an edit at 607 BC where you had unambiguously injected theological bias (the use of "some researchers" there was the very definition of 'weasel words', and yes, the weasel is cute)&mdash;to determine whether you had added similar theological bias to other articles (and that was found to be the case). I further advised you (with a quote from WP:HOUND) that doing so is a correct use of user history.
 * In this case, your minor edit was trivial (and was located in my Watch List rather than specifically checking your recent edits), but the associated diff indicated a different problem with edits added by someone else.
 * In all cases, I have provided clear reasons for the edits I have made. If you believe there is some instance where I have reverted your edits for no reason, feel free to point it out for further discussion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that we both edits articles about religion, so there are going to be times when I edit an article that you have recently edited. If you assume every time that happens that there is some conspiracy against you, you are just causing yourself undue stress.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, well as I said, it was meant as something simply to inform and make complete in a sense since it has been a matter that's definitely been brought up, of discussion for decades, though definitely a minority "fringe" view in that sense.  (By the way, not just for "theological reasons", but also just simple believed-to-be historical chronological reasons, though of course not agreed with by the vast majority of historians, scholars, or most theologians, etc.)    But I never reverted you on that particular article last week, or re-inserted it, since it was a small view comparably.   Which I conceded.   But as far as this recent article, it was good that you removed the redundant statement, I was just a bit (at first) wondering why you removed the source too.  Your point was that it was a "blog" and it was not really about the authorship of Hebrews.    The second point is very true, but the "blog" contention is debatable, as that webpage is not some rooty-tooty "blog" by some religious Protestant.    But the actual source for R.C. Sproul's works in his Presbyterian views etc.   But yeah, it would be nice to find something of him that deals specifically with Hebrews' writership.   But I didn't think that something said in "passing" always necessarily disqualifies it as a source that simply makes the point.   But a better stronger source for that statement is of course more desirable.   Maybe I can locate one somewhere.   By the way, just curious, did you ever hear of R.C. Sproul before this?   Gabby Merger (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, never heard of Sproul, but even if I had, and even if his blog should be deemed a suitable source in general, a comment in passing in an article about a tangential subject still would not qualify as a suitable source. A suitable source would need to be about the subject (i.e. provide at least some basis for why he believes it, otherwise it's just empty argument from authority), especially if it is being stated as a view of others as well (even 'a few').-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding your statement, "not just for "theological reasons", but also just simple believed-to-be historical chronological reasons", I am not aware of any source independent of theological reasons that asserts 607 BC for the destruction of Jerusalem. Can you point me to any?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I meant "believed-to-be historical chronological reasons" OF the Watchtower, etc.    Meaning that the WT does not ONLY believe in 607 as Jerusalem's destruction simply solely for "theological reasons" but also because they believe it to be the historical date in general.   I meant from their view-point of "believed-to-be" historical etc.  Not just for Messianic Kingship reasons, but for all of it in general.  As just a point also of historical date.   Though of course not the majority or general view.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Thanks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just a point of fact, and obviously was what I meant, that the position is that it was the historical date (obviously) which gives reason for the "theological reasons".   From their perspective and reckoning and understanding of Biblical statements.  Not sure why it's so "funny" necessarily, and also not sure how you didn't know what was meant in my other comment.   I never said (or implied) that the "believed-to-be historical date" was from secular authorities.  (We already know this and went over this.)   Obviously JWs believe that 607 was the date also historically, in general, not just solely for "theological" reasons alone.        But, rightly or wrongly, as simply (also) the historical date, from their understanding of certain verses.  You obviously know this already.  And that's what was meant by me in my other comment. You put it all as as "theological reasons" when it's all part and parcel.  JWs believe it was the date for the event, in general too as just a point of history.    Gabby Merger (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're going round in circles. They only believe it is the 'historical date' because of their theological opinions in which they have a vested interest. There is no other basis for arriving at such a so-called 'historical' date. It is self-evident that they also believe it is the 'historical' date, but not in any independent manner. It in no way justifies asserting their POV as that of "some researchers".
 * Also, I've added a clarification to our previous discussion, regarding how the NWT mistranslates Jeremiah 25:29..-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I said clearly "from their understanding, rightly or wrongly, from verses in the Bible, they arive at the date and believe to be the historical" date.  Obviously NOT from anything outside of that, in the way of secular authorities etc.   And yeah, of course YOU (as well as I) are going around in circles, because you keep rowing with one oar, making me do so too in a way.   I was merely answering your question (which I was a little surprised why you asked it) of what I meant by "believed-to-be historical", as you seemed to think I was meaning (for some reason) that it was from any outside source.   That's not what I meant.    As far as the "theological reasons" the point too is why would they be so "vested" if they didn't believe it was the actual actual actual genuine historical date to begin with?    That makes no sense.   It's all TIED IN, was my point.   And also, if it was "587" instead of "607" (according to the whole "2520 years" view, which I know you don't believe as an atheist or whatever, but again from THEIR perspective) we'd still be living in the "last days" anyway.  Instead of it starting in 1914, it would be 1934.   So side point, we'd still be in the "end times" if that's the case.    But again, not to digress too much, I was simply answering your question, even though I thought that the discussion was already over.   You were not sure what I meant by "believed-to-be historical date" not just solely "theological".   The WT believes it to be the accurate true date as a point of general history.  And because of the whole "Gentile Times" thing (as you know of course) for the whole "Messiah's Kingdom" breaking in for the "end times" etc etc.    It's whatever.  I was addressing your question, that was it.  And yes, I noticed your addition in the other discussion, and your contention that they "mis-translated" Jeremiah 25.29, when they didn't, because seeing other translations they say "I begin" or "I am beginning" it does NOT say what you said of "already beginning".   There's no real difference between the word "beginning" and "start of".    THAT'S THE POINT.     It says "I am starting off".   You could easily claim even with the NWT rendering that God "already started off".   So?    Because in all versions the word "already" is NOT there.   Whether you use the word "beginning" or "start".   Also, I'm a little confused as to what your point is, either way, whether the words are "already beginning" or "first" or "starting off".   Because if it's "already beginning" as you said, wouldn't that ALSO be (obviously) before the other nations anyway?   The point is that all versions is obviously that Jerusalem would have evil caused by God to BEGIN with with, before the other nations.    Why would He say "I am beginning with you" (as other versions have it, which makes the point too)?  Also, again, how does your "already beginning" negate the point that Jerusalem would get it first?   Before other nations?    Gabby Merger (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a damaged spacebar? You only need one space after a period, not 2, 3, 4 or sometimes 5. You might like to try the return key occasionally though. There's this new invention called the paragraph. And perhaps you could better aim for conciseness in your responses by not repeating yourself and by leaving out redundant things like "It's whatever."
 * This claim that the JW view of history is 'all tied in' with their theological views is irrelevant. You already know full well that the JW view about 607 BCE is not the view of "some researchers" nor is it merely the JWs' opinion of a 'historical' view in isolation from their theological views. And even if it were (and it's not), it remains a fringe POV.
 * Jerusalem was quite definitely destroyed in 587 BCE. And the JW interpretation of the so-called 'gentile times' is entirely wrong, even from a scriptural perspective. Revelation 11:2 specifies the 'times of the nations' during which 'Jerusalem would be trampled' to be '42 months' (=3.5 years); it referred to the period from 66 CE until 70 CE. The superstitious claim that 'we' would be living in 'the last days' anyway is simply wrong, and the whole idea was 'borrowed' by the JWs from their Adventist origins.
 * You say that you 'thought the discussion was over', whereas actually you simply ignored all the more direct scriptures at the other discussion that contradict the JW view, instead preferring to debate more ambiguous passages, even though in context they also contradict the JW view.
 * You are genuinely 'confused' about how the JW rendering of Jeremiah 25:29 is different to other translations?? Really? The NWT attempts to say that there isn't calamity anywhere else until after the calamity in Jerusalem. You claim there is some significance about the word "already" not being there, but the verb used indicates a process that had already started, and that was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (605 BCE). The calamity for Jerusalem began in that year when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem (as indicated in Daniel 1:1, 2 Kings 24:1 and BM21946:12-13, but denied by JWs); that siege was halted by Jehoiakim paying tribute, which he then did for three years, until he refused in 601 BCE (more accurately, it was early 600 BCE, before Nisan) after learning that Babylon lost a battle with Egypt, which led to another siege in late 598 BCE and the exile in early 597 BCE and the eventual destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The claim that the calamity is starting with Jerusalem (or first in the 2013 revision) precludes calamity from affecting other nations before that, and that simply isn't consistent with the historical facts, and it isn't supported by the original text. Assyria quite definitely suffered calamity long before Jerusalem did, and that is entirely consistent with the fact that in 605 BCE calamity then also began for Jerusalem, but not consistent with the JW claim that Jerusalem suffered a calamity first. I am not aware of any translation that says "I am beginning with you", where again with would be an invalid adverbial mistranslation. It's like hearing someone say, "I'm beginning to read 1984" and you insisting that reading any other books can only begin after that as if they had said "I'm reading, beginning with 1984".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do hope that you're not going to make the rookie mistake of claiming that a plain reading of Daniel 1:1 is not consistent with the plain reading of 2 Kings 24:1 without specious claims about Daniel supposedly referring to 'vassalage' (with zero support from the original text or from anywhere else). Hopefully you understand that the Babylonians (where Daniel is set) and the Seleucid period (when Daniel was written) used the accession-year system, whereas Jeremiah counts the accession period as the first regnal year.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ok. I understand the paragraph thing, but wasn't 100% sure what you meant by (or why you brought up) "you only need one space after a period, not 2, 3, 4 or sometimes 5"... given the fact that in the finished page, no matter how many spaces after a period are put in, only one shows up.  Not sure why you're complaining about THAT though.   The paragraph matter yeah sure (and I do put separated paragraphs on many other occasions, though not always).  But what's the beef so much about the "spaces after a period"?   The only way you would even know that is by looking at my writings in the edit page. lol.   But why?  Who cares about spaces after period necessarily in the edit page which is not even the actual page?  (I'll try to get to your presentations and arguments a little later, about Assyria coming before Jerusalem, as all parties concede and know, but nations aside from Assyria coming later on, since Assyria was the "world power" before Babylon, that would logically have to be defeated before even Jerusalem, in order for Babylon to have power to even destroy and defeat all these other nations and territories, etc, but I'll try to get more into and focus on that stuff later on.)   But what's the big deal about the spaces after a period that you needed to point out and complain about?    Gabby Merger (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't understand why I'm looking at your writing on the edit page?? It's kind of necessary in order to reply, which isn't made any simpler by having one long single block of text only broken horizontally by unnecessary spacing. It's not a big issue, but it is irritating.
 * Yes, Assyria was indeed the previous world power. After it was destroyed by Babylon, all the nations were then seen as having to serve Babylon (compare 2 Kings 16:7; 17:3; 18:7; 24:1; 25:22-24; Jeremiah 25:11; 27:6-18; 28:14; 40:9).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)