User talk:Epinoia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Accidental revert

I accidentally reverted your edit, but I fixed it. Sorry. Sundayclose (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

– no problem – cheers – Epinoia (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hey how do I talk to you? I'm new to editing on wikipedia. I think you are wrong. Are you Chinese? Any eight year old native chinese speaker could tell you that 老子 literally will translate to Old One. It's asking for the literal translation. Anyways I don't know how to contact you on wikipedia. Let me know - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talk • contribs)

@Henryhe43: – a personal knowledge of Chinese is not a reliable source – see WP:VERIFY – "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - can you provide a citation to a reliable Chinese-English dictionary to support your translation? – also, please do not edit war (see WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR) – if you feel your edits are justified and that you can support them with citations to reliable sources (see WP:RS), then please discuss them on the article Talk page (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for help) – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

– as a reference, Encyclopædia Britannica says, "Laozi, (Chinese: “Master Lao” or “Old Master”)" – see the Britannica article here – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Henryhe43: – I started a discussion on this on the article Talk page – Talk:Laozi#Old Master or Old One? – you can participate in the discussion there – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Epinoia Thank you for your advice and offer. I will certainly avail myself of any help offered - especially from experienced veterans a you. My hope is to contribute to improved and updated scholarly substantiation of the articles I focus on (an area that needs a lot of improvement). Whenever the reference in question is a list of suggested books on the subject of the article, I will do my best to follow your suggestion. However, in many of the citations I submit, the items apply to the segment or sentence at hand (not to the article as a whole) and many are journal articles, not books. Either way, I will follow your lead. BTW, does Wikipedia have an ISBN search function? :A19470822 ( (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@A19470822: – it's helpful if you keep your citations specific to the content – all content must be verifiable (see WP:VERIFY) and if you provide sources without full information (including page numbers) it is impossible for other editors to verify the content – and use a minimum of sources, one is usually enough to verify the information (see WP:OVERCITE) – information on how to add books and journals can be found at WP:CITEHOW – also avoid combining information from many sources (see WP:SYNTHESIS) – any Wikipedia article will provide examples of proper citations, just find a sentence that ends with a citation number (such as [7]) and click on the number to be taken to the ref – you will find that the ref directly supports the content – other reference books that are not used to directly support content can be added to the Further Reading section (see Wikipedia:Further reading and MOS:FURTHER) – do not use lists of books as citations – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

– a few other guidelines to keep in mind are WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:CHOPSY, WP:RS/AC, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT, WP:TONE and WP:FRINGE – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A19470822 - Your objection to my postings in: Jewish Christian

I apologize. Being "disruptive" is the opposite of my intention. I submitted several times the same posting because, in my mind, I thought I was improving upon my previous submissions. I have done my best to figure out your opposition to this posting. Could you please describe in plain language your objection to it? This would go a long way to helping me improve my work. I have found that if the rejection or objection is cryptic, it is often very hard for me to decipher and understand what needs correcting. Thank you. And, again, my apologies. I am trying my best.A19470822 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A19470822 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@A19470822: – your edits are becoming disruptive because you continue to add lists of books (without complete information such as publisher, location, page number, etc.) as inline citations when you have been asked not to do so by myself and other editors (see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) and been advised multiple times of the appropriate guidelines to follow – Wikipedia has set formats for citations as described in WP:CITE, WP:ILC and other guidelines – you have repeatedly ignored the guidelines in the formatting of your edits – if you are having difficulty understanding or following the guidelines you can ask for help from other editors or at the Teahouse WP:TEA – if you have an edit but are unsure of the formatting you can post it on the article Talk page and ask for input from other editors before adding it to the article – continuing to add improper edits may become edit warring WP:EDITWAR – if you are truly interested in improving articles, the best way is to follow Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:HERE and WP:NOTHERE) – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I got it. Will do. Thank you. A19470822 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A19470822 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A19470822

It is quite overwhelming….Trying to do my best... I think that I am on the right track... Just a bit of patience... I hope that tomorrow I will have the Hebrews edit ready for resubmission. I figured out everything, I think, other than "LOCATION" Can you help? Where / how do I find that? I cannot find that info anywhere and most reference do not seem to include it. Thanks A19470822 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A19470822 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@A19470822: – Location is where the book was published, for example HarperCollins is in New York; Prentice Hall is in Eaglewood Cliffs (NJ); Random House is in New York; Oxford University Press is in Oxford – if you have the physical book you can find the location either at the bottom of the title page or in the front matter on the back of the title page (where you will usually also find the publication date and the ISBN) – if there is no location in the book, usually you can do an internet search for the publisher and find their address on their website – journals do not need a location – instructions for citing various sources can be found in the Wikipedia:Citing sources article –

– if you use the {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} templates you can fill in the blanks: {{cite book |last= |first= |author-link= |date= |title= |url= |location= |publisher= |page= |isbn=}} – there are instructions on the Template:Cite book or Template:Cite journal page on what to do if there are multiple authors or editors – some information, such as author-link or url can be left blank if unavailable – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Epinoia2:

Thanks! Greatly appreciated. A19470822 (talk)

Thank you for your observations on my edit ( 12:19, 12 June 2020 diff hist +1,894‎ Gospel of Mark ‎ →‎Setting: Adding )

Thank you for your observations on my edit. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the following points.

(1) Sorry, I failed to indicate that the segment is a quotation of the author's work, not my opinion. I can correct that. (2) This work is a highly acclaimed recent work and is available free, online (follow the link). (3) Both of these works are part of the current mainstream of scholarship on the subject. Not "minority views." Please see the endorsements in the manuscript. (4) I have been trying to find a way to improve upon several articles but have been unable to figure the right way to do it. In the better articles, most of the citations are at least 10-20 years old and the text often does not reflect current scholarship adequately. (5) Given that no single scholar is accepted by his peers as reflective of "main stream scholarship" the focus on single author citations seems contrary to the nature of scholarship. (6) A couple of my edits disappeared without trace or notice. Any advice?

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these points. I understand and respect that Wikipedia has its rules and idiosyncrasies, and I am trying my best to adapt while contributing to its improvement. I greatly appreciate you following my, somewhat bumpy, initiation at Wikipedia. A19470822 (talk)

@A19470822: – I reinstated your edit to Gospel of Mark with the speculation, conjecture and argumentation removed – for how to properly use quotes, see Wikipedia:Quotations – paraphrase is preferred unless dealing with a controversial subject or to clarify a specific position – if the author uses words such as, "appears" or "must have" or "thus" or "likely", it's probably best not to add it to the article as this is the author's opinion and not content supported by texts or other scholars – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; speculation and conjecture do not belong in an encyclopedia (unless it can be shown to be a consensus view) – if presenting opposing points of view, you can use in-text attribution to clarify the position of a particular author WP:INTEXT – I am only one editor, the best thing to do is discuss your edits on the article Talk page and seek input from other editors – Wikipedia works on consensus WP:CONS and if other editors have no objection to your edits, then they can be permitted – (ps – also, remember to sign your Talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~) – at the bottom of the Talk page edit window you will see "Sign your posts on talk pages:" followed by ~~~~, if you click on the four tildes your signature, with date and time, will be added to the comment automatically) – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuos followup

Thank you for your continuos follow-up; It will help me improve so much faster. 1- Restructuring of Hebrews: you are absolutely right. I am hoping that one or more veteran editors will join me in this effort. Indeed, it would be heavy lifting on my own. Despite my shortcomings I believe that, if assisted, we could accomplish something significant. 2- My signature. You are correct in your criticism. I read the guidelines and thought that I was missing something (It seemed to simple). I will sign this message and hope that I got it right. Again, thank you for you positive, patient, and supportive follow-up. A19470822 (talk) ABKS

@A19470822: – as explained in a previous post: sign your Talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~) – at the bottom of the Talk page edit window you will see "Sign your posts on talk pages:" followed by ~~~~, if you click on the four tildes your signature, with date and time, will be added to the comment automatically (see WP:SIGHOW) – do not paste your User name to the end of the comment – if you are unable to follow instructions on how to sign Talk page posts it does not inspire confidence in your ability to undertake the major restructuring of an article and you will waste everyone's time by making a series of poor edits that need to be corrected or reverted – it's clear from your post on Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews that you have not read the guidelines for section headings and yet you want to restructure an article – and it is clear from other edits that you still do not understand proper citation format or what belongs in an encyclopedia – please take some time to become familiar with Wikipedia guidelines before making more edits, it will save us all a lot of frustration – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@A19470822: – I see that you have added another comment to Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews and instead of continuing the thread you started a new topic, which means you have not read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Help:Talk pages, WP:THREAD, etc. – please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and follow them before making more edits – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Epinoia: As advised, I spent some time reading more Wikipedia guidelines. I also reviewed my contributions, some of which were deleted without explanation. It is very helpful if some explanation/instruction is given in such situations. Without the intent behind a revision, the only alternative left to me is to repost. Any suggestions? I also saw the discussion in the talk page of the Gospel of Mark about the Bibliowicz source. Will there be a ruling? vote? Please let me know. Thank you for your continued mentoring. --A19470822 (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——Serial ^# 20:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:RealDoctorBrane. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ——Serial ^# 20:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:– you are mistaken here – I did not say anything on the User Talk page that did not assume good faith – I did not say or imply that anyone was acting in bad faith – cheers – Epinoia (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: not sure what this is all about, Epinoia's post on my talk page was not only in good faith, it was also helpful. Thanks, Epinoia! --RealDoctorBrane (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You may or be not sure: but a group of editors who are adamantly opposed to an infobox does not assume good faith, however "helpful" it may have been. Ciao, ——Serial ^# 21:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

– opposing an infobox, however adamantly, does not mean they were not acting in good faith – I edited the comment to change "a group of editors" to "a number of editors" so it could not be misconstrued as a cabal acting in bad faith – my apologies if I expressed myself poorly, but I did not intentionally imply that other editors were not acting in good faith in any way shape or form – cheers – Epinoia (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Reversions

Im new here and not sure how things work but my edits were meant in good faith. Please be fair.Maybe this can be compromised or worked out LordAgincourt (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@LordAgincourt: – sorry, I don't know what you mean – I reverted one of your edits in which you used an expression of doubt and I directed you to the appropriate guideline, I didn't revert any of your other edits – there was no question of not acting in good faith – if you wish to discuss this further, let me know – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello i don’t understand what is wrong with my edit. They were made in good faith. Why would you they be viewed as as biased and useless? Can something be worked out. For instance Arian controversy vs controversy over arianism. How is this biased? LordAgincourt (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@LordAgincourt: – you are talking to the wrong editor – I checked the Revision history of the Arianism article and it was another editor who reverted your edits, not me – I reverted only one of your edits in which you used an expression of doubt listed under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch – please contact the other editor with your concerns – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparantly there is an issue with my edits without reason. It seems this wikipedia page is monopolized by one user and it is claimed i am making biased and useless change. Absolutely untrue.The reverter has not opened a discusssion of any king and has reverted every single edit because of semantics. LordAgincourt (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

– please do not delete content on my User Talk page – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Mysticism

Thank you for saying that you would join WikiProject Mysticism at Wikipedia: WikiProject Council. We have four Wikipedians who say they would join there, so I wonder whether you would be interested in helping me to start this WikiProject? The number of Wikipedians who say they would join this WikiProject appears to have stagnated at four, but my feeling is if this WikiProject gets started, and gets added to the talk pages of relevant articles (most obviously the article on mysticism) we may be able to attract new members. Vorbee (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vorbee: – a hesitant yes as I have never been involved in project creation and do not know exactly what is involved – I will help as time allows – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vorbee:– I placed a notice about this project on the Project Spirituality Talk Page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spirituality – cheers – Epinoia (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear User: Epinoia, I have just started this WikiProject. If you go to Wikipedia: WikiProject Mysticism, you may like to join. Vorbee (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vorbee: – name added – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Template

Thank you for joining Wikipedia: WikiProject Mysticism. I wonder whether you would be happy for me to put the template saying "This article is of interest to WikiProject Mysticism" on the talk page of the article on Mysticism? Vorbee (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Dear User: Epinoia, I have tried putting the template on the talk page of the article on Mysticism, but it came out in red letters. Do you know what I have been doing wrong? Many thanks in advance for any help. Vorbee (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Dear User Epinoia, there are numerous other articles that could do with the template saying "This article is of interest to Wikipedia: WikiProject Mysticism" on their talk pages, but I do not know how you get them on. Do you know how to get them on? Thank you in advance for any help. Vorbee (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

How are you doing?

Long Wiki-silence; how are you doing? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

- @Joshua Jonathan: - I have had to take a break from editing - many reasons involved - may be back in a limited capacity in 2021 - thanks for asking, Epinoia (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks

I see you have put the template for WikiProject Mysticism on quite a few articles. Many thanks for doing this. Vorbee (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Shamanism

I left a reply to your post at the talkpage. Visiting your userpage I see that you are an experienced editor. I hope my reply is helpful and doesn't seem condescending at all. Primergrey (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

— You are correct, Wkipedia is not a reliable source (WP:NOTSOURCE) — however the definition of Religion is sourced to a dictionary and the interpretation of modern spirituality has four or more citations, so we go with what the cited sources say — thanks, Epinoia (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Gospel of Marcion

New to Wikipedia... Thanks for helping to teach me the rules of the road. Would you kindly take some time to review my work and come to your own conclusion about whether it deserves at least some mention on this page? By all means, please ask additional editors on or outside of Wikipedia who have expertise in early Christianity for their views. As noted in my edit, Phil Tite of U Washington has made a robust public statement of support for this research. If having more endorsements would help, I can ask other colleagues to do the same thing.

The open science book format (a LODLIB) is a new Linked Open Data and Open Science approach to academic publishing that I'm pioneering as a recognized expert both in Religious Studies and Information Science. Archiving scholarly findings permanently in open science repositories is common in the hard sciences (e.g., COVID research datasets and pre-prints), but almost entirely foreign to the humanities, especially as a mode of book creation, distribution, and production that sidesteps traditional publisher monopolies. It is quite resonant with Wikipedia's commitment to transparency and global open peer review.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Vocesanticae (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vocesanticae: — please read the Wikipedia guideline WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Your work has not yet gone through this process and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source (WP:RS) — please also read other guidelines such as WP:COI, WP:UNDUE, WP:PUFFERY, WP:REFSPAM, WP:PROMO, etc. — it's not my job to "ask additional editors on or outside of Wikipedia who have expertise in early Christianity for their views" — the proper place to address such issues is on the Talk page of the appropriate articles (WP:TALK) — you can initiate a Request for Comment if you wish WP:RFC — in the meantime, please avoid using Wikipedia as means of promoting your work — thanks, Epinoia (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

My Claremont Press chapter completely meets that guideline.

“First Dionysian Gospel: Imitational and Redactional Layers in Luke and John.” Classical Models of the Gospels and Acts: Studies in Mimesis Criticism. Claremont Studies in New Testament & Christian Origins 3. Edited by M. G. Bilby, M. Kochenash, and M. Froelich (Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2018), 49–68. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3745622 doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbcd1wt.11 ISBN 9781946230188

Are you rejecting it? If so, on what grounds? Vocesanticae (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

— see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and other guidelines already provided — thanks, Epinoia (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I read through the guidelines you sent. Thank you. I understand now that it would be a conflict of interest for me to cite my own work, but, having now disclosed and resolved that COI, I'm asking you here, in the context of your Talk page, why you--as your own free-thinking, independent editor--why don't you consider my published chapter to be significant to the discussion about the Gospel of Marcion as it relates to the Synoptic Problem? Vocesanticae (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

— take it to the Talk page (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Talk dos and don'ts) — I am only one editor and Wikipedia is based on consensus (Wikipedia:Consensus) — if consensus can be reached, then there is no problem — thanks, Epinoia (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies regarding Oscar A.H. Schmitz

You're right. On closer inspection of my source material, Wakefield Press edition of Hashish with an essay by James J. Conway, and despite Schmitz attending the Rose+Croix and having close ties and influences to Symbolist authors (which is why I made my initial mistake), his style and topics (diabolism, artifice over nature, drugs, an almost unhealthy obsession with Salome) would be better described as Decadent rather than Symbolist. Thank you for not letting me make a stupid mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldencalves (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

— no apology necessary, it's part of editing: WP:BOLD — cheers, Epinoia (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your revert on Christian Communism

In the future, don't be so quick with the revert button. The revert button is not a citation tag. Regarding the edit you reverted, I want to point out a few Wikipedia policies that may have escaped your attention, the latter two of which your revert seems to have been in violation of. These are WP:LIKELY, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOCITE.

I'll start with WP:LIKELY. I didn't include a citation for including religious orders in the list because, in the words of WP:LIKELY, "If, based on your experience, a given statement has a less than 50% chance of being challenged, then inline citations are not required for that material." Given that the sentence I added it to already included monasticism without a citation (which, I'll note, you didn't remove), and I didn't feel the material was in any way controversial, I thought it highly unlikely that it would be challenged. WP:MINREF says, "Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references. For all other types of material, the policies require only that it be possible for a motivated, educated person to find published, reliable sources that support the material, e.g., by searching for sources online or at a library." Unless you consider yourself to not be a motivated, educated person (which, if you're taking the time to edit Wikipedia, I would hope is not the case), there's no reason why it wouldn't be possible for you to find at least one "published, reliable source" by spending ten seconds with Google. Using the most obvious search string "catholic communism religious orders" the fourth hit provided by Google was to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for communism, and the text provided by Google with the hit was "Most of the religious, that is, ascetic and monastic orders and communities which have existed, both within and without the Christian fold, exhibit some of the..." The Catholic Encyclopedia would certainly be a reliable source to cover the relevant portion of church history.

Moving to WP:PRESERVE starts by saying: "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content."

Not far afterward, it says: "Instead of removing content from an article, consider:

• Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate
• Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself"

Shortly thereafter, in the section headed "Problems that may justify removal" it includes: "Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material"

Did you attempt to fix the problem? If you had, you would, as I previously mentioned, easily found a source. If not, you probably shouldn't move on to "remove them", unless you are almost certain that the material you are removing is false. Did you consider adding the citation tag?

Which brings us to WP:NOCITE. Do you feel that the material I included in my edit to the article appeared to be false, or an expression of opinion? If so, wikipedia policy is:

• If the material added appears to be false or an expression of opinion, remove it and inform the editor who added the unsourced material. The {{uw-unsourced1}} template may be placed on their talk page.

But it seems likely that you didn't think it was false, given that your edit summary asks the question "Which religious orders?" If you didn't think it was false or opinion the policy is:

• In any other case consider finding references yourself, or commenting on the article talk page or the talk page of the editor who added the unsourced material. You may place a {{citation needed}} or {{dubious}} tag against the added text.

So even if the information appeared to you to be false (and if you did, why did you not feel the same way about monasticism?), removal should be accompanied by appropriate notification (as referenced by the text I bolded in the above quotation). You did not provide any such notification. And if the material didn't appear to be false, rather than removing it, adding a citation tag, or making a comment on my talk page is the appropriate course of action. You also didn't do either of those.

I will be providing a citation, even though it seems as if your "challenge" was reactive, rather than a considered decision. In the future, please give a little more thought when looking at edits on subjects that you don't know enough about to make an informed decision. Especially since removing accurate information makes Wikipedia worse, and annoys the editors who included the information.

CruiserBob (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@CruiserBob: — your edit was reverted because “religious orders” is too broad a term — to which religious orders were you referring? Religious orders such as Jesuits? Friars Minor? If you want to add religious orders, you need to specify which religious orders you are referring to as not all practice communal living. According to the article Religious order (Catholic), the term “religious order” includes monasticism, so when speaking of religious orders that practice communal living, we are essentially speaking of cenobitic monasticism, so adding the term “religious orders” is unnecessary and redundant. The term “monasticism” was not removed, even though it does not have a citation, because it has been a long-standing part of the article, accepted by other editors and so there by WP:CONSENSUS. And there is no challenge to communal living being common in Christian monasticism. — cheers, Epinoia (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominated The All for deletion

Hello,

I'm not going to put an ugly template on your talk page, but I thought you might be interested to know that I nominated the article The All for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The All. Any hints on other editors that I should notify (the main authors, User:King Vegita and User:KamiLian, are no longer active) are always welcome.

Kind regards,

Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Saint Timothy

Please stop vandalizing quotes that are clearly sourced. Dervenagas (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dervenagas: – the correct place to deal with this is on the article Talk page, Talk:Saint Timothy – please do not falsely accuse other editors of vandalism when it is clearly not the case, see WP:AOBF – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

When you continuously revert obviously sourced content, that also exists in the page for ages, you are certainly a vandal. Dervenagas (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dervenagas: – please discuss on the Saint Timothy Talk page – and do not make unfounded accusations of vandalism, it's against Wikipedia behavioral guidelines, see WP:GOODFAITH and WP:AOBF – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss on a long standing quote that is also sourced. You should discuss in the talk page the reason you want to delete sourced material. Dervenagas (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Destroying sources that prove a quote is totally against policy. Dervenagas (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dervenagas: – to which policy are you referring? – see WP:BURDEN, "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" – a primary source may not be enough to justify the added content, see WP:PSTS – that's why it needs to be discussed on the Saint Timothy Talk page to seek WP:CONSENSUS with other editors – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You and User Elizium23 vandalize sourced content. You keep deleting a long standing quote, even after I pointed to the sources (such obvious sources, that nobody ever asked for them) that clearly prove why this quote stands for such a long time. The quote refers to the trust Paul had to Timothy. The aforementioned user Elizium23 and yourself, for unknown reasons, want to confuse the reader of the article regarding the trust Paul had to Timothy. Dervenagas (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dervenagas: – please discuss on the Saint Timothy Talk page – and again, do not make unfounded accusations of vandalism – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Epinoia: please discuss on the Saint Timothy Talk page why you want to delete a long standing quote that is sourced, and why you think this is not considered as clear vandalism. Dervenagas (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And by the way your primary areas of interest in Mysticism, Spirituality and related topics, gives a hint on your motivation. Dervenagas (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dervenagas: - please see WP:BURDEN, "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material..." – it is up to you to start a discussion on the Talk page explaining your edit and seeking WP:CONSENSUS from other editors – and please remember to avoid personal attacks per WP:NPA and not to unjustly accuse other editors of vandalism per WP:AOBF – you can check what is considered vandalism on Wikipedia at WP:VANDAL – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Epinoia: I didnt add anything. YOU deleted something! You deleted an at least 6 years old obvious quote (so obvious that nobody asked for sources), so you should explain in the talk page the reason of your acts. Your acts may be considered as vandalism or at least as obvious bad faith, especially when someones also takes into account the additional (obvious) sources I recently added, for mistrustful people like you to read them. Dervenagas (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I repeat. Your primary areas of interest in Mysticism, Spirituality and related topics, gives a hint on your motivation. Dervenagas (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dervenagas: – well, according to the notice on your user Talk page, you've been reported for edit warring so we'll see what the administrators say – and please remember to avoid personal attacks per WP:NPA and not to unjustly accuse other editors of vandalism or acting in bad faith per WP:AOBF – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Epinoia: If you have good faith, then why do you keep deleting the source of Philippians 2:19-20 which shows how much Paul trusted Timothy ? Dervenagas (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Epinoia: Ἐλπίζω δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Τιμόθεον ταχέως πέμψαι ὑμῖν, ἵνα κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ, γνοὺς τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν. 20 οὐδένα γὰρ ἔχω ἰσόψυχον, ὅστις γνησίως τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν μεριμνήσει. Philippians 2:19-20

@Epinoia: https://bibliaparalela.com/greek/2473.htm 2473 isópsyxos (an adjective, derived from 2470 /ísos, "equivalent, equal" and 5590/psyxē, "soul") – properly, of equal-soul; having similar identity (values) because like-minded, i.e. equally (similarly) motivated. ἰσόψυχος, ἰσόψυχον (ἴσος and ψυχή), equal in soul (A. V. like-minded) (Vulg. unanimus): Philippians 2:20. (Psalm 54:14 (); Aeschylus Ag. 1470.)

@Dervenagas: – as already advised, this is something that should be addressed on the Saint Timothy Talk page – it's not up to me, Wikipedia relies on WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS – if other editors agree your sourcing is adequate then the edit can stand – in the time you have spent posting on my User Talk page you could have resolved the issue on the Saint Timothy Talk page – take it there – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Epinoia! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Claims, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Saint Peter

This issue is not worth an edit war. I agree that a citation isn't always required in the infobox IF it is cited elsewhere in the article, which is not the case for Saint Peter. Generally, the sourcing for an article should not rely on links to other articles, with some exceptions like some list articles. Best practice would be to add a citation, but as I said, I won't climb the Reichstag in this case. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: – you are correct and I stand corrected – I'm fine if you want to remove the info – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I would add a citation, but I don't have access to the source mentioned in Circus of Nero. I added a citation needed tag. Sundayclose (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Epinoia! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Username removed, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Epinoia! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Reliable source?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Too old

Hello @Epinoia You stated that my edit is too old as the source is from 1899. Actually, the volume containing that info is from 1902. If that information is too old to appear in the Other Views section of the Paul the Apostle page, then I would have thought the views of Thomas Jefferson are too old also? ThanksAdam Davis 83 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Davis 83: – the guideline WP:AGE MATTERS says that "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed" – I think it is clear that contemporary biblical scholarship has superseded opinions from over 100 years ago – the guideline on conflicting sources says that where "the general or academic consensus about the subject has changed, the current consensus should be given preference." – the guideline WP:MAINSTREAM says that "Wikipedia relies on vetted academic sources to determine what the mainstream understanding of a topic is" and the mainstream understanding is that Paul did write many of the epistles attributed to him – the comparison with Thomas Jefferson is a false equivalency – and I believe you may have misread the Encyclopaedia Biblica – the entry on the authorship of the Pauline epistles is a discussion of the influence of the Tübingen criticism, "With respect to the canonical Pauline epistles, the later criticism here under consideration has learned to recognize that they are none of them were by Paul." (emphasis mine) – so the authors are not stating their own position, but are outling the position of others – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Even Wikipedia states 'although the authorship of some is in dispute. Among these epistles are some of the earliest extant Christian documents. [[1]] In this case, the older source may not be inaccurate. Yes, the authors are examining the position of others, and in what is written, for the most part, are agreeing. My edit was demonstrating the content of the publication in relation to the Epistles. ThanksAdam Davis 83 (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

– the issue isn't whether or not the epistles "are some of the earliest extant Christian documents", the issue is with outdated biblical scholarship that has been superseded by contemporary scholarship – the guidelines WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:CONFLICTING are clear on using outdated sources – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Davis 83:– I rewrote your edit to put it into a historical context and added it to the article Authorship of the Pauline epistles#Historical criticism of the authorship of the epistles – it makes more sense in the "Authorship of the Pauline epistles" article than it does in the main article on Paul the Apostle – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I was thinking about whether my edit was better on a different page, and was going to suggest that. You beat me to it though :) Adam Davis 83 (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Regards to recent edit

Dear Epinoia,

Just saw your edit making it in line with the cited sources. While you are correct that is what citations said and I appreciate your commitment to the editorial process, the belief is restoring Judaism through building temple and gathering Jewish people. However, this goes back to how we are going to overhaul this article. Please take a look at my recent post in talk section,

Blessings,

Yaakov Wa. (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yaakov Wa. – if there are reliable sources for restoring Judaism through building temple and gathering Jewish people that's fine – the edit I made was based on the sources cited in the article – neither of the sources mention rebuilding the temple – also, please do not put personal information, such as your name, in any edits or posts, use only four tildes to sign posts (I removed your name) – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Epinoia, in regards to your point about editing with sources cited, well taken. Will try to do that. It will just take a little more time. In regards to removing personal name, thanks so much for that! I usually sign my emails, and I guess I just have muscle memory, Blessings, Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yaakov Wa. – don't try, it's a requirement of Wikipedia – "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed"; "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" per WP:VERIFY (emphasis mine) – "By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research" per WP:WHYCITE – you will find uncited content on Wikipedia, but it is usually older content added before the guidelines were fully developed – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A question that will likely be removed, because I'm still working out how all this works

Hi Epinoia - I am new to this and trying to figure out Talk pages.

I'd like to discuss your recent reversion of the content I posted. How do we do this? Where do we do this? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ElFartillo (talk • contribs) 7:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @ElFartillo: – the problem is establishing Derek Verrett, who calls himself Shaman Durek, as a reliable source (see WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:CHOPSY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP).

Wikipedia depends on reliable, published secondary sources (see WP:PSTS). Durek’s books count as a primary source. We need to know, not what he says, but what others say about him and his work. From the articles online there is a great deal of skepticism about him and his claims.

He grew up in a wealthy, mostly white neighborhood in Foster City, Calif., in a strict Seventh Day Adventist home. He claims to be a 6th generation shaman, but there is no proof or back-up documentation for this claim. His background is Afro-Creole from New Orleans on his father’s side, while his mother is from New York with West Indian-Norwegian ancestry.

This background suggests Hoodoo rather than Shamanism. Slaves were brought from Haiti to Louisiana in the late 18th century (see Hoodoo (spirituality)#Haitian influence).

So he is not a traditional shaman from a native or aboriginal culture. He has adopted the term “shaman” to describe his own practice (see Plastic shaman). His own website says, “He is a visionary for the ‘Now Age,’” His practice appears to be New Age shamanism and not traditional shamanism.

There are reliable academic sources that say that Shamanism is a religious practice. It is religious because it involves the community as opposed to Spirituality, which is a personal inner quest. Durek is not an academic source and his personal experiences with shamanism and spirituality are not acceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia.

The proper place to discuss this is on the article Talk page at Talk:Shamanism where other editors can offer their input. In the bar menu at the top of the Talk page is a tab for “New section”, click on that to add a new section, give it a heading and state your position in the text box, sign your post with four tildes (at the bottom of the text box is a mark-up menu with a field, “Sign your posts on talk pages:”, if you click on the four tildes in the blue box your post will be automatically signed), then click on “Show preview” at the bottom of the page to check for spelling, grammar, etc, them click on “Publish changes” to make you post public.

Talk page guidelines can be found here: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. – cheers – Epinoia (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I hope I'm formatting this correctly... Thank you for incredibly detailed, thoughtful post. In reading his book, I discovered his Shamanic work came through his ancestors who came from the lineage in Africa rooted through two specific tribes, Mende and Uruba/Oruba, along with being taught directly from the spirits - of course harder to demonstratably verify without a blind information transfer (accuracy in mediumship with a series of live subjects for example).

The CHOPSY aspect is indeed a challenging one. And your definition of community alongside religion... I'll need to look into that for my own understanding and use of the term. If this is the correct intended terming of a religion, then I've learned a new thing today. Like most common-use words, it's entirely plausible that the meaning of that word got distorted over time. Traditional shamanism - purely my learnings from personal studies - is indeed a community-focused practice, though through the gate of the individual, so it is certainly both from what I've seen personally (which seems to mean little in this community, but at least I get it now).

Looks like secondary sources is the way to go. Thank you once again for a nudge into how to look deeper into this from an evidential perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElFartillo (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Reversion on Shamanism

Message text. ElFartillo (talk)

Hi Epinoia.

Thanks for detailing how this place works. I'm new to it. I was enormously frustrated to see this incorrect information on the top of the Shamanism page.

In summary, numerous, multi-generational shamans - real ones - support and express this assertion that it is not a religious practice. It is unfortunately a mis-interpretation and colonial view that it is a religious practice. Cultural in traditional cases, religious in one case (Islam shamanism in east Asia). That's it.

Academia seems to be the bias Wikipedia wishes to lean upon, which is absurd to me in this case, being as academia tends to be rejectful of this world for the most part. I'll see what I can do in terms of finding different supporting cases and models. Encyclopedia Britannica is ancient at this point as well. This is disappointing.

Regardless, thanks for your post with all the info on how things are structured here. It was helpful and appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElFartillo (talk • contribs) 8:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

ElFartillo - Wikipedia relies on Verifiability, not truth – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and relies on published reliable sources (see WP:NOT). As noted on the article Talk page, designating Shamanism as a religious practice does not exclude spiritual experiences or a spiritual dimension. There are reliable academic sources that say Shamanism is a religious practice because the aim of Shamanism is to benefit the community rather than a personal spiritual quest. It doesn't mean an organized or dogmatic religion like Judaism, Islam and most Christian denominations. If you can find reliable academic sources that say Shamanism is not a religious practice, the alternative interpretation may be added to the article per Wikipedia:Conflicting sources – cheers – Epinoia (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(ps - please remember to sign your posts typing four tildes: ~~~~)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Amhara people on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert on Luther page

The account of Luther's last written words is well reported in many academic sources. The post you reverted was not exactly original research, but was not cited to one of them as it should have been so it looked like original research. I am reluctant to re-add it. If you feel up to working on it go ahead; as for me I don't for now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:General Roman Calendar on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Quakers and symbols

If Quakers don't use symbols, then what the heck is File:Quaker_star-T.svg? I agree that they rarely use the Latin cross, but if you deleted a reference without looking at it, then you don't know whether it was valid or not... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: - The star is not a symbol of Quakerism, but it is used by some Quaker organizations. It was originally used by British Quakers performing war relief efforts during the Franco-Prussian War to distinguish themselves from the Red Cross, today it is used by Quaker service organizations, such as the American Friends Service Committee and the Canadian Friends Service Committee, as their symbol to represent "a common commitment to service and the spirit in which it is provided" -- 14:27, 15 July 2021 Epinoia

References

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that your edit to the "Christian flag" article seems to have been based on your dogmatic personal beliefs, rather than available facts and evidence... AnonMoos (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: - the article "Christian flag" stated that Quakers were one of the denominations that used the Christian flag - the cited source, "Tomorrow Is Growing Old: Stories of the Quakers in Alaska" by Arthur Roberts, says that visiting Quakers met in a room that had a Christian flag, it does not say that Quakers adopted the Christian flag as a symbol - there is no reliable source for including Quakers in the Christian flag article - the assertion that Quakers do not use symbols comes from the Testimony of simplicity, "This testimony also finds expression in the tradition of plain walls and functional furniture in Quaker meeting houses." - plain and simple - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you -- you should have included that point in your edit summary (rather than a half-truth like "Quakers don't use symbols"[sic]). AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Nicene Xty

Thanks for this. He has been repeating the edits at Edict of Thessalonica too. I'm not sure he doesn't have a bit of a point, & the language of the first sentence could perhaps be modified, but not this way, & by someone more up in the area than me. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision of the word "Overman"

My sir, may you entertain what I requested on þe Friedrich Nietzsche talk page?

Archive 1

Archive 2