User talk:StAnselm/2008-2009

Unconditional election
Your input would be welcome over at Talk:Unconditional_election. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 15:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, John Duncan (theologian), was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just have to say
God is that than which nothing greater can be conceinved...Balloonman (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

List of ommitted verses
Why did you revert the List of ommitted verses article? This name was suggested in the talk page and I waited two weeks until I changed the name. I don't see what kind of consensus you want. Tavix (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Warnings
Please do not place unjustified warnings on my talkpage. Doing so does nothing to further the project and promotes a hostile environment. --God Save the South (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brown Memorial Presbyterian Church
St Anselm, Thanks very much for taking the time to do the GA review and for your thoughtful comments. I've gone thru the article and implemented the recommendations. Let me know if it looks OK now.  JGHowes talk  -  21:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah / Yahweh
Jehovah is a corruption of the Almighty's personal Hebrew name, Yahweh, as revealed in Exodus 3 and elsewhere. Hebrew was originally written in with consonants. In Exodus 3 it is clear that Yahweh was meant to be spoken aloud. By the third century BC, however, the divine name was not normally pronounced out of respect. This probably arose out of the command to not misuse God's name found in the Ten Commandments. While YHWH was still written, readers in Hebrew said Adonai, "Lord," instead. Around 1000 AD vowel markings were added to texts for pronunciation (Hebrew letters are consonants only) like footnotes. Since YHWH was not read it was not written with vowel markings for Yahweh, but markings for Adonai. This was done in fact to remind the reader to say Adonai rather than utter the personal divine name.

While Wyclif's translation renders Exodus 3:14 as "Adonai," Tyndale, in the 1500s, become to first to put the vowel markings for Adonai with the consonants YHWH to form "Jehovah." While Tyndale was the first to do this in English, the mistake had apparently been made before in other languages. It was just because Jehovah was falsely considered authentic that it was rarely used in the King James Bible, so as to avoid uttering it, and it is rendered LORD.

Lest anyone think I am advocating avoidance of the personal divine name, using euphemisms for God's name in hopes of not violating the third commandment seems like just the sort of human rules Jesus condemned the teachers of the law for teaching.

Someone might say, "Even if Jehovah is a human construction, we can still use it for God's name, like a nickname." In worship, we want to be where God is and honor him in every way. Nicknames generally come from meaningful words or names, and Jehovah is not meaningful. It is more a mispronunciation and people are rarely if ever honored in a mispronunciation. Even a nickname is typically not a source of honor when given to you by a subordinate. Perhaps because of the history of its use by now, God will look at it like a nickname in some ways, like the sounds of an infant who does not yet know how to say "Dad." I see purpose in using Jehovah in a song, perhaps, when the lyrics cannot be restructured to fit Yahweh, or in speaking to a group to which the term Yahweh would be a hindrance, but let us who know better speak of God and his name with full reverence and set an example for others to do the same. --Carlaude (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 What is the point of having two "dubious statement – discuss" markers for one statement?
 * 2 The "dubious statement – discuss" make are for things that, among other things, do not for cited sources.
 * 3 Everyone is agreeing with my points-- and just disagreeing with other more minor points among themselves.
 * You are the only one in it with your view, and not even you are trying support your view in the discussion anymore. --Carlaude (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One for each reference - one of the issues is that neither reference supports the argument that cannot be transliterated, but let's discuss each on its on merits. The references seem to be dealing with the legitimacy of "Jehovah" as a rendering of, which is a totally separate issue StAnselm (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take to the talk page. --Carlaude (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:18-4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:18-4.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions.

Pillars of the Church
I have begun the task of referencing this article, and hope to do more in the upcoming months. Could you remove your recommendation for deletion, please? John D. Croft (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am aware that the references that I have inserted are not standard to the field in some instances, but I am not a Biblical scholar. Could I solicit your help in getting the article up to standard?  John D. Croft (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you express the countervailing point of view in the article as a way of adding balanmce to the article. I have seen "Pillars of the Church" mentioned in a number of references to "Jewish Christianity".  Regards John D. Croft (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
When beginning a new discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism or any other talk page, please put your comments at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by clicking on the "+" tab at the top. I have moved your comments accordingly. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:18-4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:18-4.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah
I see that you added twice to an earlier intro of Jehovah. Usually such labels are added when people doubt the truth of the statements they are added. But maybe you really only wanted references? In fact such statements are extremely easy to provide with citations: almost every encyclopedia and almost every Hebrew grammar says these same things. In a scholarly publication I would know what to refer to. In Wikipedia that is not so clear. Most people here do not have access to sources not on the internet, and sources on the net are rather unreliable. Would you really be happier with a ref: see Encycl. Brit.? 213.84.53.62 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

cafeserv links
I am a little puzzled about your comments about the links i have added to wikipedia. I have recently opened a coffee shop myself and did a great deal of research before hand. I have added the cafeserv links because they explain the article well and should be added for research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehollycroft (talk • contribs) 21:08, 20 April 2008

Can't we put a collapsing option in Template:New Testament people?
Not sure what or how you mean? Can you tell me.--Carlaude (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chattos
Please discuss it on the talk page rather than just reverting. Notability has not been established. Charles 06:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, to have a temper if you will is only human. The truth is, even when articles should be deleted (there are articles that should have been deleted that even I wanted to stay) AfD is almost always the place where it fails. People assume that the information, no matter how trivial or non-notable at times, is simply going to just disappear forever. Sometimes it should because it doesn't matter (but I digress). That's why redirect and merge is usually better and that's why it is suggested at times. It's also why I don't go to AfD all of the time (I used to put everything through there) because I was told most often to merge/redirect by administrators. It seems that mergers have more success than deletions because I have to be absolutely and completely honest at the risk of offending a lot of people: it seems a lot of people live in AfD for when they are logged on to Wikipedia and all they do is vote without really knowing about a situation. Really though, it draws the project away from being encyclopedic and more into being a society directory where we list the favourite school subjects of essential nobodies. Oh, but so-and-so's grandmother also happens to be a countess or something ;-) That's always the snag. Charles 12:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lady Marina-Charlotte should be merged, by the way. There are a lot of issues with articles like these. Charles 12:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Joint edits
Hi, I am half-way through my edits for a merger based on the talk page. Please let me finish in 30-45 minutes, at which point I was going to invite re-edits from the experts. Thanks History2007 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Lazarus and Dives incomplete
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Lazarus and Dives to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:


 * 1) Added    at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article.  This creates the required template for you there.
 * 2) Added  NewName  to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
 * 3) Added  PageName  to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Who are you, St. Anselm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearcat3454 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NT boxes
A page on a harmany of the gospels is a good idea but I am not sure where to find one in the public domaine. I am working with chrononlogical but plan to label any that are "disputed." For not I am focusing on getting them done, so I have not labled any "disputed" but it would be mostly, if not entirely, the events in, John's gospel. This is partly because only some gospel events have WP article.

I could do a harmony (based on my own work) of only the events that have a WP article-- if you think that would be a good starting point. It would make a place to dispute any that are disputed. --Carlaude (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See Gospel Harmony --Carlaude (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WTJ.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WTJ.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Who"-tag
You added a "who"-tag to the article about Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester -- here. I don't know what that tag means, nor how to find out what it means other than asking you. --Tenmei (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Irresistible grace
Please lend your thoughts to Talk:Irresistible grace. Cheers! --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 14:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Union with Christ
Hey well done Anselm on starting the article, when you get a chance pop over and tell me what you think so far. Knobbly (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:18-4.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:18-4.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Survey mile
In your edit to United States customary units, you mistakenly corrected the SI equivalent for the United States survey mile, which is, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, synonymous with the statute mile within the United States. This mile is different from the international mile defined in 1959. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Canonical criticism
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Canonical criticism, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. User:Nezzadar (speak) 03:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I see you've been bitten by Nezzadar. Not sure if you're a newby or not as I haven't checked but it doesn't really matter. From what I understand you created the above article with an intro and were working on expanding it in mainspace. You may wish to consider creating a personal sandbox and working on new articles there. When it is in a reasonable shape all you need to do is copy and paste the article into the new page. If you need any help setting up your sandbox give me a shout. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Unfulfilled religious predictions
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Unfulfilled religious predictions. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled religious predictions. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)