User talk:StAnselm/2014c

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=628303275 your edit] to Meir Sternberg 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * {DEFAULRTSORT:Sternberg, Meir}

Northland
Regarding the Jeff Kennett page. You deleted a whole lot of facts about Northland Secondary College. You said Koori.web was not a reliable source. Koori.web is by Dr Gary Foley, PhD Uni Melb., BA Hons Uni Melb. The following text is from the Victoria University web site: In 1994 Foley created the first Aboriginal owned and operated website when he created the Koori History website﻿, which remains one of the most comprehensive Aboriginal education resource available today online.

Late in life Foley completed his BA and then gained first class honours in history in 2002. Between 2001 and 2005 he was also the Senior Curator for Southeastern Australia at Museum Victoria. Between 2005 and 2008 he was a lecturer/tutor in the Education Faculty of University of Melbourne. In 2012 he completed at PhD in History at the University of Melbourne. He has worked at Victoria University as a Senior Lecturer since 2008.

You should restore the facts I entered on Jeff Kennett's Wikipedia page as they are the truth. Did you do any research on the subject before you deleted the facts? You could do a lot of research on the subject of the closure of Northland Secondary College, including reading the court transcripts which I have read.

You've got mail
HazelAB (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629148915 your edit] to Anglican Church in North America 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ] passed a motion recognizing the ACNA as a "member church of the Anglican Communion". http://acl.asn.au/diocese-of-nw-australia-recognises-acna-as-a-member-church-of-the-anglican-

Footballer cats
Could you handle this please? I'm just off for lunch. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please disregard. It has been taken care of. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see you did a whole bunch of them. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello StAnselm: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Gendered language in "Atonement in Christianity"
A comment or two about your reversion of my recent edit removing gendered language. I think that article, along with many others on religious topics, violates the Wikipedia style manual (see also Gender-neutral language). The edits you applied after reverting mine addressed most of that, so I am not sure why you objected to my changes.

Your edit comment indicated that I had changed words within quotes, but I cannot see any example of that.

From the words you have left unaltered, I assume that the main point where we disagree is about referring to God with masculine pronouns. I know that is common in Christian circles, but by no means universal, and by no means is it a neutral use of language. The fact that the referent is God does not excuse this case from the general principle of gender neutrality in the style manual. The use of male pronouns for God expresses a particular (though admittedly dominant) theological position and violates the NPOV ideal. If gender-neutral language were used for God, then readers could impute their own assumptions about whether God is male, female or neither. When masculine language is used, however, the assumption of God's gender is imposed by the author rather than left open to the reader.

I'd ask you to reconsider your approach to writing about God, and support me in removing the gender bias in this and other articles. Matthew C. Clarke 23:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote you changed was in the last sentence of the "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" section. Yes, I guess the main issue is the masculine pronouns for God. I checked the style guidelines, and there wasn't anything about it. (All it says is that the pronouns should not be capitalised.) The removal of the masculinity might be just as POVish - I would not regard "Godself" as a neutral word, since it only exists to avoid the masculine pronoun. But in the context of the article, the masculine pronoun seems completely appropriate - the article is discussing a concept in mainstream Christian theology. StAnselm (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to reply. With regard to the style guide, I was referring to the overall principle "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." That applies to god-talk just as much as to any other subject. I will drop the issue now, though not because I agree. Matthew C. Clarke  01:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oded
There are two Oded prophets mentioned in the Bible. Which one are you going to create for the template? JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that the first one is a prophet - "Azariah the son of Oded the prophet" could just mean that Azariah is a prophet (which in fact he is). StAnselm (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then, create the Oded article JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Synchronism material on the last kings of Judah vs. kings of Babylon
Hi there, I have browsed through the editions history of the Kings of Judah article and I've found you contributed to its contents some time ago. Could you please join the discussion which is to settle whether or not the diagram I added to Kings of Judah contains any information which is against the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. Apologist en (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Reversion on John Duncan (theologian)
Hi. Yes, I suppose that you are right to revert my edit on John Duncan (theologian). When I read the article initially I believe that I primarily 'saw' that he was already going to university to pursue theological study without taking a more granular look at what the text actually says and integrating in my comprehension what that meant. He is an unusual fellow in that he was apparently an atheist (according to his own conception) who was already studying to become a doctrinal minister which runs counterintuitive to my expectation of those who study theology. Theological students may have some misgivings about their beliefs and doctrine but are not ordinarily 'atheist', or even deist, in their self-description. Thanks for the reversion. Regards, Steve.Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer review of Mark Driscoll
I've started a peer review of the Mark Driscoll article. Since you've worked on that article before I would welcome your input. -Sigeng (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Cardinals link
I'm deferring out of respect for your greater experience, but I think you're wrong. The team on the hat is in no way relevant to the article (or of interest to many readers), and per WP:OVERLINK excessive links undermine the value of links. But I'd be interested to see the guideline that says a link is required if the detail is included. Further, as I said in my editsum, it's unsourced OR. The source says only "Cardinal hat" and does not indicate which Cardinals that refers to. You're assuming it's the St. Louis Cardinals, which is the definition of OR. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. My reasoning is that if the detail is included, then we need a wikilink. Now, maybe "red hat" would suffice, but I guess we should follow the source. Now, I'm editing as an Australian, and while I know who the St. Louis Cardinals are, I know that many Aussies would not - hence the need for a wikilink. WP:OVERLINK says that "everyday words understood by most readers in context" do not need to be linked, but this is not an everyday word. StAnselm (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, looking a bit deeper, it appears that it is quite notable, and definitely a St. Louis Cardinals hat. StAnselm (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I concede that you're less wrong than I thought. :) &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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) 14:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Biblical scholars
Biblical scholars aren't theologians, that's surprising! How come? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess at one point biblical studies sought to free itself from theology's domination, and so they developed as different disciplines. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What about for example []? It's only two courses (Hebrew scriptures and The four gospels) out of a whole range of courses, but still it seems like biblical studies are part of theology studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, biblical studies subjects are usually part of theological degrees. But then, so are ethics and church history. And I notice the course you linked to is "Religious Studies and Theology". Maybe they think the biblical subjects are more "religious studies". StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So wouldn't it then be quite right to consider academics who finish studies like these and then specialize in (Christian) ethics, church history or biblical studies as all part of theologians? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, but in academic circles they're generally not. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Quadrant April 2010.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Quadrant April 2010.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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) 13:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Liberal Christianity
I just saw your edit to Liberal Christianity and your edit summary. I agree with your edit and edit summary, but saw that "Conservative Christianity" leads to a disambiguation page. It would really be best to fix the link so that it leads to one particular article on that disambiguation page. However, I don't know which of the several links in the religion section to select. Which one do you think is the best one? After you choose, you'll need to change the part of the link (inside the square brackets) that appears before the pipe to match that. If you don't want the link to go to any particular article, you can remove the square brackets and get rid of the link (then perhaps also put the word "conservative" in lower-case). CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a disambiguation page that I've noticed around for a long time. I guess there are a few options - converting the page to an article (like the old Christian conservatism article), intentionally linking to the page (via Conservative Christianity (disambiguation)), unlinking the term, or removing the text altogether. I've never been quite sure what to do. In this particular article, the phrase is clearly referring to a number of movements/groups - Christian fundamentalism, Traditionalist Catholic, Confessionalism (religion), etc. StAnselm (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert in disambiguating links, converting a page to an article, etc. Would you mind if we asked one or two other editors with some interest in this field such as Fayenatic london or Cuchullain, or anyone you know? CorinneSD (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. As you see, I went with the intentional link to the disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 *  I'm not disagreeing with StAnselm's edit. I don't know enough to judge. I just thought it would be good to ask your opinion. CorinneSD (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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) 13:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method is now known as User:North Atlanticist Usonian
In case you don't know, and since you have had to deal with Pass a Method's problematic editing time and time again, I'm just letting you know that User:Pass a Method is now known as User:North Atlanticist Usonian. Well, surely, he's currently WP:Sockpuppeting again. But I mean that the official name of his primary (long-term) Wikipedia account is now North Atlanticist Usonian, across Wikis. This is "thanks" to Stephen G. Brown; Stephen G. Brown has "officially closed" the discussion on his talk page about it (see here), so this message is not an invitation to comment there about it. Adjwilley and John Carter already know about the username move. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I also let Middayexpress know here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice
Hi. Thanks for the suggestions and starting the conversation. Hope we'll pick it up again soon. I've sent you an email. Cheers.

Thomas Merton
I was just looking at the latest edits to Thomas Merton. I saw that, among other changes, an editor removed a set of square brackets around "Abbot of Gethsemane", which identifies "Dom James". Now it's a single set of square brackets which will not lead anywhere. (It looks like it has gone back and forth between single and double square brackets.) There is no article for "Abbot of Gethsemane". There is an article for Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemane, but I don't know if Dom James was its abbot. I did a search for "Dom James" and found more than one WP article, but one Dom James was from a previous century, so I don't think that's the one. Another is in Order of Saint Benedict (Orthodox), in about the second paragraph. I'm wondering if that is the Dom James mentioned in the Merton article. Well, anyway, I thought you might be able to clear this up and, if you think a wiki-link is appropriate, fix the link so that it leads to the right place. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say neither bracket is appropriate. It evidently refers to Dom James Fox, Abbott from 1948 to 1968 (see the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani article). But it's reported, not direct, speech so single square brackets are not appropriate. And "Abbot of Gethsemane" certainly doesn't need to be wikilinked - there are plenty (perhaps too many) links to Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani in the article as it is. Anyway, thanks for raising this (though I don't know why you asked me - I'd never edited the article before). StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe I asked you because of your user name. I thought you might be interested in this topic. I wonder why it is spelled "Gethsemani" in Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani and "Gethsemane" in "Abbot of Gethsemane". CorinneSD (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

David Warner bowling style
David Warner clearly bowled an over at medium pace in the second test, on day 1. "David Warner comes on. Looks like he's going to bowl seam-up." ESPNcricinfo commentary at the time. JustPlaneEditing (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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) 13:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft CfD about Theologians
Good morning! I noticed that you have some different idea on how to classify theologians. Essentially I would regret if the theologians tree would get too overloaded with less relevant people so I'd rather purge anyone who hasn't written anything of academic interest. In fact I'm considering the following CfD below. Before I'm actually going to post it, could you please comment on it, to see if this is really the key difference in opinion between the two of us?

Category:Theologians

 * Propose defining Category:Theologians
 * Nominator's rationale: See proposed definition of theologians category on the category page. As Category:Theologians is part of the Category:Occupations tree it is obvious that academic theologians should be classified here. The grey area with classifying "Theologians" is with clergy who wrote pastoral-theological, social-theological, political-theological books/texts/pamphlets that are not of any academic theological interest. Should they be classified as Theologians or not? With the definition that I have proposed, writing clergy should be classified as Theologians only by exception, but not as a rule. Essentially I would regret if the theologians tree would get too overloaded with people that are in the clergy tree anyway. I'm requesting consensus about this definition.

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, maybe there isn't a such a big difference between us. In modern times, most pastors have a theology degree, but are not theologians - John Piper and Douglas Wilson, for example, are exceptions. In the 17th century it seems a little hard to work out: (a) because of the lack of info, (b) because "ordinary" pastors were much more likely to write serious theological works, and (c) because almost any 17th-century pastoral-theological, social-theological, or political-theological work could be of academic interest to someone in modern times. StAnselm (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for your answer. Then I'll just continue and find out by experience which edits you will revert. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that. Please post your CfD and find out what the community consensus is. Going the other way, I was looking at Henry Archer (Fifth Monarchist), which isn't in a theologians category, and yet could be, since his book is of interest to academic theology. What do you think? StAnselm (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I edited two more articles before I saw your answer just now, just that you know. For Henry Archer, I think he fits perfectly in Category:Fifth Monarchists while he does not need to be additionally categorized as a theologian. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_20. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring, of course, to removing people from theologians categories altogether - not making the categories more specific. Yes, Archer fits in Category:Fifth Monarchists, but that is not in any theologian subcat. StAnselm (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:John Carter submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate as Editor of the Week for his extraordinary, and often overlooked, contributions to the project. This individual over 7 years has had more than 100,000 edits, with roughly 85% in article space. This remarkable dedication and focus on developing content, which seems to be more important to this individual than taking part in the often endless disputes and controversies, makes him in my eyes one of the best role-models we might have for newer editors and even for some of us old hands who get distracted by a lot of the dramah that arises around here.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! Merry Christmas, and God bless!  Go  Phightins  !  12:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Well deserved. ```Buster Seven   Talk  20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Narrow streets and Alleys
Hello,

Conceptually I like the idea of an Alley category. I do wonder how we would keep it from being cluttered with streets that are formally named "Alley" that are not technically an alley, like Elfreth's Alley. There are many others if you want more examples. The original category when I nominated was really about pedestrian walkways so I'm wondering if expanding the Category:Pedestrian malls or Category:Pedestrian infrastructure tree might better accomplish what your looking for. Tag me on my talk page if you want to discuss further; I'm really looking to improve categorizing streets. What do you think of that approach?

RevelationDirect (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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) 13:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Too soon?
I fear you may have gone too early with Articles for deletion/Leelah Alcorn. It's likely to stay right now as all the weepers will vote to keep. Perhaps it may have been better to wait a week or two for the excitement to die down? I might be wrong but, hey, there's always next time! Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)