User talk:Editor2020

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
15		Christian observances of Yom Kippur (talk)	Add sources
1,519		Names of God in Judaism (talk)	Add sources
281		Ecofascism (talk)	Add sources
303		Euthyphro dilemma (talk)	Add sources
16		Naftali Rothenberg (talk)	Add sources
214		Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament (talk)	Add sources
130		Nimbarka Sampradaya (talk)	Cleanup
30		Catholic Church in the 20th century (talk)	Cleanup
64		Hugues Felicité Robert de Lamennais (talk)	Cleanup
162		Herodian dynasty (talk)	Expand
73		Church of God (Seventh-Day) (talk)	Expand
70		Kirchenkampf (talk)	Expand
865		Religious views of Adolf Hitler (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,137		Jurisprudence (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
42		James K. A. Smith (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
386		Christian views on sin (talk)	Merge
110		Focolare Movement (talk)	Merge
300		Apostolic Age (talk)	Merge
67		Black rot (grape disease) (talk)	Wikify
8		Michael Thomsett (talk)	Wikify
472		Revelation (talk)	Wikify
25		Green Dragon (order) (talk)	Orphan
7		Passing the river (talk)	Orphan
3		Yoshinobu Miyake (religionist) (talk)	Orphan
26		Herod of Chalcis (talk)	Stub
8		Rudolf Buttmann (talk)	Stub
8		Deltavjatia (talk)	Stub
11		Lann Hornscheidt (talk)	Stub
18		Adevism (talk)	Stub
48		Aristobulus IV (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Time for a break

Contending with the stupidity is bringing me down. Time to take a break. Editor2020 (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope that you take a well deserved break, then that you eventually come back. Thank you for your precious contributions, —PaleoNeonate – 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I second the wishes and the thanks by Paleo above. Hope to see you back soon, well refreshed and full of editing energy again. Thank you! warshy ^(¥¥) 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Editor2020, You are quite welcome! Glad i could help. GeorgeV73GT GeorgeV73GT (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Pauline epistles

Hi, in the Pauline epistles article you removed the sentence "although it's possible that Paul first collected his letters for publication himself" as unsourced. The source for this is Trobisch in the work cited at the end of the paragraph. This is from the article Marcionism#Recent scholarship:

David Trobisch, a New Testament scholar and curator of The Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., argues that comparison of the oldest manuscripts of Paul’s letters show evidence that several epistles had been previously assembled as an anthology and published separate from the New Testament, and this anthology as a whole was then incorporated into the New Testament. Trobisch further argues for Paul as the assembler of his own letters for publication.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Trobisch |first1=David |title=Paul’s Letter Collection |year=2001 |publisher=Quiet Water Publications |isbn=978-0-96639667-6}}</ref>

Could the sentence be re-instated? Perhaps reworded to make it clearer that Trobisch is the source. - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted. Editor2020 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

- thank you. Although I was concerned that the idea was not accepted by the majority of scholars and could be considered WP:FRINGE - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I just couldn't tell it was covered by the later source. Editor2020 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Why you convert?

Editor2020 why you connvert Meetei to Meitei. They have different meanings .Likewise Manipuri and Meitei. Awangba Mangang (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Meetei redirects to Meitei people. Please revert me if I changed incorrectly. Editor2020 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory lead RfC

Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Leviv ich 06:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Pandeism

You seem to know what’s what, and recently involved in Deism. An anon is complaining of Deism content being in Catholic Church and Pandeism. A second proposes expanding the page to one on “Catholic Church and Deism.” Discussion is at talk. What would you do? If you think it should be moved and restructured, propose it and I won’t oppose. Trust your judgement. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm flattered by your trust in me, but I'm no expert in either Pandeism or Catholicism. I would support a separate Catholic Church and Deism article, as I think that there is a significant difference in the concepts of Deism and Pandeism. Editor2020 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Deism already exists as a redirect to Catholic Church and Pandeism, so we need to review the content and history. A restoration of the article may be called for. Editor2020 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you have been there already. Editor2020 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I've had a chance to look at the articles now. Since there is no previous article at the redirect Catholic Church and Deism, and there doesn't seem to be much information at Catholic Church and Pandeism that can be moved to the redirect, I don't see how an article can be written, so I'd leave it as is. If you think you can write a well referenced article, go for it. Editor2020 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate your taking the time. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Pauline Christianity

Glad you appreciate this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You've improved that article tremendously. Editor2020 (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

History of Israel

Hi Editor2020! I hope you're having a good day and that life is treating you well. :-) I just wanted to let you know that I've moved History of the Land of Israel back to its original title, History of Israel. We typically want to hold discussions and get input and consensus before we move pages like this. It's especially necessary given the fact that this article falls under a topic where discretionary sanctions are authorized by the Arbitration Committee (see this page for details). We need to be careful with taking actions unilaterally such as this, and we then need to be extra careful on top of that due to the ArbCom remedies in place. No worries, and no harm done; it was simple and easy to move back and nobody is going to come after you about it. ;-) I just wanted to take the time and message you about this so that you're aware and can keep this in mind when considering making page moves in the future. When in doubt, Wikipedia:Requested moves is the right answer. ;-) If you have any questions, concerns, or wish to discuss this with me further, please don't hesitate to let me know (just ping me in your response here), and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Thanks for listening to my message, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It was a BOLD edit, sorry if you feel it did not improve the article. Thanks for your thoughtful message. Editor2020 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

RE: Religious male circumcision

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Religious male circumcision. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.

1) Edits to the page offered additional clarity to the significance of circumcision among Abrahamic religions. Previously, the Christian position was equivocated with that of Jewish and Muslims.

2) Your justification "Blatant non-neutral Christian POV" is unjustified. In fact, the edits did not reflect in any way, positively or negatively with respect to the other religions.

3) As a compromise, I will REVIEW and reconsider my edits, however; further stymieing will be reported unless you offer a thoughtful and researched response.

4) You have a history of hostile edits and this damages your credibility.

Respectfully, Dayton C.

Hotpass105 (talk)hotpass105

You added the new material and I deleted it. Now we are supposed to discuss it per WP:BRD. If you wish to discuss why your version is better, please do so at the article's talk page. Editor2020 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Eckankar rollback

Please explain this edit. If you follow the source reference link, my edit was correct. --LilHelpa (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake. Editor2020 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Avestan daeva and Persian div

They both mean demon. Why did you revert it? The semantic shift is universal among Iranian languages. Kwékwlos (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You need a reference. Editor2020 (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

ThomasJamesGodfrey rollback

Please explain this edit in more detail. You reverted a number of my edits, all rolled into one to avoid generating excessive revisions, each one of which must involve overhead that costs Wikipedia something. Your terse edit summary ("That's what the reference say, which is what we follow") paints all of those edits with a broad brush, and even the little you said is debatable. Your use of Twinkle suggests that you imagine my edits amounted to vandalism. They certainly did not. I am fully committed to following Wikipedia policies. Let’s talk this over before I try again. My goal is to identify legitimate issues, correct any real problem with my earlier attempt, and boldly improve the Book of Joshua article.

Let’s start with the first word in your summary (“That’s”). Too vague. We cannot evaluate your terse claim in detail until we both know what you are talking about.

I assume you questioned one of the places where I wanted to avoid presenting as fact what is still only scholarly speculation about ancient history. Once we have identified a specific statement of concern, you may be able to point me to the place where the source actually positions it as a fact, not as expert speculation about what actually happened. Obviously, if the source does not overreach, Wikipedia has no business promoting what is actually speculation to the status of a fact, thereby confusing readers.

Let’s move on to consider the rest of your summary (“... which is what we follow”). Suppose the source does overreach and presents as a fact what is actually only expert speculation. Is Wikipedia really obligated to endorse this? If so, please point me to the corresponding policy statement that covers this idea. I am a relatively new editor, so I may well have missed it. Intuitively, in a case like this, I think our article should clearly attribute the claim to the proper source authority (for example, “Jerome F. D. Creach claimed that ...”), shifting responsibility for its accuracy from Wikipedia to where it belongs.

Please help me develop edits, similar to the ones I made yesterday, that will be acceptable and not be legitimately reverted. I assume that you have the right attitude about this and are willing to extend to me the same benefit of the doubt. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Editor2020: Should we discuss this here or over on the article's talk page? It's your call. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I've already asked this editor to use the talk page. He's adding Gerald Aardsma[1] to articles. So far as I can see Aardma's idea about radiocarbon dating are not taken seriously in the scientific community. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You added/changed the article. I objected to it. Now per WP:BRD we discuss it on the article's Talk page until the interested editors of the article reach WP:CONSENSUS. Editor2020 (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

TamusJRoyce

This user has been reported for malicious changes. TamusJRoyce (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit_warring

• Despite (or because of!) my being an elder of a Quaker meeting the two articles, dispensationalist theology and hyperdispensationalism that TamusJRoyce has touched today leave me absolutely cold - utterly boring. Please look at dispensationalist theology and review TamusJ's edis. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:RHaworth, do you mind if I redirect Dispensationalist theology to Dispensationalism? There doesn't seem to be much content sourced to reliable sources at Dispensationalist theology. I placed a comment there about a merger there on 14 April 2018 but have received no response. Editor2020 (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Do whatever you like. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:RHaworth, No one who is a Pauline Dispensationalist will accept being called a "hyper" or "ultra" dispensationalist. Given, I was not born when those meetings and this term was coined, I was not able to attend. That does not give anyone authorization to persecute the Grace Movement or Pauline Dispensationalism by using this term. If you were offended or persecuted by pauline dispensationalist, take it out on them. I won't attack all Quakers or whatever denomination you happen to be are because of your ignorance and hatred.

There are many, many false claims backed by false references. Pauline Dispensationalist do believe in water baptism. Just as most people believe socks exist. It's biblical. It is in the bible. It exists. We just don't practice water baptism. Because Baptism is something you go through to form the identity of Christ within you. If that happens, who cares if it is water baptism or baptism without hands. It is the purpose that matters. And there are lots of types of Baptism in the bible.

Scenario: Someone is on their death bed. They accept Christ and his blood on the cross as their savior. But they pass away before they could be water baptized. Did they die with the identity of Christ in them? Pauline Dispensationalist believe they were. When I was Methodist, I asked this very same question. And they said, in that specific scenario, yes as well.

My point is, there are many, many moot points denominations fight over.

btw, than you for combining the two articles! It would be best if Hyperdispensationalism was changed to Pauline Dispensationalism and merged in there as well. As there is no reason to single out any form of dispensationalism unless you single out all forms of dispensationalism.

Also, the word "dispensation" only appears in Pauls Apostles. It makes sense that anyone including that biblical word in their doctrine, would have doctrine from Pauls Apostles. Thus possibly being a Pauline Dispensationalist. This falls in line perfectly with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity you have linked in the article.

I will continue to work with Wikipedia and the community to get that article removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.18.87 (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

AfD - Names and titles of God in the New Testament

Names and titles of God in the New Testament has been nominated for deletion. As this is an article you may have an interest in, you are invited to comment at [2]. PiCo (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Your input might be useful at Talk:List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

Hey. For what reason did you remove sourced information like the status of Yezidis in Georgia and why did you readd unsourced information?[3] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

There are various problems with your group of edits. You need to explain them on the article's Talk Page, per WP:BRD. See you there. –Editor2020 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I am open to your possible changes. Editor2020 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert of Y cohanim edit

Why did you do that? You have reverted to huge mistake clearly written in the bible as I have cited. This w as obviously wrong of youto do. Snfdfk (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The Book of Kings is not a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE on Wikipedia.Editor2020 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Young Earth creationism from Cryptozoology

Back in May you quietly removed the Young Earth creationism category from cryptozoology ([4]). The article has a significant and well-referenced section focused exactly on this topic. I've just restored it. A reminder: Wikipedia isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Not trying to censor, just couldn't think of a connection. But since there is a section, I guess you are right. Editor2020 (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed sentence from Jerusalem article

I saw you removed the sentence "When the Assyrians conquered the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, Jerusalem was strengthened by a great influx of refugees from the northern kingdom." from the Jerusalem article.[5] Don't you think that sentence is relevant and interesting to this article? Debresser (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I though it was off-topic and interfered with the narrative flow at that location, but if you think it is needed, please restore it. Editor2020 (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I do think it is needed, as it is a step between the Israelites and the Kingdom of Judah. But I also agree with you that it doesn't flow well. Perhaps you could solve this elegantly better than I can. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Torah scroll: the Pentateuch, and nothing more!

Hi 2020. Please, PLEASE, do not remove the only sentence that explains explicitly what a Torah scroll contains: the Pentateuch, not the entire Hebrew Bible (sometimes also called Torah); and this belongs at the very beginning of the lead. More on Talk:Sefer_Torah. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Chrisian views on Alcohol

Hello, given the nature of alcohol and the evidence submitted of clergy urging Christians to abstain, I feel the opening summary of the page "Christian views on Alcohol" should include mention of this view happening during that time in history, given how the article currently opens in contradiction to that evidence. Without that mention, the article gives an impression that there was only one, differing view with alcohol for Christians, that abstaining generally didn't happen. The article already mentions in the early church section an example that contradicts this view from Clement of Alexandria (died c. 215) who wrote in a chapter about drinking that he admired the young and the old who "abstain wholly from drink," who adopt an austere life and "flee as far as possible from wine, shunning it as they would the danger of fire." He strongly warned youth to "flee as far as possible" from it so as not to inflame their "wild impulses." He said Christ did not teach affected by it. "...the soul itself is wisest and best when dry."

Because of this evidence (and further evidence I've submitted that contradicts the current opening assumption of the article) I believe the opening summary (and a few small tweaks to a couple other statements in the article that reference the view held in the opening summary) should be restated to include the view presented with the evidence submitted. I also feel there should be some mention of the evidence of abstinence that happened between the period of the early church and the 19th century as there were churches during that time who professed abstaining from alcohol. I've added an example with the Brethren Church who professed a statement of abstinence after the reformation, but before the 19th century movement towards abstaining.

Editor2020 please consider this evidence and reasoning submitted and please let me know if you are ok to include my edits in the article given this context?

Thank you, Statescontributor