User talk:Daniel1212
|
January 2008
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your contributions are welcomed, however, one or more of the external links you added in this edit to The Bible and homosexuality do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.Thanks Astral (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your fine contributions. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC) |
Can you?
[edit]In the page Isaiah 7:14 you made a revision as of 15:09, 5 September 2009 by adding text and a citation to the article. That citation is causing a cite error. Could you go back and fill out the full source information for the reference tag <ref name="oj"/>? Thanks. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Wrong page?
[edit]Did you not intend your message to be on Luca Marco's talk page? LittleOldMe (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I did, and as I do not even see your name in the history page I do not know how my message went to you (if it did). I am dealing with what seems to be a sock puppet, as the edits seem to be identical under 3 different user names, to each of whom I sent the same notice. Thanks.Daniel1212 (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can find no evidence of any message from you going to User talk:LittleOldMe. Perhaps LittleOldMe meant that you sent it to the user page, rather than the user talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]You may be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luca Marco, since you have been involved with the relevant users. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Sola fide
[edit]Hi Daniel, thank you so much for your contributions, especially to the article Sola fide. I really liked your new section on the place of works within "faith alone" doctrine, and I just wanted to encourage you to keep up the good work. I made some changes to the section, so you might want to check out the way it reads now and see if you approve. Let me know if you have any questions about my alterations. Thanks!! Cognate247 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, although i thought the brief defining statement on antinomianism was needed, as well as the preface to the responses to it, which now appear abruptly. But i also did more editing in other places, as i find this article in need of better presentation in some parts. Daniel1212 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edit at Anders Behring Breivik
[edit]Can I ask that, before making edits like this [1], that you review Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking), with particular regard to WP:OVERLINK and also review Wikipedia:Manual of Style regarding linking within quotes: "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader". The article in question is unnecessarily cluttered with wikilinks already, and links within quotations are explicitly discouraged. It is an insult to the readership in any case to assume that they don't understand the meaning of common terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. As you can see when you edit the Anders Behring Breivik -page, there is a note on the top: "Attention editors: Please note that the Anders Behring Breivik "manifesto" (2083 - A European Declaration of Independence) is considered a primary source, and its use must adhere to the relevant Wikipedia policy. In short, editors are not allowed to analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate his manifesto. Any interpretation of the manifesto must be based on a reliable secondary source."
- ...and that is it, really. We, as editors are not allowed to pick through those 1500 pages and print what we find important. What we have to do instead, is to go to the secondary sources (i.e. Newspapers, magazines), ...and see what they find interesting...and the quote that. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, though it seems unreason-able that quoting or describing what he said on a subject would be unencyclopedic. Or is it only the describing aspect, which i did little of, that is disallowed? Daniel1212 (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- No,it is basically that you are choosing what part of those 1500 pages to put on wikipedia...and what not. That is not a choice for us to make; some secondary source (newspapers, magazines, books (eventuallly)) must make that choice for us. Someone else (besides Anders Behring Breivik ) must have found it interesting enough to have written about it, before we can put it on wikipedia)
- Anyway, thanks for the reply on the King Saul & The River-issue; I will tell Kessale, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, though it seems unreason-able that quoting or describing what he said on a subject would be unencyclopedic. Or is it only the describing aspect, which i did little of, that is disallowed? Daniel1212 (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- THanksDaniel1212 (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Gospel of Barnabas.
[edit]Please note I have reverted the attached edit of yours. Not that it is any way wrong, but that it does not seem to have anything to do with the subject of the article. TomHennell (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
However, against this inference is the understanding that the reproved action of Peter, which Barnabas had followed, was not one of doctrinal opposition but one of weakness, being in contradiction to the gospel of grace which James, Peter and John had just formally affirmed, (Galatians 2:11–14) as well as to Peter's own previous action and to his words in the ecumenical council of (Acts 15:7–11).[1][2] The only other dispute between Paul and Barnabas did not concern accommodation of Jewish law, but was due to Paul's disallowance of John Mark, nephew to Barnabas, ((Colossians 4:10) who had once abandoned a previous mission, (Acts 13:13) to accompany them on their next mission. No other conflict is revealed between the two missionary partners, with Barnabas being the one who dared to bring the newly converted, zealous Paul into the fellowship of the church, (Acts 9:26–27) and again in Acts 11:25–26, and who were later formally commissioned as a team, and worked together as fellow apostles to the Gentiles, (Acts 14:14–14)) preaching the gospel of the grace of God on Paul's first missionary journey.[3]
References
- You deleted my paragraph on Paul and Barnabas as being of questionable relevance, but i was under the assumption that objectivity would warrant a counter view in the case of such an fringe postulation. I had never read anyone holding that either Paul or Barnabas had an actual doctrinal dispute with Paul, and which is a case of reading that into the text. The sources i provided reflect the common position that the action of Peter (and Barnabas) in separating from the Gentiles was one of spiritual declension, being in contrast to the gospel they themselves preached and affirmed. Merely because some hold to a different view should not mean the traditional one should be excluded Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Paul_and_Barnabas
- Wikipedia is not about assessing objective facts, but about recording current published scholarship. That scholarship may be 'objective' or not, but it makes no difference to how we record it; as Wikipedia does not sit in judgment. In this case, the reading of doctrinal opposition between Paul and Cephas (Peter), on the matter of sharing food with Gentiles, is certainly tenable in critical scholarship - Joseph Fitzmeyer for example, suggests as much in the Jerome Biblical Commentary. But in any case, this Wikipedia article is not about the letter to the Galatians, but about the Gospel of Barnabas; and most certainly all commentators on the GoB tend to link the evident hostility of the gospel author towards Paul and his teachings, with the passages in Acts and Galatians where Paul and Barnabas appear to fall out with one another. If that is what scholarly commentators on Barnabas say, that is what Wikipedia should record. Were there to be published scholarship on the Gospel of Barnabas that took a contrary view, then that too should have been recorded and cited. But published scholarship specific to the letter to the Galatians, is to be included in that article; not this one. TomHennell (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, i understand that even absurd views may be included if found in some published work, but at least some of the improved language remains, while the text of Galatians 2:11-14 is there by which readers may see that it was because of fear of the Judaizers that Peter, who previously was told by the Lord not to treat Gentiles as racially unclean, and had eaten with them, (Acts 10:10-14; 11:3) separated from them, and thus readers may discern what is being extrapolated out of the text versus what it states and best warrants. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed Daniel; please carry on editing, some of your edits will remain as clear improvements, others may be reverted; it happens to us all. The issue of circumcision in the early church is discussed in a number of articles on Wikipedia; you may find the Council of Jerusalem article helpful - and go on from there. There are a range of scholarly opinions; but I think that most commonly current is that the Council was a historic event (Acts 15); and that before it took place, and its decrees were disseminated in a formal letter, the general doctrine of Jewish Christians was not to share table fellowship with Gentile Christians (Peter's vison at Joppa does not have appear to have been regarded as binding on the Church in general). If the events in Galatians 2 take place prior to the Council - as is certainly one scholarly view - then the emissaries from James are simply reminding Peter (and Barnabas) not to anticipate a decision that had then yet to be agreed. A lot depends on how scholars understand the meeting described in Galatians 2:9; but at any case, it seems clear that Paul interprets the agreement made at that meeting as implying immediate common table fellowship; while Peter and Baranabas (who were also at the same meeting) understood the agreement as implying that common table fellowship had yet to be determined at the forthcoming Council. TomHennell (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Whether or not the Council took place first or after Gal. 2, the reality is that before this Peter did eat with Gentiles, which were not to be regarded as unclean, and Gal. 2 says the reason why his separated in Gal. 2 was due to fear of the Judaizers who apparently treated them as if they were. Moreover, Peter refers to his Acts 10 revelation in justifying his eating with them to Jews (Acts 11) and in Acts 15 that the Gentiles are saved the same way Jewish believers are. And there should be little doubt that Barnabas also at with Gentiles, and powerfully witnessed that in Christ Jesus "there is neither Jew nor Greek." Thus the idea that this separation was due to a doctrinal dispute as the article at issue contends, versus declension due to fear, is contrary to what the actual texts state.
- And as the "brethren" in Acts 21 example (even if not exactly the same class as those in Gal. 2) would have killed Paul due to his message of grace, this was a strongly held tenet that many Jewish Christians might have held on to despite what Peter's revelation, or Acts 15 if it occurred first.
- All in all i see the idea that Peter and Barnabas not only had a doctrinal dispute argument, but such a one as to support the "Gospel of Barnabas, as so unwarranted and extreme that no scholar has taken the time to publish a refutation of it.Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, the recent edit you did here: [2] has some issues. Main issue is, the website: http://www.newadvent.org is not considered a trusted site, I know this because of past issues. The link can still be on there, but I highly recommend placing a more reliable link such as a Google book supported by multiple scholars. I'm aware of the other link you placed, but for future clarification, place another more reliable link. That's all, cheers. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Catholic Encyclopedia is not considered a trusted site? Where do you see that lately? I could replace it with this. But you sure are on the ball! Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- You can keep the site as an alternative link in use for navigation, but at least two reliable links are recommended, one as a primary source, and the other for clarification. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Catholic Encyclopedia is not considered a trusted site? Where do you see that lately? I could replace it with this. But you sure are on the ball! Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I changed it to a Google book link. I never heard of the CE not being a trusted site here (and I am not even a pro-Catholic) What constitutes a reliable link and a scholar is some peoples judgment can be another in someone else's. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
May 2019
[edit]
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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
- MrX 🖋 16:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
Discretionary sanctions notification
[edit]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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
FDW777 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:History of Christianity and homosexuality. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 10:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions covering the area of gender-related disputes or controversies
[edit]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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
Doug Weller talk 10:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
NPOV at Protests in Portland, Oregon, eg source said "confronting", you wrote "assaulting"
[edit]And your source was pretty balanced whereas your summary was not. See my changes. An example is all your detail about the violence, but only mentioning tear gas usage by the police while the source says "impact munitions, tear gas, flash-bang grenades and smoke bombs," and also mentions HC canisters which can be deadly. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
December 2021
[edit]
Your edit to Palestinian refugees has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)