12 December 2024
News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited Op-ed: On the backrooms In focus: Are Wikipedia articles representative of Western or world knowledge? In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody Opinion: Worm That Turned's reconfirmation RfA debriefing
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
86		Haida mythology (talk)	Add sources
346		Korban (talk)	Add sources
44		Moed (talk)	Add sources
133		Catholic Apostolic Church (talk)	Add sources
34		Khordad Sal (talk)	Add sources
144		Somali mythology (talk)	Add sources
140		Mansions of Rastafari (talk)	Cleanup
38		Schwenkfelder Church (talk)	Cleanup
529		Amorites (talk)	Cleanup
1,442		Monotheism (talk)	Expand
151		Laryngeal theory (talk)	Expand
751		Sacrament (talk)	Expand
2,045		Indigenous peoples (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
294		Witchcraft and divination in the Hebrew Bible (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,388		Salafi movement (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
107		Ancient Hebrew writings (talk)	Merge
118		Pillar of fire (theophany) (talk)	Merge
414		Religion in Asia (talk)	Merge
301		The Bible and violence (talk)	Wikify
443		Confession (religion) (talk)	Wikify
982		A Brief History of Time (talk)	Wikify
10		Classics of Western Spirituality (talk)	Orphan
2		Abol Hussein Tanhai (talk)	Orphan
3		Elisabeth von Staegemann (talk)	Orphan
16		Boomeritis (talk)	Stub
4		Matengo Highlands (talk)	Stub
3		Kavanaq (talk)	Stub
67		House of Elders (Afghanistan) (talk)	Stub
41		Zophar (talk)	Stub
9		Fritas de prasa (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --93.34.85.148 (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why what? Editor2020 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not understanding our Torah?! --93.34.85.148 (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not understanding this article because it was very poorly written. That is the purpose of articles, to explain the subject. Editor2020 (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! ...and who are you... to say that Torah would be "poor"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.85.148 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the Torah, but this particular Wikipedia article. Editor2020 (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! ...but you aren't undestanding or the "contrary"? --93.34.85.148 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC) i.e. Do you understand or not? --93.34.85.148 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, the conclusion: We understand the Torah and this article of Torah... but you... NOT.--93.34.85.148 (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Editor2020 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove categories on redirects. They are used to make sure that an article shows up under the title by which it will be looked for in that category, especially after a merge. Skyerise (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Editor2020 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry by my stupid interruption, i'd justclike to know what are your qualifications, once i also think about improving religion articles and you are one of the most active in these area, so i wanna know if i can at least help you guys. 123Done2x (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self-taught interest in religious topics, lots of extra time, and an ability to accept a lot of reverts. As you'll notice, most of my edits are just WP:GNOME edits (grammar, punctuation and such) but occassionally I'll go wild. I have decided to limit my editing to Christian and Jewish articles. Still learning a lot about both. Any help would be appreciated. Editor2020 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the reply, despite the strange question. I think it's humble to say that you don't contribute a lot, yes you may not have the sources, but you surely correcting the grammar and ortography must understand the context and content of the page to develop the view. I'd really like to help, but i don't know if i can act in this area of religious articles, that sector is very problematic, because of the religious tone, both religious and irreligious, and the users that doesn't care about impartiality and so doesn't present two views on the matter like biblical archeology topics, united monarchy especifically. So people like you that act in a more neutral tone are important in the Wiki by minimazing the edits from arrogant, single-minded wikipedians. I hope this reply of your reply doesn't sound too flattering, but anyway thanks for replying me. 123Done2x (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ඊශ්‍රායල් දේශීය ප්‍රථම රජු හා සාවුල් ය. අද්විතීය පෞරුෂයකින් හෙබි තරුණ සාවුල් බෙන්ජමින් ගේ ගෝත්‍රයේ කිශ් නමැත්තාගෙ පුත්‍රයා විය. සිය පියාගේ කොටළුවන් සොයා ගිය සාවුල් ට සාමුවෙල් හමුවූයේ අහම්බෙනි.සැමුවෙල්ට හමුවුනු සාවුල් දෙවියන් වහන්සේගේ නියමය අනුව රාජ ධූරයෙහි අභිෂේක කල ආකාරය පහත දැක්වේ . "සාමුවෙල් තෙල් තුලාව රැගෙන සාවුල්ගෙ හිසේ වත් කොට ඔහු සිඹ මෙසේ කීවේය ,"සමිදාණන් වහන්සේ ඊශ්‍රායල් සෙනඟ කෙරෙහි අධිපතියා කොට ඔබ අභිෂේක කරන සේක. ඔබ සෙනඟ පාලනය කොට ඔවුන් සියලු සතුරන්ගෙන් ගළවා ගන්නෙහිය. සමිඳ්‍රණන් වහන්සේ තමන් තෝරාගත් සෙනඟගේ අධිපතියා වශයෙන් ඔබ පත් කළ බවට සාක්ෂි මෙය වන්නේය :" 175.157.226.239 (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand this language. Editor2020 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you contributed to the article Firmament. You may wish to weigh in on the controversy about recent deletions that I have just highlighted on that articles talk page. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to tell you that I think your thank yous are what is keeping me from giving up on this article. So thank you! They give me a lift when I see them. I also saw you edited the spelling of Masoretic, and you were probably right to do so because it's confusing! That was how the source repeatedly spelled it, not changing it until they referred specifically to the Masoretic Text itself, but who cares really? It's better as it is, I think, and I am guessing no one will challenge it. So thanx for that too! This has been quite a challenge, but I'm glad you asked me. I really do think that we have, together, improved the article. Now we will see whether the changes are left alone or if we have to fight further for them! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't beleve you've lasted this long. Editor2020 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know! I haven't had this much opposition since my first year here, but I tried to respond to anything just or reasonable as much as possible. They would say some things I would demonstrate were wrong, and then wouldn't apologize or even acknowledge. They kept arguing against inerrancy, but no one had argued for it! It was a mess there for a bit, but I do hope they leave the changes. I think we've all done good work there.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just noticed the "Manual Revert" tag on our edits to Edwards v. Aguillard, so I'm just popping by to say Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court and the others broken out by Chief Justice are non-diffusing categories. Cheers! lethargilistic (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing with that edit. Wasn't aware that happened; apparently I must have inadvertently clicked the template name in the list of templates in the Wiki markup section beneath the edit window.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on racial antisemitism show a serious lack of understanding of the issue and wantonly deleted numerous improvements I'd made. Please be more careful or constructive in the future. ----00:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Scharb (talk)

Or I disagreed with your changes. Editor2020 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have edited this article in the past. Just wanted to let you know that I found it necessary to revert to a 2016 version of the article, as while the article appeared to be cited, the citations were at the very least ineptly done, none of the {{sfn}} citations had listed refs, and additionally many were done completely incorrectly. I suspect is was an intentional application of "lesser magic" - slight of hand to make the article look cited. The newer article is probably much more robust, but basically pretended to cite to one set of sources while the references section was promotional, promoting a completely different set of books than the article was pretending to be cited to. Fixing that mess didn't appeal to me, a heck of a lot of work even for somebody who believes in this 'religion'; a non-starter for someone like me who does not. Of course, this leaves the article back to relying on primary sources, which is unfortunate, but I didn't see any way around it. There's not a bot that I'm aware of that could fix that mess! Skyerise (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you need to do. Editor2020 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But why? There is simply no need. I'm trying to understand the rationale in double citing information that is not contentious. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was no big deal, just took a second.Editor2020 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how it is more "double cited" than the rest of the entries, but if it bothers you please fell free to delete it. I won't complain. Editor2020 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's just an 'ethos' thing. I've been here a long time but by no means am I an expert. I've read arguments against 'overciting', not just in terms of crazy-time stuff where there's[22][18][43][9][71][4] cite-fighting, but also in the respect that WP is meant to be a deeply connected medium - so that, if there is a destination article for some topic, and the topic is well and properly cited there, then the wikilink to it satisfies 'verifiability' in the current article, negating the need for a cite.

In this instance, I can see that in terms of uniformity, having each and all cited does so. Plus, a fair number of the entries are similarly WL'ed to a verifiable article, so doing only one in as I did created an inconsistency in format. So...I see where you're at in it as well, an 'ethos' in its own right. cheers, Anastrophe (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manisha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simha.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went to PROD maggid shiur and got the alert that you already had. Do you still think it should be deleted/should we go through the full process. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with whatever you choose to do.

Greetings @Editor2020

If you are around I was looking for some copy edit help @ the article D-Agree.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Editor2020,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Jewish states and dynasties § Did attempts to change POV in this list go too far & make it more biased?. Peaceray (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Editor2020. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of purported relics of major figures of religious traditions".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 03:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Folk religion, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

The article Tulu'i Islam has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Tagged as not notable for 12 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]