Jump to content

User talk:Jerium/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Archive 1    Archive 2 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  ... (up to 100)

JudeccaXIII, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi JudeccaXIII! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Consider redirecting (the talk page) to this account. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help Anna, but I'll just have to leave it as dead as it is. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I guess I've see enough of where your priorities as an editor truly lie to regard any further discussion through this medium as pretty much pointless. Feel free to pack the entry you clearly regard as your private domain with as many further arbitrary references to bogus "scholarship" as you see fit, and enjoy the shabby illusion of objectivity that comes with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions and beliefs don't apply to Wikipedia article standards. I'v given you multiple warnings, and a chance to discuss your view on this. You ignored my warnings and continued being unconstructive. That is your fault and yours alone. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Isaiah

You seem to have misinterpreted my comments in that discussion, but I assume that the article issue is now resolved amicably, so if there is anything more we need to say, we should probably move it over to here or my talk page. Evensteven (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was very sarcastic, so I decided to point it out in the discussion as the appropriate response. Enough has been said already. -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Would you be willing to say why it is sarcastic? Evensteven (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello there. Concerning your message, I had explained why I removed some content under the Barnabas page right there in the edit summary: "→‎Other sources: Removed unrelated information. Gospel of Barnabas is discussed under alleged writings." It's up there on the revision history, check it out. --Khomaniak (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is under the wrong header 2) Its very same content is already explained under "alleged writings" (last paragraph), and with more reputable sources 3) It's not even formatted properly --Khomaniak (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the news in the given source is newsworthy is because the Gospel found is reported to be in Syriac. The section I removed doesn't mention that. Considering there have been other Gospels of Barnabas (in other languages) found in Turkey no less than 500 years ago, the information given therefore becomes moot, out of place, and useless. I didn't remove anything because of the "information itself", please stop making baseless accusations. Thank you.--Khomaniak (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I believe I already the explained the reasons why this is not a matter of subjectivity. At its current form, it needs organizing and at least some rewriting. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Possible_Syriac_manuscripts is a much better written section about the same matter with more diverse sources and new information, and it can be used to edit after. Anyway, let us stop arguing. Cheers. --Khomaniak (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JudeccaXIII, I have reverted edits of yours on the Gospel of Barnabas page; specifically as relating to the persistent news stories speculating that a prolematic manuscript of Cypriot provenance formerly being held by the Turkish police and now lodged with the Ethnography Museum in Ankara, might constitute a lost Syriac/Aramaic manuscript of the Gospel of Barnabas. You will find that the question of how these stories might be reflected in the Wikipedia article, has been batted back and forth on that discussion page quite a bit (and I think there is more now archived). By all means join that discussion and propose your edits there - but it would probably be better to take account of the the current stage of debate before making substantial changes to the article itself. The main point is that there is absolutely no authoritative evidence from anyone who has been able to examine the Ankara manuscript itself, that it corresponds in any way to the text (known in Spanish and Italian versions) that is commonly denoted as 'The Gospel of Barnabas". TomHennell (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm very aware of your revert. I changed Syriac to Aramaic because the source reads so, and I wasn't sure of the non-English source. A user was complaining about some information on the article Barnabas. You can see the article's history to see more what I did because of the other user. I'll discuss the revert later as it is not a big deal for me -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful comments JudeccaXIII. The problem here is that almost all information circulating on the Ankara manuscript is simply reporting other people's speculations; which in turn are largely wishful thinking. If the note by Assad Sauma is correct in identifying the Ankara manuscript with the extract pages on which he had been requested to report, then the writing is Syriac (written left to right) and the texts a mixture of Syriac and 'neo-Aramaic'. There are some photographs circulating of the manuscript cover, on which the writing is modern Syriac. What this means is that - in the absence of an authoritative or scholarly description, we need to be highly selective in what we take from the news-media sources. For instance, the claim '1,500 years old' is without any basis at all, as too is any correspondence between this text and the known Italian and Spanish texts. Equally, however, we need to be wary of those who are dismissing the manuscript as a forgery. It almost certainly is a modern forgery, but that does not at all preclude its transmitting a genuin medieval text; which could indeed be an otherwise unknown apocryphal gospel. TomHennell (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sure, go for it! I think I copied it from someone else years ago. But thanks for asking. StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRN; Gospel of Matthew

A request for assistance has been filed at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on the dispute at Talk:Gospel of_Matthew in which you are mentioned. This notification is to invite your participation. PiCo (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Link: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical manuscript

The reference I provided is a legitimate reference, the source being the personal website of the author, thus it is verifiable that the author made the statement in question and endorses its content. It is relevant to the material in the article, and, once again, represents a legitimate edit. Please stop tampering with legitimate edits for your own personal reasons, causing an "edit war" to ensue. Kanbei85 (talk)Kanbei85

Perhaps you should start a discussion yourself explaining why you felt the need to censor a perfectly valid, concise and appropriately-notated citation, rather than leaving well enough alone. The citation provides a conservative counterpoint to the overtly liberal, anti-Christian views of Bart Ehrman, also referenced in the article as an authority. Kanbei85 (talk)Kanbei85
Please provide specific details regarding your allegation that I have violated Wikipedia policy; My edit was not in violation, and, in fact, I would argue that the article was more in violation of the "Neutral Point of View" policy *before* my edit, which is a verifiable reference to an authority in the field. Please do not tamper with legitimate edits. Kanbei85 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Kanbei85[reply]

Book of Elchasai

Hello TomHennell, 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) 20:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well done for creating the article; but I'm afraid I can offer little in the way of help. In general the existing Elcesaites article (to which your article links) provides pretty much all that is known. In particular, it is not at all certain that the author of the book is named Elchasai, many scholars think that is the protagonists name; and that the author is Alcibiades. But as I say, this is a bit far from my field. TomHennell (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for an up-to-date scholarly treatment of the book of Elchasai (it is a continual problem in Wikipedia articles, that material tends to be lifted form the XIth edition of the Britannica, and from the Catholic Enclyclopedia, simply because these are readily avaiable on line), then you may find useful matter in Patricia Crone's book on Nativist Prophets in pre-Islamic Iran. I should warn you that Crone's views are by no means the scholarly consensus; and her underlying thesis that some Islamic teachings originate with Judeo-christian sects such as the Elcesaites is one that scandalises many Muslims. But still you may find it useful in developing your article. TomHennell (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ONe

Way to be quick to accuse me of edit warring, when you reverted 3 times and I did only twice. And creating a new user account, is not sock puppetry. That's called taking the advice of wikipedia and creating an account — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Book of Daniel, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Also, it would help if you edit the whole article at once, and use preview, rather than clogging the history and watchlists with many small edits. Elizium23 (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I see it hasn't done it yet. You could maybe change the time to 10 days old and wait. That would make pre-October archive, I think. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the code because the bot doesn't want to function. Know anyone who has no issues with bots? Perhaps a computer geek/coder...? -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked someone at IRC to help. Sorry I've been useless. I really do not understand automatic archiving. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. It appears that the main bot is not working "...Bots I, II, and III do work but MiszaBot itself was malfunctioning and has been blocked for over a year..." Someone will come and help soon. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have set up a scheme that should lead to Lowercase sigmabot III archiving the talk page. The archival parameters are described here in some detail; those I used will archive everything older than 10 days, excluding the newest four sections on the talk page. Huon (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's Conversion narrative discrepancy

I made a recent edit to your entry on St Paul. You called it NO constructive. In the section about St Paul's conversion you mention "biblical scholar" Reza Aslan as being skeptical of St Paul's conversion story. He calls it propaganda. In order to be just and fair, it must be pointed out that Mr Aslan is a Muslim and that he vehemently denies the divinity of Christ. So Mr Aslan is not an objective biblical scholar but rather a very bias one. The credibility of this section of the article on St Paul is heavily compromised by someone who clearly has an agenda. I don't believe it is fair. In matters of Sacred Scripture, the highest authority on these matters is the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Jerusalem and in Rome. Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, and Islamic scholars worked together to translate the new testament.

I had added the template to all the pages that it mentioned; but if you're going to add new pages, you should add the template to those pages immediately. StAnselm (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template wasn't really finished when made. It still isn't, but i'm grateful for your help for placing the templates in the articles. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DS Scrolls

Discussion redirected here -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the mention - you're quite right. I don't actually care all that much, and he's quite right about the interpretation of the opening of Genesis 1 - but he's also wrong, as the interpretation depends on the meaning of the entire chapter, not the actual words used. What I object to have a whole section on this, it unbalances the article. I could add similar discussions for every phrase in all 50 chapters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left some comments about your new article here. Ignocrates (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to spend more time on this. We have admins to explain and enforce policy as needed. Ignocrates (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, your going to stop violating WP policies. Also, you need to reread WP:PSTS specifically Tertiary sources. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I brought the matter of reliable sources to RSN. You can explain to them how raising the question is a violation of WP policies. Ignocrates (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not becoming discouraged by the problems with reliable sources. The editing environment is much harder now than it was in the early days of the encyclopedia. (I have been doing this for 9 years.) As the encyclopedia has matured, standards for article content and sources have become a lot more demanding. As a result, the burnout rate is high for new editors. My sincere advice is to seek help and advice from more experienced editors at least for the first year. The Teahouse is welcoming to new editors and the Village Pump is a good place to ask for opinions. The Help Desk is also a great resource when you have specific questions, particularly of a technical nature. Happy editing. Ignocrates (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignocrates, I would like to apologize to you as it dawns on me still that I was a bit too aggressive towards you, and for that I am truly sorry. I hope in the near future or whenever possible that we could be better develop are views as editors on Wikipedia --Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. I didn't take it personally. Ignocrates (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping s

Fyi, pings don't work in edit summaries for some reason. DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmm interesting, but you got the message anyway. Please discuss in the article's talk page. -- Thnx & Cheers JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but per WP:BRD, the onus is on the other user as tge one seeking to change the article. DeCausa (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know but if you started it, you might be in favor of other watchful editors as you were willing to discuss the conflict. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's resolved now anyway. DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!


Dear JudeccaXIII, I am user 'chicagoveter' and have just started using Wikipedia in the past few weeks with the goal of adding a link to the new educational resource http://www.TorahSummary.org This is a large, non-profit site containing a summary of each chapter of the Torah (based on the Judaica Press Translation), as well as illustrations and analysis. It is a helpful resource to anyone studying the Torah and no less helpful than other External Links provided on Torah related pages. For example on this page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tanakh#External_links the first link is to the full-text of Judaica Press Translation which is exactly what TorahSummary.org happens to summarize. There is also a link to http://www.itanakh.org/ which is a helpful site created by one individual (Dr. Chris) There are also duplicate and broken links. I understand that your first impression of TorahSummary.org was negative and you thought that it was some sort of religious spam. I assure you that this is not the case. Please take another look and if you still believe that the site should not be linked from Wikipedia, then please explain why this is the case, and what TorahSummary.org needs to attain this status. I am trying to understand why is it ok for pages like itanakh.org to be listed but not ok for TorahSummary.org In other words, what made you believe that TorahSummary.org was spam? If it was the fact that I added too many Wikipedia links in a short time, then I apologize for that, please let me know what is the correct way. I truly appreciate your time and look forward to hearing from you. (If you want, you can reply directly to the user chicagoveter talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:7C00:7:1:1:0:0:45 (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Chicagoveter and WP:ELNO. --John (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JudeccaXIII & John, thank you very much for the info. Here is what I understood after reading the guidelines: In order to qualify as an External Link, a site must have high quality (no spam, malware, etc. ) and it must have neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject - TorahSummary.org qualified for this. But there is also a rule saying "avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked" and that's why you had to remove the links. It makes sense now, and I feel much better knowing that there is no problem with the site itself. Again thanks for taking the time to provide the info. [Chicagoveter] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:7C00:7:1:1:0:0:35 (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


In good faith I created a new category "Church History" which I attached to many other articles and to the article The Book of Elchasia. It has now been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion here: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 31

Thank you so much.

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bfpage What will be in your catagory? This will help determine the process for a title change. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topics in the category Church History will contain an outline of the subject as it is presented and taught in theological schools-there is a systematic study of Church History and I think this category will help pull all the relevant information together.

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JudeccaXIII. Please undo the change you made here. Nothing in our policy or guidelines allows you remove other people's comments from another editor's user talk page. If User:Lisa wants to remove them herself, of course she can. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is done -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tender warning

Hello. Just to clarify -- you gave a warning here that was incorrect in its assertion. In that posting, you wrote "You can't use warning templates if you yourself are involved in the conflict." That's simply, and flatly, false. Please don't leave warnings for editors based on such an incorrect understanding. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to this, if an editor appropriately is recipient of a warning, I don't see anything in what you wrote that indicates that another editor's "involvement" prohibits the other editor from in good faith issuing the warning. Which was all that happened. And you of course should AGF, which would be an apt assumption here. :Also, of course warnings accompanied by prose discussion are efforts to discuss the subject - efforts that may meet with success or not. Which was also what happened here. (In contrast, involvement by a sysop will prohibit the sysop from applying a block; but that is quite another scenario.)
If you do have something in our guidelines that indicates that supports your assertion that you left in your templated warning to the effect that: "You can't use warning templates if you yourself are involved in the conflict" - then please provide a diff to that guideline. You've failed to do that. That's not a guideline. Please don't leave templated warning for other editors, making believe it is one.
Also, please don't again delete my posts to the talkpages of others, as you did re the warning I made that we are discussing. That is not appropriate. Please understand this as a polite warning as well, not to engage in that behavior. Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging in the discussion with our Polish colleague - cos that's hopefully what we're here?

I started the proper topic at Talk:Kings_of_Judah. I am ready to answer your questions and supply references to specialist literature if you have any doubts as to the diagram I assembled and uploaded to Wiki. The diagram itself includes only those links which might be of interest to people unfamiliar with the subject - traslations of some key tablets and data related to calculating new moon dates in the 7th and 6th centuries BC.


Dear JudeccaXIII,

About the etymology of Melkizedek, I believe stated that the yod in "מלכי" is an archaic genitive marker, so that "מלכי–צדק" is "King of Righteousness" but not "my king is righteousness". Archaic genitive ending is common in the bible.

You however undid it. Would you please state your reasons?



Simple, a source is required as I said in the edit summary: [1]. If there is no source to prove such a statement, then I would have to consider it original research per WP:OR. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship of Davidic Psalms

Hi JudeccaXIII,

I noticed you removed a change I had made, which stated that 'some' Biblical scholars do not believe David authored the Psalms attributed to him. Perhaps you are not aware that there are some Biblical scholars who believe David did author those Psalms, and others who do not believe he authored those Psalms. The original statement was "his authorship is not accepted by modern Bible scholars".

While we may or may not agree with scholars who disagree with our point, to be intellectually honest, we must admit that not all scholars are in agreement.

On the page another author referenced, at Xenos.org, you will find justification for the argument that David was the author of some of those Psalms. If you locate the section title 'Authorship', you will see a discussion with references.

The question is not whether David authored those Psalms, but whether "his authorship is not accepted by modern Bible scholars". That statement is incorrect, and was modified to make it correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Re34646 (talkcontribs) 23:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You used the word "some" per WP:WEASEL, also, you didn't source it; Plus Xenos.org doesn't look like a trusted of balanced site. The information provided already in the article is also unbalanced because there isn't a majority view and a minority view. If you have anymore questions about your source or anymore sources, I highly recommend contacting an administrator. Just to let you know about feelings or anyone else's feelings, beliefs, ideals etc. violates Wikipolicy per WP:OR as we as editors aren't suppose to edit Wikipedia with any personal values, ideals, religion etc. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Kings of Judah. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Apologist en (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Eleazar in the Scroll of Antiochus

Please consider my proposal to change the details of the death of Eleazar as recorded in the Scroll of Antiochus in the talk page of Eleazar Avaran. It is based on the primary source. If you have another version of the Scroll of Antiochus which provides a different account of the details of Eleazar's death, please let us know. Aharonium (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I think you need to take a step back and re-read some of the comments in this discussion. You seem to be getting upset about things that aren't worth getting upset about and your comments are making less and less sense. The most recent was mostly broken English. It just makes your getting upset even more likely when others can't understand what you are trying to say/ask. In this instance, you may be better off just withdrawing the nomination - I don't think it's likely to get much support at all given the fact that it clearly passes WP:GNG and AFD doesn't exist to prompt clean-up. Stlwart111 23:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahiqar the Aramean

Thank you for your message, but i don´t agree with you that my comment in the topic about "Ahiqar" did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. I have give few sources and have asked some questions. I did not get one normal reaction, but only a reaction like "nonsense". I know that Ahiqar is an Aramean and he have also a Aramaic name. Why did he not have an Assyrian name if he really was "Assyrian"? How can people take Wikipedia serious if it not use facts with sources that you can trust?

Wikipedia isn't based on personal views whether we see it as right or wrong. I'v already searched for sources, and majority of sources say Assyrian, however, there are some sources that suggets Armenian. I will see what I can do with this contreversal argument. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Bible translations

Please restore my edits to List of English Bible translations. Unless you're implying that "Modern English" is a year and "1962–1982" is a source for a Bible translation, my edits were correct and proper. (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and I thought it was in the wrong format, sorry about that. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was Acts Authored by Luke

Acts of the Apostles

The article you restored represents a partisan opinion, not universal opinion. There were many Gospels in the early centuries. Four were canonized. The author of Acts states that he authored biography of Jesus, but which one? Do you have ANY historical evidence that this mention refers to the Gospel of Luke? If so, under Wikipedia rules, you should cite it. Otherwise, it is little more than a Christian tradition. As admitted even in the text you prefer, the author(s) of both books is/are unknown. Until they are identified, they cannot be presumed to be the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talkcontribs) 03:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you did has multiple violations of WP:WTW, and some of your edits also contradict from WP:NPOV. I'll have an administrator resolve this ASAP, so I won't have to waste anymore time arguing with you. Also, let me clarify this to you, your edits have nothing to do with sources, all you did was manipulate content in your POV favor. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you do not name any of my violations. Wouldn't a discussion of specifics be a more rational way to approach this matter? Let me be very specific, just for you. There is no external evidence apart from Christian tradition that the author of Luke is the author of Acts. None. The first chapter of Acts states that the author also wrote a Gospel, but he/she doesn't say which one.
I call to your attention the name of Johannes Brahms gave to one his musical compositions: "Variations on a Theme by Haydn." Exhaustive research shows it is not based on, nor does it contain, a theme by Haydn. The practice is so common, it has a name: pseudepigraphy. It is so common in historical literature, it is not considered proof in any other field than Christianity, In historical research, it is not even considered evidence.
The same article admits that no one knows the name of the author of either book. No one knows for certain when they were written, or where. And of course, no one knows why, either. The words you prefer say it was once thought to be an historical account, but is now thought to be primarily theological. The original manuscripts have not survived, so handwriting cannot be compared and the original wording is confused by later copiers,
But fatally, those who assert a common authorship for Luke and Acts provide no objective support for their assertions. And that should not surprise us, because there IS none.
You and the affected sects of the Christian Church are welcome to believe as you wish, but please do not present these matters of faith as though they were matters of fact.--Sfarney (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney[reply]
@Sfarney Why don't you just read the policies, then look at your own edits. Everything is sourced, and the author of the gospel is unknown according to the article, which is also sourced in the article. If you have any more questions about the article, start a discussion in the article's talk page and not my talk page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the authors of both books are unknown. That is MY point. You are not correct to insist you know who wrote either of those Biblical books, and therefore you are not correct to insist they were written by the same person. Your Christian traditions are not a sufficiently reliable source of historical information. I DON'T have any questions of you on the subject. Let the article reflect the fact that the whole issue is just a religious tradition, not a historical fact.--Sfarney (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney[reply]
@Sfarney First of all, the article is suggesting according to early church tradition that the author is Luke. Second, the article obviously clarifies that the author is unknown according to modern scholarship. Final, if you ever try to personally attack me again per WP:NPA, i'll have your reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text you insist on having in the article reads, without qualification, "Acts is the second half of a two-part work by the same anonymous author, Luke-Acts, usually dated to around 80-90 CE." That is neither a "suggestion" nor a reference to a "church tradition." The text you prefer continues with multiple statements in the same tone: "Authorship of Luke–Acts;" "The gospel of Luke and Acts make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke-Acts." "The author is not named in either volume.[1] According to Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he ... [reinforcing the presumption that the two authors are one and the same]." "Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts ..." and so forth and so on. This unquestioning allegiance to a single, unsupported religious doctrine is inappropriate for Wikipedia.
Your preferred text also states: "Luke-Acts is an attempt to answer a theological problem..." How can anyone pretend to know who was attempting what when writing those manuscripts? This is Wikipedia, not a Sunday school tract.
If you take that as a personal attack, so be it. The dialogs on this page reveal you have somewhat a thorny reaction to any disagreement, so bring on the rain.--Sfarney (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney[reply]
This discussion is over, I have already explained to you. If you have a problem with the article or anything related to, start a discussion in the article's talk. Also, here are are a list of important polices you should know: WP:OR, WP:WTW, WP:LISTEN, WP:HARASS, & WP:PERSONAL. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JudeccaXIII As you suggest, I have copied the discussion to the Talk:Acts of the Apostles page. Please provide the sources historical (not religious) sources for the doctrine that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person.--Sfarney (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney[reply]
@Sfarney Start a new discussion in the article's talk, not copying and pasting from my talk page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest either an RfC on the talk page, or going to one of the boards, eg WP:NORN if there is an issue of original research. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller, this has been reported to WP:DRN by the user right when you commented — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Judecca: You had no right to remove the discussion from Talk:Acts of the Apostles. Sfarney provided attribution and therefore adhered to copyright policies. Furthermore, that talk page is where your discussion belongs, and exhaustive discussion is a necessary step before proceeding to other forms of dispute resolution such as WP:DRN. Elizium23 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23 What right gives the editor to copy from my talk page without telling me? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing against that in policy or guidelines. I suggest to you here that you do what I indicated on the DRN noticeboard. There are a frankly huge number of recent reference sources relating to the books of the bible. All of them. The articles in some of them are, frankly, much longer than our own will ever be. I remember in the recent Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible the articles on the individual gospels are around 20 pages of smallish type apiece. The articles in the older, but still highly-regarded, Anchor Bible Dictionary tend to be even longer and more detailed. Particularly for topics like these, where the best available reference sources out there contain more material on the topics of our articles than our single articles will ever be able to, the biggest concern is probably not the reliability of the content or anything else but the much more difficult matter of relative weight in the article. I would tend to think that the best way to deal with that topic is on the talk page of the article and seeking out broader input from people who can access the best and most highly-regarded recent sources relating to these topics. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John Carter, close the DNR discussion so that it be better to discuss it here. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think it would be best and most reasonable to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article, where most people would most readily and easily see it and be able to contribute to the discussion. In general, we do tend to use the article talk pages as the primary source for such discussion. While I am a bit of a very occasional volunteer at DRN, I don't think I am necessarily the one to close that discussion there. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John Carter Sure, I want to finish this aggravating discussion already. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JudeccaXIII I suggest you extend the olive branch by reverting your deletions on the topic page Talk:Acts of the Apostles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talkcontribs) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JudeccaXIII, you gave him the right when you pressed the "Save page" button. According to Wikipedia:Copyrights, "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and, unless otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License. unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts." Elizium23 (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interpretation of Knowledge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flyleaf. 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) 09:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm ReformedArsenal. I noticed that you made a change to an article, God the Son, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. There is currently an RFC active regarding the issue, you cannot simply act against the RFC when the sources are in question. You are being reported to administration for formal arbitration since you have now accused me of POV pushing. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JudeccaXIII reported by User:ReformedArsenal (Result: ). Thank you. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello JudeccaXIII, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
Elizium23 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


Thanks for passing it on. Best wishes for whatever festival you choose to celebrate, and a happy and prosperous New Year. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when reverting edits to a page. Two edits that you performed on the article restored content that violates the BLP policy and has since been redacted. Best, Mike VTalk 08:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V The editor should have at least explained the removal of content in the edit summary. It would be more clarified to do so, especially by a newly registered account. Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello JudeccaXIII, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
The Herald : here I am 11:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, I appreciate that :) — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no CSD for that kind of thing. BUt I expect another admin will do something about it for us ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung กุดผึ้งI hope so, Twinkle doesn't give the option of "Unremarkable thing" deletion. Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not Twinkle, but policy, so don't try it too often. You'll probably only get away with it on my watch ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง I did something bad for the sake of doing something good LOL :) Have a Merry Christmas! Oh BTW, someone placed back the deletion tag — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't all that bad. FWIW, it finally got deleted as A11 which is just about as close as you can get to a 'thing' that is not covered by any of the permitted specific critria. It was my original PROD rationale. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, Where do you go to discuss new policy? I think this should be clarified on Wikipedia. Do you agree? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article was just recreated by the same user, looks like he/she dons't like their article being deleted. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Information icon Hello JudeccaXIII. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), or content (CSD A3), moments after they are created, as you did at Bocassa. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. I have no idea what possessed you to post a specious warning on my talk page, but if you can't even correctly figure out who created an article, you probably don't have the competency required to apply deletion tags. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx, you have a happy Christmas as well:) — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas and new year wishes

May your Christmas be happy and your new year be blessed. Esoglou (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Thanks for your kind greetings a few days ago. My heartfelt wishes for a blessed, joyful, and festal Christmas season, with all the best for the coming year. Evensteven (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho


Hi there JudeccaXIII: Just a small question: What's with the mega Halloween and X-mas "messages" you've sent me?! Do you think that those holidays are important to me personally (outside of WP)? I am really trying hard to understand your motives. Please help me to understand what you are up to. Thanks in advance. Take care, IZAK (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK Its just a simple holiday cheer and nothing more. Expect more holiday cheers in the future from me, except for Valentines Day. Also if this makes you feel better, your not the only one who receives holiday cheers from me. But now that you messaged me, make sure you have a HAPPY NEW YEAR! Cheers!— JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JudeccaXIII: I see, in that case, since you seem to feel that anyone can be bombarded with messages about any old holidays that pop into your head creating a sort of "spamming" effect, may I kindly request that in my case you restrict yourself to sending messages about the Jewish holidays only when the mood hits you. Or maybe just stick to invisible "silent messages" that would take up a lot less room on my talk pages and reduce the need for and clutter of useless "communications". Take it easy, IZAK (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK It seems I offended you because the holiday cheers I sent you aren't Jewish holidays. Everyone sends holiday cheers because its the holidays, and you get wary about two template cheers, then start a discussion on my talk page about it. Out of all the discussions I'v seen or been involved in, this is the most absolute pathetic one. Also, I didn't start a Wikipedia account to spam talk pages, and you could have just asked respectfully to stop instead of accusing me of spamming over two holiday cheer templates. All I see from this discussion is your incompetents to socially progress as a fellow editor on Wikipedia. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JudeccaXIII: Not sure what this bee in your bonnet is all about, but yes I would prefer it if you took me off your "holiday cheer mailing list" from now on. Feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss anything of substance relating to editing articles where we may or may not cross paths, but sending me unsolicited messages from out of the blue not related to anything beyond what goes on in your imagination is not helpful to anyone and certainly does nothing to improve genuine encyclopedic content on WP. Kindly remember that WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK & WP:NOTSOAPBOX and in your case, given from what I read here of other users' obvious irritation with your patterns of uncalled for behavior, I would strongly suggest you take a look at WP:SPIDERMAN before you get yourself in over your head with trouble you don't need. Consider this a warning! Take care, IZAK (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK Did you just threaten me and just used my achieved discussions against me per WP:PERSONAL? FYI, it was you who started this discussion with uncivil accusations, perhaps I should just take you to ANI. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Authoritative Teaching, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Material world and Tractate. 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) 09:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Happy 810th anniversary of the birthday of Abû 'Uthmân Sa'îd ibn Hakam al Qurashi! I hope you enjoy the day. Just a little holliday cheer!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Jerium,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

@FWiW Bzuk Thank you, you also have a HAPPY NEW YEAR! as well. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Torah 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • civil laws) given explicitly (i.e. [[Ten Commandments]]) or implicitly embedded in the narrative (as in Exodus 12 and 13 laws of the celebration of [[Passover|Pesach (passover)]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zechariah (priest)

Hi, I'm Arminden. Thank you for your very nicely formulated message. I have reverted to my version after adding as reference an article written by the two scholars who have discovered and published the inscriptions on the Tomb of Absalom. It covers all issues. Also, I find that using the Hebrew name is plain wrong, I am sure that there must be some Wik. rules for that too, but common sense dictates to use English names where they are available and in wide circulation. So, Tomb of Absalom or Absalom's Pillar. The dedicated Wik. article mentions of course the Hebrew name too. It's also not a straightforward translation, "yad" meaning primarily "hand", with a figurative use as "monument", so Hebrew only complicates things here. And a happy year 2015 to you!

Your experience with Wikipedia so far

Hello JudeccaXIII,

I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.

I hope to be in touch soon,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielm199, thank you for your comments. I appreciate that, but I won't be participating. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. I fixed Tobi to Tovi/Tuvi because this is how it is pronounced correctly in all known forms of Hebrew. The difference between Tovi and Tuvi is: Tovi means my good where good is an adjective, Tuvi means my good where good is a noun. Why have you changed it back to Tobi I do not know because in Hebrew this is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'd be grateful if you could explain your reversion of my recent edits to the Constantinople article. There were two points. First: I changed "meter" to "metre" on the grounds that (i) it is Wikipedia policy that articles without a clear link to a particular national variety of English should maintain the national variety of English in which they were written, that (ii) the Constantinople article has for many years now been written in British English, and (iii) "meter" in British English means a measuring device, and the correct usage here is "metre" , which is a unit of distance. Second: I changed "the more common name for the city" to "the name which they preferred" because, whatever grounds were offered by the Turkish government for the change, the reference to "the more common name for the city" gives the impression that "Istanbul" was in 1923 the more common name used in English for the city, and I am sure that this cannot be substantiated: everything I have read from that period uses the name "Constantinople", and it risks misleading the reader to suggest otherwise (I believe that the Turkish government's action in this regard was a political act to try and underline abroad as well as at home the revolutionary change which it intended between the Ottoman and Turkish states: but that is quite a different matter, not relevant to this article). Diomedea Exulans (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diomedea Exulans, it was a mobile phone mistake. It's kind of difficult to edit and view Wikipedia without pushing the automatic "rollback" button. Cheers and sorry for the confusion. Also, I think I had reverted myself. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a spam

if it goes to company's website. MlKE RCSCFT (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SPAM guidelines — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Beals. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Judecca, hello.

We've met before. I consider you to belong to the category of WP editors who find some kind of fulfillment in policing WP and imposing their views, not so much by adding information which might be of interest to the USER, but by erasing other people's additions. WP guidelines are as little objective as any set of rules & laws, and w/o a "Supreme Court" or arbiter, the ones with more stamina (stubbornness) are bound to impose their views.

I want to get from WP what I need for my study & work, like virtually all users do. When something is confusing, and I find a better or additional info, I introduce it. I'm not splitting hairs and looking for disputes from which to emerge with a grown ego. We all have our demons, I certainly do have mine, but there is a moral duty of combating them in private, and not under the anonymity of the Internet. Editing WP is about serving the USER, anything else is a misunderstanding or misuse of the medium.

As you probably know, art - in this case portraits - can either follow genuine models, as in portraits painted after authentified ancient statues (see Alexander the Great, Roman emperors), or are totally fictitious. WP readers are rarely in the position to judge that. The info I put in was correct and had its motivation, not least the fact that the artist depicted the Maccabean/Hasmonean kings handsomer or uglier/meaner in conformity with the description by Josephus or other considerations. The additional remark "fictitious" has every reason to be there. See similar remarks about Flavius Josephus' presumed portrait (the Roman bust): it bears no inscription, but by deduction it should be him. Millions look at WP, a minuscule % of them have enough knowledge as not to need such info.

Since I'm no windmill-charging Don Quixote, I will by matter of principle, to save myself from wasting time & nerves, avoid any discussion or re-edit coming from your quarter. Your basic reflex of undoing everything that isn't 100% sourced and/or contradicts your view should be your concern, and I will certainly not make it mine. Please be so kind and refrain from writing messages to me.

Regards, Arminden (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

PS: I just looked at your "improvements". On top of everything, I see you are undoing entire edits, automatically and without thinking. What was wrong in having a link to the author and work from which the woodcuts stem? Wasted enough time. Kindergarten. You may keep your toys for yourself and stay king of the playground.

Sunico Films

Hello, Jerium. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunico Films.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The article may have started weak and unsourced[2] but it has been improved[3] to show that, set to preserve Sindhi culture and language, it meets the intent of WP:ORG and thus has enough notability. What'cha think? Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Schmidt, Do you think the article is worth keeping despite the article's limited expansion only as a "Stub" or borderline "Start"? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There is no demand that it must be bigger than stub. The simple and most basic premise of Wikipedia is to inform its readers, and we might always hope that Danish or Sindhi sources come forward. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Gee, thanks :) I don't really disagree strongly with that editor, but I think he's come to dislike me intensely, so best to leave him to it.PiCo (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello JudeccaXIII, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
 - T H (here I am) 12:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you!

You have been an encouragement to me here on Wikipedia by leaving me a cheerful banner on my talk page. Your thoughtfulness is appreciated. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back

Hello, Jerium. You have new messages at User talk:The Herald/Talkback.
Message added 05:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ISBN numbers

To the best of my knowledge, ISBN numbers are used by publishers and booksellers as a stock-control measure, and are not used for reference purposes. Each print run has an ISBN assigned to it (you buy the numbers from designated national authorities); when a print run ends, you buy a new ISBN, even though the book itself hasn't been altered. This I know because I publish books on a modest scale. So, an individual ISBN can indeed be assigned to an individual book, but two identical books can have separate ISBNs. I never quote them, for that reason. PiCo (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Total Divas Things for Summer Rae

Hey how u doing n I'm not in a edit war I have made it clear wit MSMRHurricane already about the Summer Rae return and she or he telling me I need to provide the right stuff and which I am doing . But I've told they about it n I really don't wanna be block n everything but I'm doing the right thing buy they keep changing it and every thing and I'm aware bout yhe right stuff n how to do things on Wikipedia. But I'm tired of this problem n it feels like he or she doubting Me and my actions and I constantly keep telling but they not listening to me or going wit me n I'm not wit them so Idk wat there is to say and I said everything n its not doing so idk wat to do like I said. So I have my faith and God so u don't have nun to worry about becuz God gonna take care of this. I did pray about this on the internet n this childish. But like I told MSMRHURRICANE who ever created the TD page and SR page they would a been block us n everything n they would not like about wat we are doing to their page and it's not fair to them. But like I said for the last time TIME idk wat else n everything.

God Blessed U and I wish u the bes of luc n God continue blessing ur LIFE.

Thanks for everything. Valleryking (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability on Gog and Magog

Hello, It's a standard reference on the subject. Please see TP, where I show I didn't misinterpret it. Thanks. i have created an account now Xinheart (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for dealing with him. It is a shame it had to come to that but there was clearly no other option, so thank you. MPJ -US  22:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I closing

Hello JudeccaXIII! Let me start off by saying that this is not a big deal, but I noticed that you closed the topic you started at AN/I. It's probably advisable not to do that – in general, according to WP:NAC (specifically, WP:BADNAC), it's advisable that editors not close discussions they have started (as they're considered "INVOLVED"). I will say, at ANI, this is not nearly a big a deal as it is at say, WP:XfD. Again, you didn't do anything "wrong", but I just thought I'd let you know about this. And feel free to keep reading ANI – we could probably use some more NAC closers over there! And thanks again for bringing that to the community's attention!! --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall, Oh sorry, It was my first time closing a case. I will be considering closing cases resolved already in the future though. Seems exciting :) Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth again?

Blergh... Since the deletionists area always unregistered, I've requested page protection for the article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aristophanes68, I've requested a sock investigation/abuse of multiple accounts on the IPs. Also, I've decided to continue on with the discussion the IP began according to Wikipolicies & guidelines to avoid blockage etc. If a week has past, I was told by an admin I could revert unless the IP returns to the discussion. However, If the IP does not discuss but revert only, possible sanctions will be considered. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Books of Moses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine (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) 10:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ey B0ss

I understand your concerns but, our page was way danker get rekt 360 n0scope o and jUst by the way THAT WAS NOT A MISTAKE — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatOneKenyan (talkcontribs) 03:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cookie

Hi.. Thanks for the cookie. :-) I'm quite surprised that you assess my like that, though honestly I have tendency to a 'sect' but I try my best to make it as neutral as possible so everyone can use the information for good. Please don't hesitate to correct my poor grammar and if you find me subjective. Warm regards, Ign christian (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: re: Cookie

No... I'm sorry..I can't correctly express what I feel in English. I was surprised means I was glad about what you think about me. :D It was a compliment to me though I feel that I'm not as good as what you think. Please accept my apologies. With regards, Ign christian (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Book of Elchasai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nazarenes (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) 10:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It's in the two references given in the text. See also the TP. Best, Xinheart (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

removal of b'hai references from various biblical texts

The insert on how b'hai sees Jeremiah has nothing to do with the subject of the article and might be more appropriate in an article on b'hai. Rather it seems like an effort at proselytizing or marketing written by a member of their group and should be removed promptly.

Consider that you if you want to let them get away with this, you have to do the same for every recently invented religion. Reference articles in this category will then be unreadable and useless and we will have lost a valuable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the article again, the b'hai blurb comes first ahead of all others. that really amplifies the first point in the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look ASAP at this tomorrow, if you want to inform other editors about this, take this to the article's talk page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: Blogs

Hi JudeccaXIII. I thank you for your note and for the helpful links about blogging and Wikipedia. That said, I think in this case it is appropriate to quote and link to The Daily Chapter. The quotations are brief summaries of the biblical chapters, not opinion pieces, and therefore help this page significantly. Also, the summaries are easily verifiable. I therefore respectfully revert the page back to my original change. Feel free to continue the conversation here or on my own talk page. Sir Bronx (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

removal of b'hai references from various biblical texts

The insert on how b'hai sees Jeremiah has nothing to do with the subject of the article and might be more appropriate in an article on b'hai. Rather it seems like an effort at proselytizing or marketing written by a member of their group and should be removed promptly.

Consider that you if you want to let them get away with this, you have to do the same for every recently invented religion. Reference articles in this category will then be unreadable and useless and we will have lost a valuable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the article again, the b'hai blurb comes first ahead of all others. that really amplifies the first point in the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look ASAP at this tomorrow, if you want to inform other editors about this, take this to the article's talk page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ I could not remove the content due to WP:NPOV. All views are important whether we as editors don't approve. Wikipedia isn't a place for pushing our own agendas. If it makes you feel any better, I moved Bahá'í views after Islam since Islam was before. That is all I could do. Have a Merry Christmas and Srry — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gog and Magog nomination

Gog and Magog was a terrible nomination. That is one of the most notoriously "owned" pages on this site, by a certain user whose efforts are little tolerated by the other editors, but the main reason the situation cannot be resolved is that, despite his unpopularity with article editors, he seems however to enjoy popularity with certain key wp staff members who make sure to keep him in business no matter how many object (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermas edit

Could you please explain why you called the edits 'original research' and 'unverified'? These edits were neither and I included references, did I do it improperly?

Thanks, --ChrisPmitton (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Chris[reply]

Hello Chris and thank you for using the talk pages rather than reverting. I looked up the edit again, and I see that there are no proper citations/references though I do see an attempt to cite the church fathers. However, majority of the content was not source as such "Many scholars" such as ? etc. or pretty much everything I would say is unsourced. I considered your edit original research because of no sources to verify. Please read WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:WTW. If you have any further questions, let me know or any other experienced editor help out. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 Maccabees

I don't understand how changing year designations from Christian-centric BC and AD to more neutral BCE and CE is not helpful or relevant. Why do you keep reverting these changes? michellewriting (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kid shelley I completely understand your concern why BCE/CE should be used instead BC/AD. When an article is created and the creator uses an era-style first BCE/CE or BC/AD, that is usually called "original consensus" meaning you can't change it despite what the article's topic is about if it's before Christianity even existed. This is all guided by Wikipedia's policy abbreviated: WP:ERA. If any editor changes this without proper consensus, it will be considered a "violation of WP:ERA". However, you can possibly change the era-style by requesting for consensus through the article's talk page. Once you ask for consensus and there is a general agreement amongst editors who attend the discussion, you can change it. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Exodus

Your revert a few days ago was of a sock of this guy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Til Eulenspiegel/Archive]]. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tower of Babel

As I edit the article I'm a bit loathe to protect it unless there was a really serious problem. At the moment I think a request at RPP would fail as the vandalism is controllable. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I just wanted to say i was creating this page for not really for the public but any one can read it second Wikipedia is to is just to hard to understand i don't know how to make a page so that why i pasted Major Dracula (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major Dracula, If you feel like creating a page or simply want to test Wikipedia out, you can use your sandbox which is located on the top-right. There are policies and guidelines to Wikipedia to ensure proper editing and overall...organized and appropriate for readers. You user page violates WP:FAKEARTICLE. If you really want to contribute to Wiki, you should follow up on policies first. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I am giving up on this you win i am not going to try to make anther page and i choice it deleted the page because of thug tactic of Wikipediai really i hate Wikipedia i do hope the government takes this site down Major Dracula (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


How can I delete my account because i just done i havenow hate and will always hate Wikipedia please get back to me Major Dracula (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Please you post 2 messages please get back to me Major Dracula (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major Dracula, There is no such thing as deleting an account. You could just blank your pages or request for user page deletion; except user talk pages. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will not post anything else then Major Dracula (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal-only account


@ Materialscientist, the vandal had an account recently blocked indef. by another admin around two weeks ago, but I can't exactly recall the admin and vandal username. I highly recommend an indef. block on all IPs for sock, vandal only account. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]先生, I just wanted to clarify this as part of a case of IPs sock, and I wanted you to know about the other socks. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:JamesGordon2341 was the account blocked by CambridgeBayWeather. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yamaguchi先生, you need to indef block the IPs after this comment. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JudeccaXIII. There are special circumstances which may warrant an IP block for an extended duration (~2 years) such as when the IP address is confirmed as an open proxy / web host. We cannot however block IP addresses permanently as we would with a registered account, and typically limit IP blocks to a few short days. It may be worthwhile to compile an LTA case if one does not already exist. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]先生, please block the IPs, another sock is doing the something again. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BethNaught, thank you, but the sock will only do the samething again. I have listed the other socks previously above this discussion. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We know. Per Yamaguchi, we don't indef block IP addresses. The answer to this problem is escalating protection. BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For helping to deal with the Temple-related vandalism on multiple articles. clpo13(talk) 21:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Doug Weller, I am not confident enough to trust User:GreenessItself as an editor. I feel despite the warnings and advice, he/she will continue to edit war. Already, I see lack of effort by the user to actually try and resolve matters. Instead, excuse my language, GreenessItself responds with "smart ass replies" by acknowledging other editor's concerns with careless attitude. I have a hunch this user has edited Wikipedia long before in another account but that's just a gut feeling. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree with anything you've said. Travelling so can't do much. Among other things Discussions need to be started about his various changes of names for God. Doug Weller talk 06:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller I knew there was something suspicious about the user. Anyways, thanks for solving that problem. I hope the original account doesn't do anything stupid like the sock after the block is over. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed gnosticism group

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Gnosticism (2nd nomination). I wouldn't necessarily have any objections to the creation of such a group, and might be willing to help in set up in a month or so, when I hope to be finished with other things. I think having a list of the articles included in the book I reference, maybe on a separate Project subpage, might be particularly useful. In any event, tell me what you think, and/or, if you so wish, add a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion or elsewhere to see if there might be any more interest. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John Carter, thank you for your support. I am currently really busy and won't be able to discuss via mobile phone currently. I will try ASAP to properly discuss it. Currently can only do quick reverts. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Editing (out my own stuff)

I only deleted my own material. If I accidentally deleted Scolaire's or someone else, that was in error. Btw, I am interested in a Gnostic discussion. Sahansdal (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahansdal It's obvious that you didn't click on any of the links from my warning. I'm going to explain this as clearly as I can, because you seem to not understand or even have read/heard of WP:TPO. Particularly in your case per WP:REDACT, the reason for this policy is for archiving discussions as historical referencing. If you tamper with someone's replies or your own, you will be accused of deceiving those who are involved or simply observing. This type of behavioral action is taken very seriously, and the Wikipedia community will pin you as an obvious disruptive user and most likely block you. Now that you know this, I'm going to revert you; and if you try in anyway to tamper again, I'll simply take you to ANI. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though you mean everything in good faith, it is not enough to ignore WP:TPO. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'm leaving Wiki. I can't own my own comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahansdal (talkcontribs) 18:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seven deadly Sins

For your information, I haven't replaced the links yet because I currently haven't found any alternative sources, and not because of any failure of understanding of mine. Gonzales John (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you know a possible source, I would greatly appreciate it if you told me; I'll be more than glad to replace the new advent citations.Gonzales John (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Recover by pages. ..why you remove it Dev4U (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/* About My page delete

Why you delete my pages. ...What's wrong with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev Dhawal (talkcontribs) 22:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


FWIW, see my comments here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again..

Hi JudeccaXIII, I just want you to know that Nerhoestebat is creating another hoax station again, implying to DWBB. Although I knew that you don't have any idea about our radio stations here in the Philippines, but to be honest, I never heard from GMA Network that they already launched an AM station in Baguio City. But when I found out that they didn't announce anything, I suspected it already that this is only invented by a user. Curently, I proposed a speedy deletion of it. I will let the others know. Thanks and regards. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamham31, the article should have been speedy deleted, does not meet nobility via no news or review sources at all, but the article was created a few months ago so... There are other encyclopedias of it but I believe this might be the same person recreating it on different encyclopedias. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: User:Jyotithesawant

Hello JudeccaXIII, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of User:Jyotithesawant, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G1 does not apply to pages in user namespace. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so Cain and Abel should NOT be considered mythical figures?

Why are we so reluctant to put "myth" in the Cain and Abel article while it is okay for us to say it in "Adam and Eve"? Are we trying to make this lighter for religious readers?Gonzales John (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this, for some reason I was not alerted for your message in my talk page. Gonzales John (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your note about the lack of citation on my emendation re. the Jonah article. I was editing the article's remark on the dates of Greek sources and the book of Jonah. The article as is assumes the book of Jonah predates the Greek sources by several centuries. That means a very early date for the book of Jonah. This date is not defended in the comment and should be. Most scholarship beginning with Sasson in his commentary on the book, or Bickerman, etc., think the book is relatively late, no matter the mention of Jonah in the book of Kings. One of the Greek sources is from the sixth century BC (the vase from Cerveteri), the others from the beginning of the 3d century BC and after, and it can be shown they carry an older tradition. So, that was my basis for correcting the misapprehension regarding dates.

Gildas Hamel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gweltaz (talkcontribs) 03:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Jujutsuan Could you please remove my username from your user page per WP:UP#POLEMIC. Thank you! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I hope you didn't take any offense at that. It was intended to be humorous. I'll take it down once I save this reply. Jujutsu (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 21:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jujutsuan No offense, but I feel uncomfortable about it as it might send a negative message to other editors who might be viewing your user page. I would recommend you remove the other's usernames as well or at least inform them. Thank you & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They were all linked, so they'll see it sooner or later, but if one (you) feels uncomfortable, the others are likely to as well. I'll remove the usernames but leave the list. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 21:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for those kind words. I won't take part in any discussion, but your thoughtfulness means a lot. All best. PiCo (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travels of Rabbi Petachia of Ratisbon

The source is cited: Travels of Rabbi Petachia of Ratisbon. The original post had a link to the Wikipedia page on Petachia of Ratisbon, which deals with the book of his travels (since that's what he's best known for). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaMonk (talkcontribs) 02:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LimaMonk, Wikipedia does not mirror Wiki articles as a source per WP:CIRC. Also, you must reference a source properly otherwise your edit will be defined as WP:OR. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other famous works referenced by name in the article are not referenced properly. At what point of note may a work be referred to without a reference to the work existing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaMonk (talkcontribs) 03:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LimaMonk, Do you have a source for your content or not? And clarify what is not properly sourced in the article? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Travels of Rabbi Petachia of Ratisbon. It's from whence the quote is derived. The Book of Ezekiel is not sourced at all, while Travels of Sir John Mandeville and several other references are only sourced second hand; no bibliographic information is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaMonk (talkcontribs) 03:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LimaMonk, You telling me "it's in Travels of Rabbi Petechia of Ratisbon" does not verify anything if you don't have a proper source such as a academic book like from Google Books. As for Ezekiel, it is sourced under Bøe, Sverre (2001). Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38-39 as pre-text for Revelation 19,17-21 and 20,7-10. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 9783161475207. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"a proper source such as a academic book like from Google Books"? Well, that pretty much explains it. If you want to pretend that you're engaged in something akin to real scholarship, be my guest. A source that is quoted is the source of that quote: I'm sorry that non-second hand scholarship confounds you.

It seems you need to delete the entire entry for Petachiah of Regensburg, since it only claims that the information it gives is in Travels of (Rabbi) Petachia of Ratisbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaMonk (talkcontribs) 04:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also 'As traveler and Friar Riccoldo da Monte di Croce put it in ca. 1291, "They say themselves that they are descended from Gog and Magog: and on this account they are called Mogoli, as if from a corruption of Magogoli.' from the Gog and Magog entry. No source given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaMonk (talkcontribs) 04:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about another article such as Petachiah of Regensburg, then it's obvious you can't stay on topic as we are talking about adding content to article: Gog and Magog. And you still haven't provided a link for proper sourcing per WP:V. Since you like to jump from topic to topic and can't provided proper sourcing, I'm going to assume disruptive behavior per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Page - Judith Prakash

Hello I'm SupCourt01 from the Supreme Court of Singapore. We are correcting some errors on the wiki pages of our Judges. Please do not undo the changes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupCourt01 (talkcontribs) 02:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupCourt01, your edit is unsourced and could possibly be vandalism. If you don't have a proper source, then your edits are to be considered disruptive. You could also face possible sanctions for switching from IP to your user account as this is against policy per WP:SOCK. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JudeccaXIII, the information is provided from the Judge herself and the source is available from our website [[4]]. I have taken note not to use multiple user accounts and will update using SupCourt01. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupCourt01 (talkcontribs) 02:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupCourt01 I read her short biography, but it does not indicate a name change to "de Cruz". — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. We did not include this information on our website as it is not required. However, since her maiden name is included in the wiki page, it is important that the information is accurate and updated. The source of the information is from Judge herself. Could you email me so that I can clarify this information? SupCourt01 (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)SupCourt01[reply]

SupCourt01 I have not provided any personal information for public use, and I will not provide my email. If it's not on the official website, you shouldn't make it a big deal on Wikipedia as editors edit on a volunteer time. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand, thank you. The first law firm she joined in 1975 is "Chor Pee and Hin Hiong" (source: http://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/about-us/the-supreme-court-bench/justices). Her maiden name should be "de Cruz" (source: http://www.swhf.sg/the-honourees/name/20-law/490-judith-prakash). I hope you can assist with the edits SupCourt01 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)SupCourt01[reply]

Mouse Trouble

I think it was a mistake. I wrote the name of the book Tom was reading. YoshiFan155 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YoshiFan155 We can't add unsourced content on Wiki, the style of the edit also looks disruptive with CAPITAL LETTERS in use. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if I write lowercase? YoshiFan155 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YoshiFan155 What is the source for your edit and I'll add it. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


this article about education academy and this news in newspaper--Mohamed1900q (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed1900q There is nothing wrong with the content so as long as it's not written in a form of a news article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello JudeccaXIII , in wikipedia there are guidelines for articles speak about education organization, it`s not good idea to add news in newspaper in article speak about any education organization, u know newspaper have more news ,who know this news valid or invalid! so i delete this news to make article more neutrality,thanks for ur understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed1900q (talkcontribs) 22:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, this discussion here, but I didn't say the content could be removed. Mohamed1900q What policy indicates the removal of the content? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Second pillar Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view

i wait to accept my edit,thanks--Mohamed1900q (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed1900q I have reverted your edit because I don't see how the content enforces someone's or group's personal views. Right now, I'm going to assume an attempt of censorship per WP:CENSOR until your provide a less obscured policy that applies to your reason of removal. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if u see any news in any newspaper can u add it in any university , see my speaking before--Mohamed1900q (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed1900q, editing about schools or universities is not in my interest, but policy is key to editing, and I don't see any policy for removing the content based on your reason to remove. There is no policy as far as I know that prohibits you from adding news articles as a source to universities as a key event. Just depends on the editor you engage is a dispute. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can u send request to wiki to remove it look http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected--Mohamed1900q (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

El Shorouk Academy

As I noted in my edit summary, primary sources, such as news reports, have no sense of historic significance: you need to find a secondary source that's not merely reporting the latest news. Encyclopedias rely on secondary sources, documents produced well after the event in question, to decide what's significant. Just-happened events reported in a newspaper may be important in the long run, or they may not be, but deciding that something reported in a primary source will be long-term significant, without depending on secondary sources, is a kind of any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. I hope this is obvious, but no source is reliable for a future event; a news report cannot reliably claim that its subject will become important in the future, so we rely on secondary sources because the decision that an event is long-term important has already been made. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend Is there any policy that supports your argument, so far, I, Grayfell have reverted User:Mohamed1900q for removing the content and you obviously know Naraht has reverted you as we find the content significantly important to the article. Side argument, removing the content would make the article less significant to keep on Wikipedia. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I quote WP:PRIMARY. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. By insisting that a primary source is sufficient for inclusion of something historical, you're interpreting the material as an indication that it's of long-term significance. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia not newspaper ,we are in encyclopedia .


Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view--Mohamed1900q (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion here: Talk:El Shorouk Academy#Student protests. That seems like a better place to continue this. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely.Naraht (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dechert

Hi - It is noteworthy that Dechert was the only CPC candidate to win in Mississauga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2222 (talkcontribs) 00:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orange2222, the edit was not sourced, so I can't confirm what you stated is true. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC process

Hi. I see you are the nominator for Gog and Magog as Featured Article. As nominator I think you're the person who will be expected to edit and each issue other commentators bring up, or argue against it. It doesnt look like PiCo is going to involve himself with fixing at this point.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My User page Reviewed

Why was my user page reviewed? and what does that mean? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffyroll11 Relieving work load for those who constantly patrol special pages usually involving new pages and pages that haven't been patrolled for any improvement, violations or speedy deletion tags per WP:NPPLOG. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gog and Magog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 10:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Better to continue this discussion here than at the noticeboard. I read the 3RR policy about the consecutive edits thing, the way the sentence was composed, at least to me (English not my primary language), I did not understood that consecutive edits don't constitute more than one revert. Fine, my bad, I can try talking to him more. But I ask now, taking into account the editors past behavior (like I explained at the noticeboard) of being hostile and uncivil towards fellow editors, and constantly edit warring, and considering all of this his medal, what do you suggest if he takes the same tone again (mocking me and insulting as he already did)? What is your advice? If he makes more reverts of my edits, and does this time violated 3RR, should I report him or do something else? EkoGraf (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf I would start a discussion at the article's talk page concerning the revert. Be patient, sometimes editors take their time to respond because they really don't want to discuss things ASAP. If the editor takes too long to respond, ping him/her. If no response after a while, go ahead and revert. If the editor comes back to revert you, most likely they will discuss then. If they are still ignore you, take them to WP:ANI and explain your situation. If they do respond in the discussion, maintain civility per WP:CIVIL even if they don't. If he/she starts to do personal attacks, comely warn them in the discussion via WP:PA policy. If they continue to do personal attacks, take them to WP:ANI for their behavior. — 19:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I started a discussion at the article's talk page, pinged him, as well as several other editors involved in editing that and other related articles. I also made an edit as an attempt at compromise. I added two further sources confirming the figure he's been removing (since he claimed no other media outlets reported the number), and also reinstated the older/outdated figures in the casualties section, noting they are older and contrary to the newer ones I left at the top of the section. I elaborated that the 2007 and 2009 figures showed a much larger number of dead PKK, but, one of the older figures for 2012 already showed a revised down number (which would seem to be in line with the newest 2015 number). EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EkoGraf, Wait patiently, the editor hasn't been online since the reverts. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you.


It is a disputable idea that Creation is a narrative. There are many great scientists that would conclude that the Creation account seems most accurate for the findings they have from the material in which they have studied that have lead them to their conclusions. It is merely speculation to define it as a narrative or as a myth. If you define the information as an "account" rather than a "myth" validity is restored to centrism and gives proper balance to any biased belief that may be expressed by an editor.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User: Despite your argument, sourced content is more reliable that your beliefs per WP:OR. If you're going to continue to dispute this, go to the article's talk page and do it. Otherwise, stop removing sourced content. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzales John

You might not have noticed he's been blocked as a sock - again. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller Thanks for letting me know but blocked for only 3 months?...that was a bit nice, especially since you had blocked him before for sock puppetry. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was lucky. I doubt he can stop himself from socking again. Hm, let me know if you think you spot him. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller Suspected IP sock is editing again. It's funny how this IP stopped editing as soon as Gonzales John was blocked. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with it. He keeps renaming the Seven Deadly Sins to what he thinks they should be called. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)\[reply]
Have a good break. GJ has been blocked indefinitely. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller, I'm back, you should tag his user page as a sock master...for clarification. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18 U.S.C. § 1470- Transfer of obscene material to minors

Unless Wiki has a notice about the content being for adults only then I am in the legal right to remove the pornographic painting. Chachaching (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Well done on reverting those disruptive edits. :) The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 03:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackninja5 Thanks, I appreciate it...it's a never ending battle. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 03:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Acts of Shmona and of Gurya

Hello! Your submission of Acts of Shmona and of Gurya at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JudeccaXIII. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had to undo your edit. Reinstating a removed prod is not allowed in general, per WP:PROD. Thanks. Lourdes 03:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


How can I correct someone's wrong height? I know some celebrities their is wrong on wikipedia. So plz tell me how can I correct it? Hamza4488 (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IP

Hello, the range that IP is in has been responsible for an astonishing amount of abuse on Wikipedia, which is why I blocked it. You got the new messages alert for the IP address because a message had been posted on its talk page. Graham87 07:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 11 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An undid revision on Exodus

You very soon have undid a reversion of mine on the Exodus page. I had discussed this reversion on the Talk Page before I went through with it, and it basically sums up to this: The quotation says that exodus research has been abandoned as a "fruitless pursuit", and the quotation goes to 2001. This is abysmally false, and I've shown that exodus research has most definitely not been abandoned, by citing published papers on various aspects of the exodus, as well as an international archaeological conference devoted to the exodus itself in 2013 that discusses numerous aspects of the exodus. I have even made the user who added that quote, PiCo, admit that "some" researchers continue to conduct a scholarly pursuit of the exodus. Therefore, by the very admission of the person who added in the quote, ongoing exodus research pertains in academia and that is why I reverted the addition of this quote which is blatantly false and violates Wikipedia:Fringe theories as no archaeologist would pretend (other than William Dever, the guy who made that quote) that exodus research has quite literally ceased in the scholarly community. Funnily enough, William Dever himself participated in the 2013 international archaeological conference on the exodus. So I think you made a mistake in undoing my revert, please remove your undo.Korvex (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Korvex: As interesting as this sounds, the content PiCo added was sourced and consensus wasn't reached in the discussion. What makes it worse, you had issues previously in the same article concerning "Avaris" which the community has denied your sources. And this new message you've sent are so far claims until you provide sources instead of just saying "research has most definitely not been abandoned" which is a claim as well. And please keep the discussion in the articles talk page, not mine. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sargon of Akkad the youtuber

Thank you for addressing my edit in detail.

I would argue that the inclusion of the youtuber is relevant to the page, because it is an example of a modern usage of the name and Carl's following is large enough (500k subs)[2] that when I visited the page in my own time I was surprised not to see a single reference to him.

I am very new to Wikipedia, so perhaps I have taken a little TOO much initiative. How would I go about to get Sargon mentioned on the page, if you are willing to help me?

Would it be better just to make a new page and link it?


~~AMassiveNerd~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMassiveNerd (talkcontribs) 01:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of Sharbel

Hi JudeccaXIII, you made an enquiry about improving the lead of Acts of Sharbel. What do you think needs improving? The lead looks fine to me, summarising the contents and including appropriate links; the only problem I can see with it is that the time periods of the two monarchs mentioned appear to be far apart (AD 98-117 and 177-212). You probably don't need this but MOS:LEAD gives a lot of guidance about lead writing: Noyster (talk), 14:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noyster Currently, the lead doesn't summarize the whole article other than the narrative of the subject. Someone added "200 AD" just a few days ago next to Abgar's name which I'll be removing after this replie. Every article I've created, the LEAD doesn't summarize everything as I'm horrible when it comes to leads. Thnx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really wouldn't worry about summarizing everything in the lead; you can't touch on every fact and figure you put in the whole article! The lead is just a brief introduction. It does its job if it quickly informs the reader who wants to know "What on earth were the Acts of Sharbel? What sort of things will this article tell me about them? Is it worth my while to read further?" As a rough guide I try to keep my leads to no more than 10% the word count of the article. Anyway good work creating all those articles: Noyster (talk), 16:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noyster I appreciate your input, and I'll trust what you said and leave the lead alone. Thnx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sargon of Akkad returns

See my revert here. I'd say it's certainly spam. Glad I saw the earlier mention on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller You think the account could be a possible sock? Or just a fanatic follower? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the latter. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of authenticity of religious text

While there are certain article, and some might be deemed scholarly, concerning the denial of Jews plight from Egypt, why would someone take the time to enjoy these? Why wouldn't a person simply say that Genesis is incorrect as the Big Bang is more likely? The reason? It hurts Jews. I really believe that is the clear motivation for pushing such discussion. One has to ask, with the Holocaust, and two millennia of absolute horror of treatment, haven't the Jews had enough?

I say, calm these edits. Doesn't our country have enough Mel Gibsons (one)?

I seriously doubt readers of the Bible take things literally (at least most don't). And I've read two sides of the "scholarly" literature indicating that the march from Egypt appears real.

Unless one has all the time in the world to constantly belittle Jews, and I don't think any reasonable person should, allow the edit to stand, and allow those who read the Bible to enjoy it.

Budfolk, Wikipedia does NOT care for how you feel, only sourced facts. If you have some sort of agenda, then Wikipedia isn't for you. Please read Wiki policy before editing such as WP:NOTJudeccaXIII (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus the Great

HI, I changed the name Persia to Iran on some pages concerning Cyrus the Great, Avicenna ect.. The name Persia is outdated and has fell into comparative disuse. It has been over 80 years since the Iranian government requested those countries which it had diplomatic relations with, to call Persia "Iran," which is the name of the country in Persian.

So, I'm wondering given this information why you found my edit not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please start a discussion at the articles talk page. Thank you! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leviticus 19

Hello, JudeccaXIII. I noticed that you showed up at Leviticus 19, which I've worked on lately. Basically, I've done this [5] to it. There was a "structure" section which simply copied chapter headings from a popular Bible translation, and I replaced it with a terse and brief summary of the contents. If you're at all familiar with the back story on most of these chapter articles, there's a few hundred of them, and they're one of the things I'd like to work on. I'd also like to make sure my approach doesn't contain a systematic mistake which will screw up hundreds of articles. I figured you'd be the person to ask given your recent interest in the primary/secondary source balance of biblical articles.

For article's where there already exists a "structure" section that is nothing but copied chapter headings, does replacing it with a summary of about that length strike you as appropriate -- as at least a step in the right direction? I say this because there's a couple hundred articles where the "structure section" needs replaced. My thought is to produce these tiny little chapter summaries, and then if there's any question at all of neutrality, I'd pull out any text anyone objects to and then replace that specific summary with stuff culled from Google books.

It might sound like a small thing, but since whatever I do I will probably do 200-300 times, I want to get this right. In the long run, of course, I'd like these single-chapter articles to lean much more heavily on reliable sources, but I feel a little like a nurse in a war doing triage on these things. Is the production of little paragraphs like that one a step in the right direction?

For convenience, this is the paragraph I'm talking about:

<<The chapter begins with God giving Moses a message for the Israelites about the need to be holy, to respect parents, and to avoid idolatry (verses 1-4). Next are instructions for peace offerings (5-8), food aid for poor people and foreigners (9-10), and various instructions relating to ethical treatment of others (11-18) and agricultural practices (19). The chapter regulates sex between masters and slaves (20-22), as well the use of fruit from young trees (23-25). The chapter closes with a variety of other regulations on several subjects (26-36) and a general instruction to obey all of God's commands (37).>>Alephb (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alephb Gospel of John Gospel_of_John#Structure_and_contentis a good example of what you probably want. I recommend a commentary source for sourcing the "structure" of the chapter. Of course you can put in biblical verses, just not as a reference/citation unless you really have to. When you do use Google Books, avoid self-publishers such as Lulu.com and I forgot the other self-publishing website. I hope this kind of answers your question.— JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Template to Joseph1100

I read the dispute resolution request filed by User:Joseph1100 which complained among other things that their edits to Gospel of Thomas were reverted. I have looked into the dispute. On the one hand, you were mostly correct. They were making contentious edits, some of which were unsourced and some of which were sourced to what looks like a fringe book. Unsourced controversial edits have no place, and we know that fringe sources should be used only as fringe content, and only after discussion. It should have been the responsibility of Joseph1100 to discuss the edits, and they haven't discussed them. On the other hand, my thought is that your use of the Level 4 Final Warning template for original research on a very inexperienced editor who had only made a few edits was harsh. In the future, please consider giving an inexperienced editor a less severe warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

modification on gospel of the hebrews

Hello. I have noticed that you reverted my "citation needed" on this page. I put them here because an anonymous user changed drasticly the introduction of the article 21 may 2017. But he didnt change the rest of the article. Do you thinks his modifications are justified ?

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edits from May 21, thanks for clarifying that. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox edits

Thank you so much for showing up and doing all that work! That's amazing--I am still a little in awe of how the Wiki community steps up and helps each other out. I am still learning here, so I hope you don't mind if I ask some questions. If they are stupid questions I apologize up front. I hope I can hang in here long enough for them to become stupid questions to me too! Anyway, I saw the blue-highlighted page numbers in my references but they didn't look any different, so I don't understand what changed. Thank you for all of this. I don't know how much of it will finally get moved into the article, but it will be good to have all these ducks in a row if that ever happens! So one of the things i was corrected for before was something called bare-urls's--which is a bad thing to have I guess--and I was told to put all the author info etc in with them--but I saw you edited out a couple of url's--and I am totally baffled by whatever difference there might be that made that a good thing to do! All the rules about referencing are a little hard to keep straight here at the start!

This was written with the intent of using it in the"Bible and violence" article that already exists but has problems. I have some comments on the talk page and have edited one section--"Against Violence" under the Hebrew Bible section that I would love any comment you felt like making. Again--thanx for this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777, please read WP:UCB. Happy editing & Cheers!. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went and changed my preferences as suggested--it sounds like it will be a huge help and a big time saver. Thank you for this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Daniel


I did initally post a theory for the dating of daniel's book with plenty of reference work, but it was removed by someone. that was several edits ago. I did the same thing twice more. But each time it's overwritten by the same person. So I tried to leave a more detailed explanation simply from scripture which I believe you removed. Finally I have tried to leave a more simplistic statement, again, just from scripture. We will see if that is acceptable, but if you think it would be better, I will leave the more heavily referenced post.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramzinicholas (talkcontribs) 21:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzinicholas Yes, I saw your sources previously reverted by another editor because he/she deemed it unreliable and I agree. Yet you still continued to re-add the content which I reverted. Then you added larger content with no proper source (none at all really). So I assume the content I've been reverting is your own personal research which is not permitted in Wikipedia per WP:OR. If you're going to continue adding unsourced content to the article without discussion at the articles talk page, then the chance of you getting blocked are very high. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


As you can see in my current edit, there are very clear references. Do you have an issue with that? Ramzinicholas (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzinicholas You obviously didn't read my previous response. History.com is not a reliable source, and the edit entirely is based on your personal research. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. John C. Reeves, Dr. R.S. Rennie, Westminster University, Roisman & Worthington, and DeadSeaScrolls.Org are not "my research." I have stated factual evidence from the research provided by these sources. These are scholarly resources that I have used for university assignments, accepted by my professors. Surely you do not stand to contend with the gentlemen who are doctors and professors here at Westminster University... Who do you think you are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramzinicholas (talkcontribs) 22:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Exodus

The dispute on The Exodus has gone to dispute resolution, and we would welcome your comments there. [3] Tatelyle (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]