Regarding the Jeff Kennett page. You deleted a whole lot of facts about Northland Secondary College. You said Koori.web was not a reliable source. Koori.web is by Dr Gary Foley, PhD Uni Melb., BA Hons Uni Melb. The following text is from the Victoria University web site: In 1994 Foley created the first Aboriginal owned and operated website when he created the Koori History website, which remains one of the most comprehensive Aboriginal education resource available today online.

Late in life Foley completed his BA and then gained first class honours in history in 2002. Between 2001 and 2005 he was also the Senior Curator for Southeastern Australia at Museum Victoria. Between 2005 and 2008 he was a lecturer/tutor in the Education Faculty of University of Melbourne. In 2012 he completed at PhD in History at the University of Melbourne. He has worked at Victoria University as a Senior Lecturer since 2008.

You should restore the facts I entered on Jeff Kennett's Wikipedia page as they are the truth. Did you do any research on the subject before you deleted the facts? You could do a lot of research on the subject of the closure of Northland Secondary College, including reading the court transcripts which I have read.

Hello, StAnselm. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Past Masters account signup.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

HazelAB (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anglican Church in North America may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] passed a motion recognizing the ACNA as a "member church of the Anglican Communion".<ref>[http://acl.asn.au/diocese-of-nw-australia-recognises-acna-as-a-member-church-of-the-anglican-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StAnselm. You have new messages at JudeccaXIII's talk page.
Message added JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Could you handle this please? I'm just off for lunch. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard. It has been taken care of. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you did a whole bunch of them. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello StAnselm:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding ((subst:Happy Halloween)) to user talk pages with a friendly message.

A comment or two about your reversion of my recent edit removing gendered language. I think that article, along with many others on religious topics, violates the Wikipedia style manual (see also Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language). The edits you applied after reverting mine addressed most of that, so I am not sure why you objected to my changes.

Your edit comment indicated that I had changed words within quotes, but I cannot see any example of that.

From the words you have left unaltered, I assume that the main point where we disagree is about referring to God with masculine pronouns. I know that is common in Christian circles, but by no means universal, and by no means is it a neutral use of language. The fact that the referent is God does not excuse this case from the general principle of gender neutrality in the style manual. The use of male pronouns for God expresses a particular (though admittedly dominant) theological position and violates the NPOV ideal. If gender-neutral language were used for God, then readers could impute their own assumptions about whether God is male, female or neither. When masculine language is used, however, the assumption of God's gender is imposed by the author rather than left open to the reader.

I'd ask you to reconsider your approach to writing about God, and support me in removing the gender bias in this and other articles.

Matthew C. Clarke  23:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you changed was in the last sentence of the "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" section. Yes, I guess the main issue is the masculine pronouns for God. I checked the style guidelines, and there wasn't anything about it. (All it says is that the pronouns should not be capitalised.) The removal of the masculinity might be just as POVish - I would not regard "Godself" as a neutral word, since it only exists to avoid the masculine pronoun. But in the context of the article, the masculine pronoun seems completely appropriate - the article is discussing a concept in mainstream Christian theology. StAnselm (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. With regard to the style guide, I was referring to the overall principle "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." That applies to god-talk just as much as to any other subject. I will drop the issue now, though not because I agree. Matthew C. Clarke 01:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Oded prophets mentioned in the Bible. Which one are you going to create for the template? JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that the first one is a prophet - "Azariah the son of Oded the prophet" could just mean that Azariah is a prophet (which in fact he is). StAnselm (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, create the Oded article JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have browsed through the editions history of the Kings of Judah article and I've found you contributed to its contents some time ago. Could you please join the discussion which is to settle whether or not the diagram I added to Kings of Judah contains any information which is against the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. Apologist en (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, I suppose that you are right to revert my edit on John Duncan (theologian). When I read the article initially I believe that I primarily 'saw' that he was already going to university to pursue theological study without taking a more granular look at what the text actually says and integrating in my comprehension what that meant. He is an unusual fellow in that he was apparently an atheist (according to his own conception) who was already studying to become a doctrinal minister which runs counterintuitive to my expectation of those who study theology. Theological students may have some misgivings about their beliefs and doctrine but are not ordinarily 'atheist', or even deist, in their self-description. Thanks for the reversion. Regards, Steve.Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a peer review of the Mark Driscoll article. Since you've worked on that article before I would welcome your input. -Sigeng (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deferring out of respect for your greater experience, but I think you're wrong. The team on the hat is in no way relevant to the article (or of interest to many readers), and per WP:OVERLINK excessive links undermine the value of links. But I'd be interested to see the guideline that says a link is required if the detail is included. Further, as I said in my editsum, it's unsourced OR. The source says only "Cardinal hat" and does not indicate which Cardinals that refers to. You're assuming it's the St. Louis Cardinals, which is the definition of OR. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. My reasoning is that if the detail is included, then we need a wikilink. Now, maybe "red hat" would suffice, but I guess we should follow the source. Now, I'm editing as an Australian, and while I know who the St. Louis Cardinals are, I know that many Aussies would not - hence the need for a wikilink. WP:OVERLINK says that "everyday words understood by most readers in context" do not need to be linked, but this is not an everyday word. StAnselm (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, looking a bit deeper, it appears that it is quite notable, and definitely a St. Louis Cardinals hat. [1][2] StAnselm (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that you're less wrong than I thought. :) ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 09:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
1,225		Baptism (talk)						Add sources
1,324		Macular degeneration (talk)						Add sources
60		Secretary of State for Justice (talk)						Add sources
26		Macleans College (talk)						Add sources
6		Presbyterian Theological College (talk)						Add sources
98		Christianity in the 19th century (talk)						Add sources
119		September 1 (talk)						Cleanup
24		Ormond College (talk)						Cleanup
54		Arthur Pink (talk)						Cleanup
184		Logo of Wikipedia (talk)						Expand
178		History of Christian theology (talk)						Expand
65		Outline of Christian theology (talk)						Expand
1,140		Presbyterianism (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,609		Yom Kippur War (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
143		Hannah (biblical figure) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
24		Vasconic substratum theory (talk)						Merge
237		Life of Jesus in the New Testament (talk)						Merge
1,005		Duodenum (talk)						Merge
1,699		Eastern Orthodox Church (talk)						Wikify
428		Wayland (display server protocol) (talk)						Wikify
157		Sacramental bread (talk)						Wikify
17		Holy Order of Mans (talk)						Orphan
1		People's Tamil Congress (talk)						Orphan
17		Mary Case (talk)						Orphan
357		Jamilah Nasheed (talk)						Stub
42		Jefferies tube (talk)						Stub
4		Codex Astensis (talk)						Stub
14		Gregory Beale (talk)						Stub
4		North Efate language (talk)						Stub
3		Germinius of Sirmium (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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical scholars aren't theologians, that's surprising! How come? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess at one point biblical studies sought to free itself from theology's domination, and so they developed as different disciplines. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about for example [[3]]? It's only two courses (Hebrew scriptures and The four gospels) out of a whole range of courses, but still it seems like biblical studies are part of theology studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, biblical studies subjects are usually part of theological degrees. But then, so are ethics and church history. And I notice the course you linked to is "Religious Studies and Theology". Maybe they think the biblical subjects are more "religious studies". StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So wouldn't it then be quite right to consider academics who finish studies like these and then specialize in (Christian) ethics, church history or biblical studies as all part of theologians? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, but in academic circles they're generally not. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Quadrant April 2010.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
9		Mallinson Girls School (talk)						Add sources
21		Father–son rule (talk)						Add sources
15		Jesse Palmer (footballer) (talk)						Add sources
202		Frenulum breve (talk)						Add sources
42		Oracle Solaris Studio (talk)						Add sources
11		Billy Frampton (talk)						Add sources
103		The Bible and violence (talk)						Cleanup
18		Piers Akerman (talk)						Cleanup
40		Special relationship (international relations) (talk)						Cleanup
9		Nattai National Park (talk)						Expand
99		Geelong Football Club (talk)						Expand
211		James Yap (talk)						Expand
6,117		Steven Spielberg (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
109		Richard Rohr (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
200		Criticism of Christianity (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
51		David Gunn (doctor) (talk)						Merge
69		Crown Resorts (talk)						Merge
980		Number of the beast (talk)						Merge
32		1987–89 JVP Insurrection (talk)						Wikify
53		Ish-bosheth (talk)						Wikify
107		ChildLine (talk)						Wikify
1		Aziz Democratic Workers Congress (talk)						Orphan
4		June Webb (talk)						Orphan
5		Glückshaus (talk)						Orphan
24		Cameron Delaney (footballer) (talk)						Stub
4		Brendon Ah Chee (talk)						Stub
74		Ilona Andrews (talk)						Stub
65		We Are Done (talk)						Stub
22		Prunella Ransome (talk)						Stub
7		Shane Biggs (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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your edit to Liberal Christianity and your edit summary. I agree with your edit and edit summary, but saw that "Conservative Christianity" leads to a disambiguation page. It would really be best to fix the link so that it leads to one particular article on that disambiguation page. However, I don't know which of the several links in the religion section to select. Which one do you think is the best one? After you choose, you'll need to change the part of the link (inside the square brackets) that appears before the pipe to match that. If you don't want the link to go to any particular article, you can remove the square brackets and get rid of the link (then perhaps also put the word "conservative" in lower-case). CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a disambiguation page that I've noticed around for a long time. I guess there are a few options - converting the page to an article (like the old Christian conservatism article), intentionally linking to the page (via Conservative Christianity (disambiguation)), unlinking the term, or removing the text altogether. I've never been quite sure what to do. In this particular article, the phrase is clearly referring to a number of movements/groups - Christian fundamentalism, Traditionalist Catholic, Confessionalism (religion), etc. StAnselm (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in disambiguating links, converting a page to an article, etc. Would you mind if we asked one or two other editors with some interest in this field such as Fayenatic london or Cuchullain, or anyone you know? CorinneSD (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. As you see, I went with the intentional link to the disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic london I'm not disagreeing with StAnselm's edit. I don't know enough to judge. I just thought it would be good to ask your opinion. CorinneSD (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
697		Australia national cricket team (talk)						Add sources
15		Logan Austin (talk)						Add sources
5		2013 Port Adelaide Football Club season (talk)						Add sources
4		2006 Collingwood Football Club season (talk)						Add sources
5		2013 Gold Coast Football Club season (talk)						Add sources
19		AFL Rising Star (talk)						Add sources
69		Kamran Akmal (talk)						Cleanup
52		Acceptance of evolution by religious groups (talk)						Cleanup
136		Usman Khawaja (talk)						Cleanup
136		Christian mortalism (talk)						Expand
7		David Ussishkin (talk)						Expand
4,721		Deven Verma (talk)						Expand
290		Foxtel (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
4,917		Sachin Tendulkar (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
285		Infant baptism (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
27		Eternity of the world (talk)						Merge
1,715		Michael (archangel) (talk)						Merge
529		Promised Land (talk)						Merge
92		Satisfaction theory of atonement (talk)						Wikify
21		Sam Robson (talk)						Wikify
32		Economy (religion) (talk)						Wikify
6		Asintmah (talk)						Orphan
2		4933425L06Rik (talk)						Orphan
4		Assessment in computer-supported collaborative learning (talk)						Orphan
7		Maroochy Barambah (talk)						Stub
192		India Cements (talk)						Stub
3		Karl Amon (talk)						Stub
4		Family Institute of Connecticut (talk)						Stub
47		Scott McLaughlin (racing driver) (talk)						Stub
4		Daniel Flynn (footballer) (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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't know, and since you have had to deal with Pass a Method's problematic editing time and time again, I'm just letting you know that User:Pass a Method is now known as User:North Atlanticist Usonian. Well, surely, he's currently WP:Sockpuppeting again. But I mean that the official name of his primary (long-term) Wikipedia account is now North Atlanticist Usonian, across Wikis. This is "thanks" to Stephen G. Brown; Stephen G. Brown has "officially closed" the discussion on his talk page about it (see here), so this message is not an invitation to comment there about it. Adjwilley and John Carter already know about the username move. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also let Middayexpress know here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the suggestions and starting the conversation. Hope we'll pick it up again soon. I've sent you an email. Cheers.

I was just looking at the latest edits to Thomas Merton. I saw that, among other changes, an editor removed a set of square brackets around "Abbot of Gethsemane", which identifies "Dom James". Now it's a single set of square brackets which will not lead anywhere. (It looks like it has gone back and forth between single and double square brackets.) There is no article for "Abbot of Gethsemane". There is an article for Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemane, but I don't know if Dom James was its abbot. I did a search for "Dom James" and found more than one WP article, but one Dom James was from a previous century, so I don't think that's the one. Another is in Order of Saint Benedict (Orthodox)#Orthodox Benedictines today, in about the second paragraph. I'm wondering if that is the Dom James mentioned in the Merton article. Well, anyway, I thought you might be able to clear this up and, if you think a wiki-link is appropriate, fix the link so that it leads to the right place. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say neither bracket is appropriate. It evidently refers to Dom James Fox, Abbott from 1948 to 1968 (see the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani article). But it's reported, not direct, speech so single square brackets are not appropriate. And "Abbot of Gethsemane" certainly doesn't need to be wikilinked - there are plenty (perhaps too many) links to Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani in the article as it is. Anyway, thanks for raising this (though I don't know why you asked me - I'd never edited the article before). StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe I asked you because of your user name. I thought you might be interested in this topic. I wonder why it is spelled "Gethsemani" in Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani and "Gethsemane" in "Abbot of Gethsemane". CorinneSD (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Warner clearly bowled an over at medium pace in the second test, on day 1. "David Warner comes on. Looks like he's going to bowl seam-up." ESPNcricinfo commentary at the time. JustPlaneEditing (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
321		Omen (talk)						Add sources
3		2006 Sydney Swans season (talk)						Add sources
88		Western Bulldogs (talk)						Add sources
96		Criticism of Amnesty International (talk)						Add sources
87		Adelaide Football Club (talk)						Add sources
117		Bible translations into English (talk)						Add sources
16,326		2014 Sydney hostage crisis (talk)						Cleanup
37		Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani (talk)						Cleanup
23		Epic of evolution (talk)						Cleanup
12,378		Birdman (film) (talk)						Expand
127		Recording (talk)						Expand
212		Salvation (Christianity) (talk)						Expand
424		Judaism's view of Jesus (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,636		Hair (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
124		Tel Dan Stele (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
44		Silverwater Correctional Complex (talk)						Merge
13		They have pierced my hands and my feet (talk)						Merge
135		Biblical archaeology (talk)						Merge
106		Roman Catholic theology (talk)						Wikify
100		Marzieh Afkham (talk)						Wikify
100		Cessationism (talk)						Wikify
5		Black Saturday (France) (talk)						Orphan
3		Abdullah Mohammed Al-Hugail (talk)						Orphan
2		Ashwell House (talk)						Orphan
13		Jonathan Giles (talk)						Stub
11		Cameron Wood (talk)						Stub
3		Mitchell Harvey (talk)						Stub
3		Sam Russell (Australian footballer) (talk)						Stub
4		David Hynes (talk)						Stub
61		Patrick Johnson (sprinter) (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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! I noticed that you have some different idea on how to classify theologians. Essentially I would regret if the theologians tree would get too overloaded with less relevant people so I'd rather purge anyone who hasn't written anything of academic interest. In fact I'm considering the following CfD below. Before I'm actually going to post it, could you please comment on it, to see if this is really the key difference in opinion between the two of us?

Category:Theologians

• Propose defining Category:Theologians

Nominator's rationale: See proposed definition of theologians category on the category page. As Category:Theologians is part of the Category:Occupations tree it is obvious that academic theologians should be classified here. The grey area with classifying "Theologians" is with clergy who wrote pastoral-theological, social-theological, political-theological books/texts/pamphlets that are not of any academic theological interest. Should they be classified as Theologians or not? With the definition that I have proposed, writing clergy should be classified as Theologians only by exception, but not as a rule. Essentially I would regret if the theologians tree would get too overloaded with people that are in the clergy tree anyway. I'm requesting consensus about this definition.

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, maybe there isn't a such a big difference between us. In modern times, most pastors have a theology degree, but are not theologians - John Piper and Douglas Wilson, for example, are exceptions. In the 17th century it seems a little hard to work out: (a) because of the lack of info, (b) because "ordinary" pastors were much more likely to write serious theological works, and (c) because almost any 17th-century pastoral-theological, social-theological, or political-theological work could be of academic interest to someone in modern times. StAnselm (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for your answer. Then I'll just continue and find out by experience which edits you will revert. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that. Please post your CfD and find out what the community consensus is. Going the other way, I was looking at Henry Archer (Fifth Monarchist), which isn't in a theologians category, and yet could be, since his book is of interest to academic theology.[4][5] What do you think? StAnselm (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I edited two more articles before I saw your answer just now, just that you know. For Henry Archer, I think he fits perfectly in Category:Fifth Monarchists while he does not need to be additionally categorized as a theologian. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_20#Category:Theologians. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring, of course, to removing people from theologians categories altogether - not making the categories more specific. Yes, Archer fits in Category:Fifth Monarchists, but that is not in any theologian subcat. StAnselm (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for dedication to content development. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:John Carter submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate StAnselm as Editor of the Week for his extraordinary, and often overlooked, contributions to the project. This individual over 7 years has had more than 100,000 edits, with roughly 85% in article space. This remarkable dedication and focus on developing content, which seems to be more important to this individual than taking part in the often endless disputes and controversies, makes him in my eyes one of the best role-models we might have for newer editors and even for some of us old hands who get distracted by a lot of the dramah that arises around here.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

((subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box))

StAnselm

Ichthus symbol

Editor of the Week for the week beginning December 21, 2014

A hard-working dedicated editor focused on developing content as shown by 85% of his edits being to article space. Does not get mixed up in Drama.

Recognized for

Being a Role Model

Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! Merry Christmas, and God bless! Go Phightins! 12:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations. Well deserved. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Conceptually I like the idea of an Alley category. I do wonder how we would keep it from being cluttered with streets that are formally named "Alley" that are not technically an alley, like Elfreth's Alley. There are many others if you want more examples. The original category when I nominated was really about pedestrian walkways so I'm wondering if expanding the Category:Pedestrian malls or Category:Pedestrian infrastructure tree might better accomplish what your looking for. Tag me on my talk page if you want to discuss further; I'm really looking to improve categorizing streets. What do you think of that approach?

RevelationDirect (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello StAnselm, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

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	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
377		2014 in India (talk)						Add sources
28		Ptolemaida (talk)						Add sources
54		Troad (talk)						Add sources
27		Berea (Bible) (talk)						Add sources
150		Jewish Christian (talk)						Add sources
99		Tarshish (talk)						Add sources
119		Systematic theology (talk)						Cleanup
4		Ruby Duncan (talk)						Cleanup
48		Saint Titus (talk)						Cleanup
306		Ferguson Police Department (Missouri) (talk)						Expand
99		Herodian dynasty (talk)						Expand
133		Sannyasa (talk)						Expand
1,317		New Testament (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
103		Cornelius the Centurion (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
51		Phoebe (biblical figure) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
354		Cyber-attack (talk)						Merge
77		Islamic view of the Christian Bible (talk)						Merge
15		Biblical archaeology school (talk)						Merge
1,007		Methodism (talk)						Wikify
4		United States v. Screws (talk)						Wikify
173		Herod Archelaus (talk)						Wikify
3		Timeline of heads of government in Australia (talk)						Orphan
2		World Fashion. Part II: USA (talk)						Orphan
3		The Shape of Sola Scriptura (talk)						Orphan
7		Forum Appii (talk)						Stub
9		Atalia (talk)						Stub
18		Demetrius (biblical figure) (talk)						Stub
6		Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Australia) (talk)						Stub
23		Demas (talk)						Stub
3		Israel National Bike Trail (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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you may have gone too early with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leelah Alcorn. It's likely to stay right now as all the weepers will vote to keep. Perhaps it may have been better to wait a week or two for the excitement to die down? I might be wrong but, hey, there's always next time! Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thank you, StAnselm ... very much appreciated! Was actually just about to write you, to let you know that I removed the "redirect" from the song to the movie. And judging by your response, you are OK that I did it; am glad. Great song ... worth its own page ... great scene in the movie too, even if Silvana Mangano didn't actually sing it. - Xenxax (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
11		Silvanus of the Seventy (talk)						Add sources
777		Baptism (talk)						Add sources
337		Christian Church (talk)						Add sources
15		Trophimus (talk)						Add sources
12		Macleans College (talk)						Add sources
123		Great Apostasy (talk)						Add sources
398		Bob Beckel (talk)						Cleanup
1,725		Wisconsin (talk)						Cleanup
18		Schwenkfelder Church (talk)						Cleanup
121		History of Christian theology (talk)						Expand
203		Eid-e-Shuja' (talk)						Expand
41		Outline of Christian theology (talk)						Expand
22		Blessing of Jacob (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
217		Antinomianism (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,073		Lahore (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
212		Life of Jesus in the New Testament (talk)						Merge
65		Christian prayer (talk)						Merge
746		Hebrew Bible (talk)						Merge
266		Great Tribulation (talk)						Wikify
24		Martina (empress) (talk)						Wikify
118		Kavala (talk)						Wikify
1		Tonkin shadow ministry (talk)						Orphan
6		Mary Case (talk)						Orphan
5		FEAR (terrorist group) (talk)						Orphan
48		The Federalist (website) (talk)						Stub
77		Stiaan van Zyl (talk)						Stub
22		Leon Morris (talk)						Stub
11		Parmenas (talk)						Stub
9		Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Australia) (talk)						Stub
2		Nick Kruger (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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move Leelah's Law to Leelah's Alcorn Law? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't follow the sources. Next time, please think before you make such a move and discuss it on the talk page. Thanks.- MrX 03:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source: the Huff Post article. The petition clearly says "We ask that you name the bill in memory of Leelah as the Leelah's Alcorn Law and protect the lives of transgender youth." StAnselm (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me break. The title of the petition is "Enact Leelah's Law to Ban Transgender Conversion Therapy" We don't repeat obvious typos, and we sure don't give them precedence over multiple other sources, with better reputations that HuffPo. I sincerely believe you are trying to make a WP:POINT and I'm finding it very disruptive.- MrX 03:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that you are trying to discredit the people that created the petition by portraying them as illiterate. Of course, this affects the family and friends of the recently deceased girl. Please stop.- MrX 03:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The illiterate aspect certainly crossed my mind - 200,000 people said that they wanted it called Leelah's Alcorn Law. But there's nothing pointy about it: that's the proposed name in the petition. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

200,000 people said that they wanted it called Leelah's Alcorn Law. You know this how? It's obvious that the person who created the petition meant Leelah Alcorn's Law, but it doesn't matter because the vast majority of sources say "Leelah's Law" as does the Facebook page and the page that kicked of the campaign, LeelahsLaw.com.- MrX 03:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that you are edit warring to restore this obvious misinformation, and a WP:BLP violation. I am requesting that you restore the factually accurate version of the article, else I will have to seek community input at ANI.- MrX 03:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is the official name of the proposed law, even if it isn't the most common one. No, I don't know why they didn't say "We ask that you name the bill in memory of Leelah as Leelah's Law". But the erroneous name is in both primary and secondary sources, and failing to mention it is a suppression of the facts. As to the BLP violation, I totally reject your claim - but of course I will abide by the consensus of the wider community, so feel free to take it further. StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - MrX 04:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, The Article is going to be walking NPOV violation if this is how slight infraction will be dealt with, indicating that anybody who disagrees with you must be transphobic, seems like assume good faith has gone down the drain today. Good Luck StAnselm Avono (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Leelah's Law shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - MrX 19:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any dispute at Next Tasmanian state election; the editor Timeshift seems to have misread my edit, since his edit summaries don't match up with what he reverted. Please self revert your reversion of my edit unless you have evidence that there is still an actual dispute. Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I also disagreed with the insertion - I think it's undue weight for the lead paragraph. StAnselm (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? Undue weight for what? Colonial Overlord (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That in reliable sources, the election is described as essentially a competition between Labor and Liberal. The Liberals will be attempting to beat Labor to form government, so the Greens don't need to be mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
784		Grammy Award records (talk)						Add sources
350		Australian Labor Party (talk)						Add sources
183		Christianity and Judaism (talk)						Add sources
220		Criticism of Christianity (talk)						Add sources
8		Clyde Holding (talk)						Add sources
1,081		Schizoid personality disorder (talk)						Add sources
91		Laying on of hands (talk)						Cleanup
232		Christian anarchism (talk)						Cleanup
100		New Perspective on Paul (talk)						Cleanup
104		History of the Orthodox Church (talk)						Expand
10		Peter Schäfer (talk)						Expand
55		Gillard Government (talk)						Expand
170		Devil in Christianity (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
543		White privilege (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
62		History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
53		David Gunn (doctor) (talk)						Merge
53		History of Tasmania (talk)						Merge
141		Event-related potential (talk)						Merge
1,873		Eastern Orthodox Church (talk)						Wikify
130		The Bible and violence (talk)						Wikify
49		Ish-bosheth (talk)						Wikify
14		Holy Order of Mans (talk)						Orphan
6		Reed Lessing (talk)						Orphan
39		Use of Force Doctrine in Missouri (talk)						Orphan
2		Carrol Bramich (talk)						Stub
8		Manager of Opposition Business in the House (Australia) (talk)						Stub
427		Luke Foley (talk)						Stub
2		Phil Honeywood (talk)						Stub
15		Nicanor the Deacon (talk)						Stub
199		Changing (Sigma song) (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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
842		Mica (talk)						Add sources
39		Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (talk)						Add sources
250		Sola fide (talk)						Add sources
58		Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (talk)						Add sources
817		Australia national cricket team (talk)						Add sources
658		Gail Kim (talk)						Add sources
75		Zondervan (talk)						Cleanup
31		Greg Bahnsen (talk)						Cleanup
89		Kamran Akmal (talk)						Cleanup
538		Ferguson, Missouri (talk)						Expand
110		Old Earth creationism (talk)						Expand
99		Development of the Old Testament canon (talk)						Expand
567		Resurrection of Jesus (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
247		Zealots (Judea) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
226		Christian demonology (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
387		Catechism (talk)						Merge
394		Sanctuary (talk)						Merge
37		Siloam inscription (talk)						Merge
311		Paphos (talk)						Wikify
119		Gunfire locator (talk)						Wikify
124		Galerius (talk)						Wikify
1		Louis Stulman (talk)						Orphan
31		Protestant culture (talk)						Orphan
7		Narrative preaching (talk)						Orphan
18		Katsumi Yusa (talk)						Stub
37		Elymas (talk)						Stub
12		Aristarchus of Thessalonica (talk)						Stub
4		Southern Illinois River-to-River Conference (talk)						Stub
93		Jedediah (talk)						Stub
11		Gregory Beale (talk)						Stub