User talk:ReformedArsenal/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:ReformedArsenal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
edit issues
hello. If you think I was gonna let your unwarranted reverting of all that work and needed modification and clearer sectioning, for uptight reasons, you're deluded. It was all already sourced. And if you uptightly felt it wasn't, you should have put (maybe) tags. But you were out of line here. I'm serious. I'm tired of this. No valid reason to remove, it was all already sourced, and there was definitely no valid reason to undo the clearer sectioning...stop edit-warring and disrespecting... I won't put up with it. Or take it to Talk. If you revert again, you'll be reverted. I won't violate 3RR though (I never do).
If you thought some aspects of my edits were not valid, then you could have modified or removed parts of it. The point is that you undid EVERYTHING. Even the better clearer sectioning. The way it was before was completely cockeyed...with no sectioning from the beginning, and no proper divisions.
The part that you say did not follow from other sentence, I presume the "as Anabaptists", I believe actually did, if you look at it more carefully.
If you had a problem with the picture, I can maybe understand that (maybe), but that's just one part of it. You disrespected ALL my work, because I let you get away with that on another article. When it looks like I should not have. I won't happen here.
But you crossed the line here. I advise against tampering with my edits this time. Don't edit-war.
What I did was minor modification and clarification, and good better sectioning. And better spacing, into some separate clearer paragraphs. That you just summarily spit on, hastily. I won't tolerate that. There was no need to diss that. You have this habit. And it really wasn't necessary here. Please refrain. Thank you.Gabby Merger (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Gabby, you added the sentence "The Greek Orthodox view is that the "ransom price" was paid by Christ to satisfy universal reality, in freeing sinful man from death's grip." between the end of a sentence and a citation. The sourced material does not support the new sentence you added." The edit you made implies that the source contains the information you added, it does not. Reverted. The photo is a general picture that does not contribute anything specific to the article. Removed. I have left the other section breaks and minor stylistic thanges in place. Do not put the unsourced quote in again or you will be reported to ANI for repeated violation of sourcing policy. If you want to introduce material into articles, use sources (according to WP:RS and WP:V) ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. Not sure how you don't see it, but it was sourced...just below in the very quote of the Catechism of the Orthodox Church. You keep thinking that my modification and my little added elaborative wording was so incredibly "unsourced". How? It wasn't really. I must disagree.
- That part that you insist was "unsourced" was actually stated basically IN THE QUOTE GIVEN JUST BELOW IT. I did not add it out of thin air. Analyze it...it says in the quote of the Catachism of the Orthodox Church, these exact words:
- "He 'paid the price' rather, we might say, to Reality Itself."
- Did you catch that? It said "...to Reality Itself." And my modification was IN LINE with that. I wrote "ransom price was paid by Christ to satisfy universal REALITY..."
- So I ask you sincerely, how exactly is what I put so "unsourced", when the basic point of "reality" (according to Eastern Orthodox theology) was stated in the very quote of the Catechism, just below that? Where are you getting this "it was unsourced" idea from exactly...if the point was made just a little further down in the sourced quote? Gabby Merger (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is the way the sentence before you added it was structured. "Sentence.Citation" You added something between the period and the citation, implying that what you added was located IN THAT CITATION. It was not. If you want to add or clarify something, do not add that thing between a citation and that which is being cited.
Instead of
However, while St. Gregory of Nyssa taught a view similar to the Ransom position, others, such as St. Gregory the Theologian, vigorously denied that Christ was a ransom to the devil. The Greek Orthodox view is that the "ransom price" was paid by Christ to satisfy universal reality, in freeing sinful man from death's grip.[1] A catechism of the Orthodox Church in America states:
"In Orthodox theology generally it can be said that the language of 'payment' and 'ransom' is rather understood as a metaphorical and symbolical way of saying that Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God. He 'paid the price, not in some legalistic or juridical or economic meaning. He "paid the price" not to the devil whose rights over man were won by deceit and tyranny. He 'paid the price' not to God the Father in the sense that God delights in His sufferings and received 'satisfaction' from His creatures in Him. He 'paid the price' rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He 'paid the price' to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life. (See Romans 5:8and Galatians 2:4)
By dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ cleansed the world from evil and sin. He defeated the devil 'in his own territory' and on 'his own terms.' The 'wages of sin is death'.Rom. 6:23 NIV So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will—and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity—He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal."[2]
- ^ John S. Romanides, The Ancestral Sin, Zephyr, 1998
- ^ Fr. Thomas Hopko, http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=20
You should have
However, while St. Gregory of Nyssa taught a view similar to the Ransom position, others, such as St. Gregory the Theologian, vigorously denied that Christ was a ransom to the devil. [1]
The Greek Orthodox view is that the "ransom price" was paid by Christ to satisfy universal reality, in freeing sinful man from death's grip. A catechism of the Orthodox Church in America states:
In Orthodox theology generally it can be said that the language of “payment” and “ransom” is rather understood as a metaphorical and symbolical way of saying that Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God. He “paid the price,” not in some legalistic or juridical or economic meaning. He “paid the price” not to the devil whose rights over man were won by deceit and tyranny. He “paid the price” not to God the Father in the sense that God delights in His sufferings and received “satisfaction” from His creatures in Him. He “paid the price” rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He “paid the price” to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life. (See Romans 5-8; Galatians 2-4)
By dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ cleansed the world from evil and sin. He defeated the devil “in his own territory” and on “his own terms.” The “wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23) So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will — and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity - He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal.
— Fr Thomas Hopko, The Orthodox Faith - Volume 1: Doctrine[2]
- ^ John S. Romanides, The Ancestral Sin, Zephyr, 1998
- ^ Hopko, Thomas (1972), The Orthodox Faith: Doctrine, vol. 1, Department of Religious Education, The Orthodox Church in America, ISBN 978-0-86642-036-5, retrieved 6 September 2013
The way you cited it implied that Romanides stated that the Greek Orthodox View was that the Ransom was paid to satisfy universal reality, which the source does not support. The second way shows clearly that you are getting that information from a different source. Learn to properly cite and format things and I'll stop reverting your improper edits (because they won't be improper anymore). Stop expecting other people to do your work for you and format things correct. You should also avoid wikilinks inside quotations. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, NOW I got what you mean. And you're correct. In THAT sense. That specific ref did not state that specific sentence I put there. True enough. BUT (and you knew there was a "but" coming, lol), even though you're right that that specific source did not state that specific sentence that I put (my mistake, true), it's NOT like the thing wasn't stated at all anywhere in the article, and NOT like it was totally unsourced in general, in the article. That was just a simple placing mistake on my part, not intentional misleading. An honest mistake. So what you could have theoretically done, was fix that part of it, but leave the actual sentence I put (elaborative and in line with what was said farther down in the Catechism quote), and make it where that other ref went to the right sentence. Why not do that at least? That, I guess, is my overall point here. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've said it before Gabby, it isn't my responsibility to do your work for you and clean up the mistakes you make. If you want people to stop reverting your edits, then stop making crappy edits. Do your own work, find your own sources, and be more cautious when you edit. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, people don't go around reverting my edits as you're suggesting...It's only uptight people like you. Number two, lose the incivility please, as that junk you just wrote was not cool or called for. I was trying to be nice and civil with you, so what the hell's up with you?
- I've said it before Gabby, it isn't my responsibility to do your work for you and clean up the mistakes you make. If you want people to stop reverting your edits, then stop making crappy edits. Do your own work, find your own sources, and be more cautious when you edit. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Number three, you're wrong, by saying that you have no responsibility to modify or make better, instead of rudely TOTALLY REVERTING, recklessly, sweepingly, (and disrespectfully). WP policy is against your nonsense. You're pissing me off now. Really, man.
- Take a look at WP:Revert-When to revert:, where it says:
- "Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider making a partial revert by modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit. Try not to revert constructive edits for minor problems – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
- You went against that. You went against WP policy and recommendation. In completely removing everything, instead of maybe improving or modifying. So please don't hand me this rude stupid non-WP valid line of "do your own homework, and it's not my responsibility to improve your crappy edits."
- Don't call my hard work "crappy edits". That's also against WP policy, on civility. That's seriously crossing a line. Please don't be a jerk. I won't stand for your BS, kid. For real.
- Number four: you're being inconsistent now, and a bit flaky, in reverting me a little while ago again, when YOU YOURSELF SAID IN THIS VERY TALK PAGE, what "should" have been worded, with placement. Then you revert it? Just over "Greek Orthodox"?? I only did (a little while ago) what you said should have been done. But in typical ReformedArsenic form, you reverted over uptight crap like "Greek Orthodox" instead of "Eastern Orthodox", when, Reformy, you could have simply changed it to "Eastern Orthodox" instead of rudely reverting completely. What is the big deal??? Forget it. I'm DONE with you now. I tried to be civil with you, but you showed yourself to have issues, and are just too arrogant and disrespectful, flaky and uptight, to be reasoned with. I tried to be at least somewhat conciliatory with you, and THIS is how you get? Not cool or necessary, man. Continue to be a rude ridiculous jerk with me...then you're the edit-warring WP policy breaker not I.
- You had a point about the placement thing, but you were uptight IN YOUR OVER-REACTION TO IT. Removing all things like sectioning, paragraphing, etc. Sweepingly and jerkishly. You have this neurotic habit, just like on the Nicean Council article. Look at how silly you were with that months ago, when consensus was actually AGAINST you. As I said, sir, you have this habit and you need to stop YOUR crappy responses...and disrespect. I'm done. I reverted your inconsistent reverting just now, but put "Eastern Orthodox" instead. Bye. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Don't go quoting policy at me unless you are going to follow it. The same policy states "If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit." I incorporated the information you intended to add to the article, but calling it "the Eastern Orthodox View" as though there is only one Eastern orthodox view is not only not accurate, but it is not supported by the source you quoted. Also, AGAIN the source that is cited is not a catechism, it is a systematic theology anthology. If you don't want your edits to be reverted, then be more careful about your edits. The reason that I reverted the whole thing was because the ones I looked closely at were really bad, so I assumed given your track record in the past of adding unsourced or poorly sourced information that the rest was the same. I will look more closely in the future, but please be more careful. I really don't have time to research all your edits and track down and format sources for your contributions... that is your job. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- You had a point about the placement thing, but you were uptight IN YOUR OVER-REACTION TO IT. Removing all things like sectioning, paragraphing, etc. Sweepingly and jerkishly. You have this neurotic habit, just like on the Nicean Council article. Look at how silly you were with that months ago, when consensus was actually AGAINST you. As I said, sir, you have this habit and you need to stop YOUR crappy responses...and disrespect. I'm done. I reverted your inconsistent reverting just now, but put "Eastern Orthodox" instead. Bye. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- What confuses me then is this...why in that other comment of yours above, you yourself said that it should have been this way:
- You wrote:
- You should have
- However, while St. Gregory of Nyssa taught a view similar to the Ransom position, others, such as St. Gregory the Theologian, vigorously denied that Christ was a ransom to the devil. [1]
- The Greek Orthodox view is that the "ransom price" was paid by Christ to satisfy universal reality, in freeing sinful man from death's grip. A catechism of the Orthodox Church in America states: ?
- Earlier today, in good faith, and following YOUR advice and what you yourself wrote on here, I simply put it as you had it that it should be better, in line with the more correct quote or source, not confusing it with that other source (which you had a point about)? Why revert it earlier today, if you yourself said in the earlier comment that it should be that way? Gabby Merger (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Gabby, I'm not going to continue to go around in circles with you. One author does not represent THE Eastern Orthodox view. If a RS says "This is the Eastern Orthodox view" that is a different thing. But you have one Eastern Orthodox author, and you are representing him as though he speaks for all of Orthodoxy, which he does not. Beyond that, the text is simply not what you are claiming it to be, it is not a catechism. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- You're dodging my question. I already got what you said, and I understood. That is NOT what I've been asking, that you keep evading now.
- Gabby, I'm not going to continue to go around in circles with you. One author does not represent THE Eastern Orthodox view. If a RS says "This is the Eastern Orthodox view" that is a different thing. But you have one Eastern Orthodox author, and you are representing him as though he speaks for all of Orthodoxy, which he does not. Beyond that, the text is simply not what you are claiming it to be, it is not a catechism. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Earlier today, in good faith, and following YOUR advice and what you yourself wrote on here, I simply put it as you had it that it should be better, in line with the more correct quote or source, not confusing it with that other source (which you had a point about)? Why revert it earlier today, if you yourself said in the earlier comment that it should be that way? Gabby Merger (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm talking about you contradicting your own recommendation, that you wrote earlier above. I'm asking if what you're saying is now how it is, then WHY did you earlier on (your comment farther above) say these words: "you should have said"...and then proceeded to place the words, as a suggestion, that you NOW say should not have been said that way? That's the point I'm making, and what confused me.
- If you maybe changed your mind a little upon re-assessing perhaps, fine. But it would nice if you could actually specifically address my question and point. You yourself said it "should be this way"... Hence why I was perplexed when you reverted when I put it the way YOU said it should be. Just wondering what happened with that...that is all. No "circles", because you haven't yet addressed that specific specific question. The point that you were in a sense contradicting your own recommendation. That's all I'm saying. What happened with that? Can't blame me for wondering a little bit about that. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Gabby, when I gave you examples, I was simply rearranging the information you presented. After I did that I looked at the article and did a full revision and formatting update on all the sources. It was during this work that I discovered that you were not only placing the source in the wrong place, but were also improperly representing what the source was (not a catechism) and the scope of the sources's statement (not representative of the whole Orthodox tradition nor a WP:RS stating that this is the orthodox position). ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
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.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
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.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Freemasonry
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Freemasonry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ransom theory of atonement
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ransom theory of atonement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
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.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)