User talk:JohnThorne/Archive 2016

Archives

 * Archives 2011-2015

A page you started (Revelation 21) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Revelation 21, JohnThorne!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Talk page will need to be created. MB298 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Revelation 22) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Revelation 22, JohnThorne!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Good start."

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Psalms
Hi, thanks for improving Psalm 107. I was just thinking about how to use the bible chapter infobox in psalms. I've tried to come up with good formats for psalms in here User:Finnusertop/sandbox/biotopic. Please tell me what you think. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the format you envision. This can also be used for Proverbs. Nice work! JohnThorne (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
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.


 * 2 Timothy 1
 * added a link pointing to Eunice


 * Acts 16
 * added a link pointing to Eunice

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history  shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
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.


 * John 11
 * added a link pointing to Stadia


 * John 12
 * added a link pointing to Stadia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John 13, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coptic. 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) 10:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nahum 2


The article Nahum 2 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * '''1) Nahum already exists, not needed to have an article on every chapter.

2) This isn't Wikisource, so most of this would not be notable for inclusion.'''

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nahum 2 is particularly significant due to the existence of an ancient commentary using a part of the reading to allude historical figures and kingdoms. The article will be improved to further highlight the significance. JohnThorne (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Nahum 2
I have removed some of the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from https://books.google.ca/books?id=SKz9pXVEoQYC&pg=PA1431&lpg=PA1431, a copyright book. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)