User talk:Hermitstudy

Pax Vobiscum! I was born in the United States of America, Iowa, Des Moines, 2235 hrs 1 February A.D. 1947. My interests are encyclopaedic, with emphases on history, military science and practice, archaeology, religions, science, law, health, medicine, civilization, anthropology, political and civil justice, mystical theology, Catholic and Scriptural doctrine and apologetics, Judaism, Buddhism, languages and linguistics, Classical Literature, The Arts, science fiction, humor, travel logs, the United States Marine Corps (Sniper Scouts and Recon) and Cooking. God exists, the Universe has an objective rational foundation and structure, Jesus of Nazareth is ha-Meshiach, He is the Word of God; the Laws of Evidence apply, intuitive reasoning and scientific reasoning are valid, fallacies are toxic, objective standards of truth are real.

I believe I enjoy the same generous spirit that animated Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, and after several years of having benefitted from its availability I am delighted to be a contributor. I have a sense of humor, and a deep respect for genuine research and only compassion for inadvertent error. The Seven Deadly Words of Committee are these: "We have always done it this way": I am not an innovative iconoclast, historically, culturally, intellectually, but I will not defend and support entrenched stupidity, and I well know that disregarding the genuine wisdom of the past in favor of novelty frequently ends in disaster: "Who knows not the mistakes of the past is doomed to repeat them." I like to get to the root of assumptions. Where there is a mystery or difficulty and I have access to a genuinely solid source of information that could possibly solve or resolve it I will readily share it. Hermitstudy (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Common sense is not common

(This is in recognition of this edit.)

		The Geography Barnstar
		Not only did your edit to Arabian Peninsula improve that article, it also provided a pattern for other persons to follow. Well done, sir. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling error

Hi, Hermitstudy. I just wanted to point out that another editor (who apparently is stalking me) reverted a change I made to your user page. I enjoyed reading your user page, but while doing so I noticed that you had a misspelled word. I remember learning when I was very little that it was kinder to subject someone to the momentary embarrassment of having someone point out that their zipper was undone than to allow that person to suffer the much deeper embarrassment of going throughout the day with their fly left wide open. It was in that spirit that I corrected your spelling error, and you'll note that I left an edit summary so that you would hopefully not mind what I did. But this other editor is gunning for me and so is labeling my work as vandalism. So if you do prefer the word to be spelled correctly, I guess you'll just have to do it yourself. I wish you the best in your editing. Happy trails. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Baptism and circular references

Please see WP:CIRCULAR --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read this and all of the policy statements of Wikipedia several times including those regarding vandalism and edit wars. The articles I linked in the footnote regarding Mark are not the primary source of the historical information on the positions of early Christianity re: primacy of the gospel of Matthew, but are resources immediately accessible to the reader which offer more extended discussions of the primary sources, for which references to sources outside of Wikipedia are provided, and external links have been made to primary materials being used by the authors of those articles to support those authors' arguments (or discussions, if you prefer, or presentations) in the Wikipedia articles. It is a kind of shorthand reference tool extensively used by researchers and authors in their works and in professional journals, citing the research of another who cites another researcher who cites a discussed source who quotes another (historical) witness. Primary example: Almost all of the linked names in the footnotes to "Baptism" are internal links to Wikipedia articles providing immediately accessible information and biographies which are derived from sources outside of Wikipedia which quote other sources and cite additional materials supporting statements made about the individuals named, from sources and materials which usually are not immediately accessible to the reader if they are not available on-line. (e.g. Batsell Barrett Baxter, Frank Leslie Cross, Robert W. Funk, Stephen L. Harris, Jean-Yves Lacoste, Martin Luther, J. Rodman Williams) Reading about the content of a cited author's works is not the same as actually reading the works themselves, and a footnote referencing a Wikipedia article on the author of the quotation, taken from one of the author's works, is an internal reference within Wikipedia which cites in turn the titles of works by the author or external reviews of the author's work which reference the work being critiqued, a work which is the source of the quotation attributed to the author, and now used by the contributor in the Wikipedia article. The kind of consistency you demand would instead require the author(s) of those footnotes to directly cite the (sometimes extensive listing of) external sources, which those linked Wikipedia articles courteously provide. The "Baptism" article's footnote writers have not been held by you to that task, you did not revert their notes, and they have done with the names (and other materials), which they accessed for the reader by internal links useful to them, what I did with the quotations from Clement, Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius and the related subjects of discussion to which I adverted at section on Mark in the original extensive footnote of August (which you call an essay). It would seem that if they did not violate the WP:CIRCULAR by doing so, then I too did not violate it. This may be evidence of a personal bias on your part which militates against the possibility of neutrality, to which you have already graciously admitted committing on occasion to contributors to your talk page. Hermitstudy (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not all churches view baptism as a rite of membership. You cannot state that. Baptism is an act that all Christians celebrate as the remission of sin. Phrase it how you want, but the way you changed it to is a lie. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Baptists for example deny that baptism does anything except obediently fulfill the formal commandment to baptize. They state clearly, as do others, that it is an ordinance, not a sacrament. I included the fact that for many the baptismal act formalizes their identity as a Christian, the means of formally including them in the fellowship of Christians in general, performed after their conversion as a public witness to their commitment to Christ, without the perceived necessity of joining a church or congregation. The footnote to the first introductory comment in the article offers four statements explaining that baptism washes away sin, incorporates one into the Body of Christ, unites one to the Church, makes one a member of the family of Christians, information that perhaps should be taken out of footnote and made part of the body of the article. None of these statements I provided in the introductory paragraph is a lie. There is a variety of interpretation regarding what is done in Baptism. Semantically (a subject I know well) I included them. I want you to know that I am a devout Roman Catholic and that I do believe that Baptism saves us now (1 Peter 3:21) because it is a sacrament of Our Lord Jesus Christ which He instituted and commanded to be done to all nations, and that the action itself removes sin and washes it away "by the washing of water with the word" (Ephesians 5:26), making the baptized Christian a member of Christ Himself, Whose Body is the Church universal visible and invisible. Greek kata- thoroughly + holos whole → katholicos universal → Latin catholicus Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8. Hermitstudy (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Information

Please don't treat this as any kind of accusation. I just think that it might be useful for you to be aware of WP:SHARE. Best wishes. Esoglou (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I thank you. You were correct in thinking your suggestion might be useful. You diagnosed a problem I now have to resolve, definitively. Collegues should not presume to "defend" collegues without prior permission, however well intentioned. See my response on your talk page under WP:SHARE response from "Hermitstudy". (This is probably my last communication until July 2011.) שלם, pax vobiscum Hermitstudy (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Recent Talkpage Edit

This edit [1] is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please comment on edits, not editors. Your unwarranted speculation about another editor's mental state will not help gain consensus on your edits. Please refrain from comments like that in the future, and take discussion of the edits to the appropriate article talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Transubstantiation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

See my response on the "discussion" talk page of "transubstantiation" under "Requests for discussion of reverts..." Editors who make censory (this is not a censoring organization, remember?) war on solidly verifiable findings which offer edifying educational information produced by reputable research institutions but find specious reasons for excluding and excising it cannot be accused of NPOV, but do a substantial disservice to civilization, to this encyclopedia and to the needs of a well-informed people. We are very, very fortunate that people have access to other sources of information and misinformation besides the Wikipedia. The keeping of solidly substantiated verifiable information from the public is the exercise of historically well-documented forms of polity other than a democracy. —Hermitstudy (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

'Play'

For someone who claims to know things about mental health, you demonstrate a complete and utter lack for such a knowledge. You may not be aware, so let me explain things to you. Your degrees mean nothing here; everyone here is equal, and you cannot use your degrees to say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want.

With that edit to my talk page, you broke one of the core policies we have here; our policy on no personal attacks.

Wikipedia is not created through edit wars, it is created through discussion in a civil manner. Another editor already reverted your changes, and you were told why they did not comply with our policies in the edit summaries, which you were clearly reading.

So, I suggest you apologize, and learn to discuss, or you can bet you won't be editing here much longer, because behavior like that is unacceptable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policies an editor cannot justifiably revert whatever he pleases whenever he pleases, a good reason for the revert must be given or the possibility of vandalism is raised, which several of your own respondents have leveled against you on your talk page. Hermitstudy (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)