User talk:ReformedArsenal/Archive 2

...
Merry Christmas! History2007 (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swiss Guard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiss Guard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Effective method
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Effective method. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Circumcision
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Circumcision. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Traditional knowledge
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Traditional knowledge. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

unwarranted revert
hello. There was NO valid reason to disrespect my edit that way. It was not "original research", as the factual point about "the main focus was Christ's relation to the Father" is stated in other parts of the article, and in that very paragraph. Buy I know the reason you removed it. To be blunt, let's be honest, it was because you DIDN'T LIKE the point made, the factual point...the fact that the Holy Spirit was never really addressed much in the Council. So what? Why remove that, when it just elaborated the paragraph there anyway? It was NOT really because of "original research", as I said. It's obvious even from the rest of the article and that very paragraph that the main focus was Christ's relation to the Father. How is that "original research" if the point is in the rest of the article?? And sourced elsewhere? (Never mind that it's actually true, and a valid addition, and relevant to the rest of that paragraph.) It's a violation of WP policy to revert something for no real valid reason, and no real explanation. The edit was valid, no reason to remove. Especially for "I don't like" reasons. I reverted you. Please don't edit war. Thank you. Gabby Merger (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

NOT "original research" when point is stated in rest of article, and sourced elsewhere
it was not "original research", as the factual point about "the main focus was Christ's relation to the Father" is stated in other parts of the article, and in that very paragraph.

How is that "original research" if the point is in the rest of the article?? And sourced elsewhere? (Never mind that it's actually true, and a valid addition, and relevant to the rest of that paragraph.) It's a violation of WP policy to revert something for no real valid reason, and no real explanation. The edit was valid, no reason to remove. Especially for "I don't like" reasons. I reverted you. Please don't edit war. Thank you.

Gabby Merger (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Gabby, the words "Holy Spirit" appear no where else in the article. By introducing them you are introducing something that is new. This requires a source. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

edits...and validity....and context....
stop disrespecting and lying about the edit...it was NOT "vandalism"...and it was NOT "original research"....as the factual point about "the main focus was Christ's relation to the Father" is stated in other parts of the article...stop edit-warring....

Listen, it's simple logic. (And it's NOT "OR", as, again, the point is stated in the very paragraph, and rest of article.)

If the main focus was Christ's relation to the Father, in that Council, (as is stated in rest of article), then LOGICALLY, the role of the Holy Spirit was NOT the main focus. So what? Why suppress that? Not WP kosher, to remove simply because you don't like. Thank you. If consensus (which is not infallible anyway) says so, then I'll let it go. But not because YOU don't particularly like it, and then come up with front excuses of "OR" or lying in calling it "vandalism". You think that by simply calling something "OR" or "vandalism", that magically makes it so? No, sir. Stop edit-warring, over this. "I don't like" is not a good reason to remove stuff.

no need to revert accurate good-faith elaborations, that are correct, simply because YOU DON’T LIKE. That’s against WP policy and recommendation. This is a wiki. You don’t own any article...so stop acting like you do. The edit is valid and clearer elab...so it stays... Gabby Merger (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "If the main focus was Christ's relation to the Father, in that Council,(as is stated in rest of article), then LOGICALLY, the role of the Holy Spirit was NOT the main focus." This is called WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, you also make the statement "the exact role or nature of the Holy Spirit was not deeply discussed" which is NOT a logical implication of the fact that the primary discussion was around the Son's status as divine and his relation to the Father. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How is that "NOT a logical implication"?  If the main focus (which was already stated and admitted in other parts of the article) was "Christ's relation to the Father", then how exactly would the main focus ALSO be the Holy Spirit's relation or role?   You MIGHT have a point that those precise words of "Holy Spirit role" may not be in the source in that particular paragraph, but it's a stretch to say or accuse the point of being 100% "original research".  Are you gonna deny that the PRIMARY CONCERN in that Council was Christ's identity, role, and relation to the Father?   And if that was the case, how logically could the Holy Spirit's role and relation ALSO be the "primary" focus?  If you read the Council, you'll see that, though the Holy Spirit is of course mentioned, IT WAS NOT THE PRIMARY FOCUS.  So what?  That overall point was stated in that very self-same paragraph, and article overall.   I meant nothing bad by it, but a good faith accurate and valid elaboration.  Why so bent on dissing it?  Unless it's really for "I don't like" reasons?  I'm curious.  Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

you don't own any article
this is a WIKI. You don't own any article. Stop lying, calling valid edits "vandalism", simply because you don't like them. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mayor of Leicester
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mayor of Leicester. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

consensus
hello, in response to that. Yes, I noticed that. Probably a good idea. I even said that if CONSENSUS goes your way, then I'll let it go. Even if I don't agree. I did NOT mean any harm or anything bad by my edit. So it's not fair or honest to call it "vandalism". The point again is that if it's admitted and stated in the rest of paragraph and article in general, that the main focus was Christ's relation to the Father, in that Council, then obviously logically the Holy Spirit's role was NOT the "main focus", though the Holy Spirit was obviously mentioned to some extent there too. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Gabby, you cannot base edits on logical extrapolation. Furthermore, you added statements that are NOT logical extrapolations (the general amount or depth of discussion regarding the Holy Spirit for example) That is called WP:SYNTH. I reverted it as a WP:AGF until you began to edit war. If this is as obvious as you seem to think it is... then it should be easy to find a source. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I'm going to respond to this here, since this is where the main part of the discussion has been taking place, but give me a little while to get my response together. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Both of you are right about some things and wrong about some things. First, let me start with the procedural framework. The Verifiability policy says in the WP:BURDEN section:"'Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. ... Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.'"So this is how this goes:
 * Gabby had the burden to add an inline source to the material she added if she thought that it was likely to be challenged. Reformed had the obligation to assume good faith that she did not think that was likely.
 * Reformed had the right to remove the material because it was unsourced. While the better thing to have done would have been to -tag it and leave it for awhile to see if a source could be provided, it is an acceptable thing to do, not a violation of policy, just to remove it.
 * Reformed's removal served as a challenge to the material, which at that point required Gabby to provide a source before restoring the material, but her failure to satisfy that burden was not vandalism, which is very specifically defined under WP policy and calling it vandalism was inappropriate.
 * The fact that Gabby failed to satisfy that burden is also not one of the exceptions listed in the three revert rule and is not an acceptable reason to edit war. Since Reformed's removals of the uncited material was also acceptable, if less than ideal, it was also not a reason to edit war.
 * Was Gabby's addition prohibited original research or synthesis? Perhaps, but that question is kind of irrelevant since the material was unsourced and challenged. Once that happened, then it could not be properly readded without a source. Even if the material was a summary of other sourced material in the article it needed to be given a source here, too, even if that was only a repetition of the source given later. Every assertion in Wikipedia must be properly sourced, if challenged, with an inline citation.
 * Moreover, it is important to realize in this context that the Verifiability Policy also says that Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself, so if this material is going to be given a source, then it must be an outside reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, and those outside sources cannot be combined to come to the conclusion asserted in this material as that would be synthesis.
 * Was the material an adequate summary of outside sources? I don't know and don't have an opinion about that because I'm not sure which sources were being referenced. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One more thing, any further discussion of this matter should go on the article talk page, not here, as Til Eulenspiegel has pointed out there. Discussions of the content of an article should always go on the article talk page, not on user pages, so that future editors of the article can read the prior discussions. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, TransporterMan. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.  And I basically agree with your conclusion and summation.  Though obviously the point was valid and true, it would have been better to put a ref citation (RS), to that statement, to avoid any issue.   I found a couple, just now.   In part, this source states this:   "Furthermore, the whole emphasis of the creed was on the divinity of the Son as well as the relationship between Father and the Son, it neglected the third person, Holy Spirit, in the Trinity."   And also:  "the discussion on the Holy Spirit became the major focus in the coming years."    From here.    The other source says this:   "Little discussion took place at the Council of Nicaea regarding the Holy Spirit."   From this pdf here.    I'm putting those refs, and restoring the statement.   This should satisfy it.  Unless the claim will be made that those are somehow not "reliable sources".   Which would be, in my opinion, somewhat fallacious, since I see other sources in this article, that are pretty much of the same caliber.  Some better than others, but making their points.  The point though is that there are sources for this point about the Holy Spirit's role not being deeply discussed at Nicea.  And I agree that sources should have been given.  Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the Journal one... the STR one isn't a good source because it's not peer reviewed. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Your recent editing history at First Council of Nicaea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. I have also requested page protection TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Administrator comment: It appears you did actually violate 3RR in this case:   .  However, since you've started discussing and stopped reverting, there's no need to issue a block at this time -- I just wanted to remind you to be careful when getting caught up in this kind of situation. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:FLAGBIO
Hello. Please note that flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:2k13 Geekmobile.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:2k13 Geekmobile.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either


 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:California State University, Northridge
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:California State University, Northridge. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fritz Bamberger (scholar), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (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) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of pantheists
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of pantheists. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Calvin
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Calvin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Calvin
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Calvin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Does this need to be added back
Hi. I noticed the conversation related to the addition of Template:Third-party, and saw that you removed the notice of the need for a third opinion inasmuch as two editors had already opined with the same conclusion. Which seemed reasonable. But, I see the same circumstances continue to plague the article and the talk page. Does the notice need to be added back? Perhaps not, but I thought I would raise the question for your consideration.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does need to be there. I added it back in. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * HI. I saw this after I posted my message below, but I thought it worth mentioning that I'm going to step back from the article for a bit. We're well passed the point where discussion is productive, and the only way to solve that sort of mess is for one editor to back off, otherwise all we do is create more drama. :) - Bilby (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RA.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi! I just wanted to quickly thankyou for leaving a third opinion on Al-Ahliyya Amman University ‎ - I was thinking of trying to help out at 3O myself, but realised that I'm just not brave enough to step into existing arguments, (especially given that I seem to find more than I want on my own), so I'm very pleased that there are others willing to handle that task. :) It is great to have that as an avenue of dispute resolution to break deadlocks. Thanks for your help. - Bilby (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Al-Ahliyya Amman University
When you expressed your opinion, did you consider the section WP:ABOUTSELF of the Verifiability policy? --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I did, WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply, because the article still primarily relies on non-independent sources (violating number 5). ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What do you think of number 4? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to think that the sources are not authentic or genuine. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To clarify your remark, did you mean that there is no reason to believe that the material in the Wikipedia article from the university website is not authentic? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to think the material presented on their website is inauthentic. I did not spend a lot of time analyzing the material on wiki, but the third party tag is still appropriate regardless of if the material on Wiki is accurate and authentic or not. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that I was just trying to get clarification of what you wrote here and I thank you for the clarification. FWIW, in discussing this with you here, you seem reasonable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Either way, I don't think the article is terrible, but the fact that it is nearly all sources that are directly related to the university is troublesome and problematic. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Re "the third party tag is still appropriate regardless of if the material on Wiki is accurate and authentic or not" — The tag indicates that authenticity is an issue with the article per verifiability, as the tag said:
 * "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because I am not suspicious about the authenticity of the site, does not mean that I can verify that it is not authentic. And it is most certainly not neutral. Regardless, WP:ABOUTSELF says you can use 1st party sources as long as they are not the primary source, in this case they are the primary source so the template stands. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment "And it is most certainly not neutral." — Did you mean that the Wikipedia article is not neutral? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ransom Theory Edit
I did not think that inserting a large paragraph about Anselmian Satisfactionism had anything to do with the Ransom theory, especially as it follows a quotation from an Orthodox cleric explaining that the Western conception of the Ransom theory, which caused Anselm to develop Satisfaction, is incorrect. The inclusion of a section on the developement of Satisfactionism seems to imply an acceptance of invalidity for the Ransom theory. The title "St. Anselm links the atonement and the incarnation" also implies that the Ransom theory is lacking theologically, and promoting the Satisfaction theory as an absolute. This included section belongs in the Satisfaction theory article, NOT in an article about a completely different (and historically MUCH older) Atonement theory. Thank you. The goal of a wikipedia article is to defend and define what it's subject is, not demolish it. The reference to Anselm earlier in the article is fine, but the entirely new section, especially after the excellent definition by Fr. Hopko, does nothing but completely override the information before it by presenting it as false and Anselm's replacement as the truth. Attempting to present Anselm's theory as anything other than a replacement (as it is described in other places on wikipedia) of the Ransom theory is disingenueous to say the least. Thank you for messaging me, I hope my explaination has cleared this issue for you. 173.32.134.108. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.134.108 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your reasoning, but when you are going to remove large sections of text like that, if someone undoes your edit, it is incumbent upon you to post your reasoning in the talk section of the article and gain concensus. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Next time I will provide a reason, I agree it looks like agressive vandalism. I am happy you did agree with me on this issue. The article was best in its original form. I personally thought the addition was vandalism as it makes no sense in the context! 173.32.134.108. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.134.108 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)