User talk:Darimoma

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

This is about your removal ""Therefore, an antichrist opposes Christ by substituting himself for Christ." The source previously given for for this is the Strongs Dictionary, url listed under the references as http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G473&t=KJV . The footnotes for this reference appears shortly before the sentance you removed. The Strongs definition of the Greek word "anti" is "1) over against, opposite to, before 2) for, instead of, in place of (something)" is sufficient." This is not original research, nor my own musings. In addition, I distinctly remember the same explanation when reading a theological publication some time ago.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked out the sources, and I've removed the sentence again. The issues I have with it are:

the use of "therefore"

the encyclopedic source given is a Lutheran text, and so its claims may not be accepted by all mainstream interpretations of antichrists.

Darimoma (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if you look in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Antichrist, you will find things like "In composition anti has different meanings: antibasileus denotes a king who fills an interregnum; antistrategos, a propraetor; anthoupatos, a proconsul; in Homer antitheos denotes one resembling a god in power and beauty, while in other works it stands for a hostile god. Following mere analogy one might interpret antichristos as denoting one resembling Christ in appearance and power" and "since Antichrist simulates Christ, and the Pope is an image of Christ, Antichrist must have some similarity to the Pope, if the latter be the true Vicar of Christ." This is essentially in agreement with "an antichrist opposes Christ by substituting himself for Christ".

Also, the general mainline Protestant ISB Encyclopedia notes "From the fact that the seer endows the Beast that comes out of the earth with "two horns like unto a lamb" (Revelation 13:11), the apostle must have had in his mind some system of teaching that resembled Christianity" and "Hippolytus, who has a special work on the subject, in which he exhibits the points of resemblance between Christ and Antichrist (On Christ and Antichrist, 4.14.15. 19.25)."

Perhaps you'd prefer something like "The Antichrist, though in opposition to Christ, resembles him in a deceptive manner." That would be fine with me. The problem is that nearly everyone knows that the Antichrist is/will oppose Christ, since oppose is part of the modern English meaning of anti. But the illegitimate replacement/imitation/resemblance aspect present in the ancient Greek is overlooked from a simple cursory glance at the word.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a decent resolution. I've changed the page to go along with your suggestion, using your suggested sources. Darimoma (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was off of Wikipedia for a while, so I just saw this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citation requests in Anglicanism

You added a number of citation tags into the Anglicanism article - relating to theories of the "via media", and to Catholic and Protestant traditions within Anglicanism. There is much in the article that does need cited references, but this particualr issue is discussed and fully cited in the section on theories of Anglican identity. I have therefore removed most of your tags - see the advice in Template:Fact on judicious use of the fact tag, in order to avoid accusations of "drive-by tagging". I hope you have no objection. TomHennell (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks - I wasn't aware of said policy. Darimoma (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liopleurodon

Just to let you know that I've asked two administrators to look into the Charlie the Unicorn business in the Liopleurodon article. Not sure what the reasons behind you being so adamant to include it in the article even going to the extent of breaking the WP:3RR rule, but an administrator should be able to decide if your edit is legitimate or not and end a pointless edit war. Thank you for your cooperation. ArthurWeasley (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put my thoughts on the talk page. As far as I'm aware I didn't break 3RR. Darimoma (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a violation of WP:3RR to me. Don't do it again, please. Discuss on the talk page like a rational adult. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go

Hello, Darimoma. You have new messages at Bigger digger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey Darimoma, I am sorry to learn that you are leaving wikipedia and I am sorry to have unintentionally hurt you feelings by some of my comments on the Liopleurodon talk page. I still don't understand why it was so important for you to insert a comment on Charlie in the Liopleurodon article. May be you are a big fan of it. Whatever your reasons I wish you well for the future. Cheers! ArthurWeasley (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Simon Darby

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]