Paul G. Humber

Welcome!

Hello, Paul G. Humber, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Paul G. Humber/sandbox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ 07:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Paul G. Humber/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Paul G. Humber/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Teahouse, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

How Wikipedia works

Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention.

For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its in-depth coverage in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources. Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article.

We also highly discourage editors from writing about topics where they have a personal or professional affiliation. Doing so is considered a conflict of interest and can be problematic. It is inherently difficult for an involved editor to write about a topic with the required neutral point of view, relying solely on information taken from reliable sources and not using any unpublished personal knowledge or experience.

I'm sorry this message could not be more favourable. However, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. Articles should contain only material that complies with Wikipedia's content policies and best practices, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Paul G. Humber! You created a thread called The Lasting Bible at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Original research

Please stop adding your own interpretations of primary sources, Wikipedia requires secondary sourcing. Theroadislong (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. For example, this is what is now listed under William Tyndale: "Tyndale denounced the practice of prayer to saints.[39] He taught the supreme authority of Holy Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity, the sovereignty of God, the deity of Christ and His divine glory as the Son of God, His saving work and mediation as the sole basis of man's salvation, the importance of the covenants, salvation by grace alone, baptism in the name of Christ, justification by faith, the return of Jesus Christ, obedience to God's law, the evil of idolatry and superstition, the necessity of Biblical reformation, and that the Papacy was anti-christ.

Notice that only the first sentence has a reference. The rest seems to be free of reference. What you rejected from me was a second paragraph added: "William Tyndale also taught that the soul of man is mortal and refuted the teaching of Roman Catholic Sir Thomas More. On pages 180-181 of Tyndale’s Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue, he affirmed, “The true faith putteth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put that the souls did ever live. And the pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together; things so contrary that they cannot agree, no more than the Spirit and the flesh do in a christian man. And because the fleshly-minded pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the scripture to stablish it.” http://archive.org/details/tyndalesanswer00tynduoft.

How is that different? Are you saying Tyndale did not teach that the "soul of man is immortal"? I quote his exact words in support--found in the referencePaul G. Humber (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC) supplied.

OOPS, I meant "mortal" in 3rd line above Sorry.Paul G. Humber (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I have removed that part too, as it's also unsourced, we only report on what the reliable sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying my “CAMBRIDGE” source, printed at “THE UNIVERSITY PRESS” (you can see the actual reproduction of the book using the link I provided, http://archive.org/details/tyndalesanswer00tynduoft) is unreliable? I was quoting directly from those pages—Tyndale’s own words. Why can’t I quote Tyndale in an article about him? For example, if I wrote that Tyndale believed that heathen philosophers affirmed that souls lived forever, would that be close enough to Tyndale’s own words (“The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put that the souls did ever live”)?Paul G. Humber (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Paul G. Humber! You created a thread called Follow-up to The Lasting Bible at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Theology in Leviathan

I've reverted your edits [1] at Leviathan. Partly because I don't think it belongs, and partly because if it does belong, it belongs at Hobbes. Where others have reverted out essentially the same material [2]. Please don't start the same edit war in two different places; that's just rude. See-also WP:BRD. If you really think this material belongs, as is important enough to push, then your correct next step is to begin a discussion on the TH talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

William, you make two claims that are false. First, you have deemed that Hobbes' deeply personal religious views as expressed explicitly in his most famous book should be censored. You wrote, "I don't think it belongs." Why? Hobbes was NOT an atheist. Show me anywhere in either article where Hobbes affirms his Christian faith. Why should atheists censor Hobbes' theism? This seems to be what is going on. I am willing to hear a better explanation than "I don't think it belongs." Does Wikipedia prefer atheism over theism? Hobbes' witness to his faith in his own book deserves to be made available on Wikipedia. Your personal views may be expressed on your own blog, but your bias should not censor out Hobbes in a Hobbes article. My addition was from Hobbes' book! How should your personal preferences trump Hobbes in an article about him? Second, you judge me as "rude." What is "rude" is saying by censoring I don't like what you wrote. Are you the top authority in Wikipedia? If not, can I appeal higher? Paul G. Humber (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hobbes says many things about religion, in Leviathan and elsewhere. Selecting exactly which of those are to be included in the article is inevitably a matter of judgement. Claiming censorship is generally a mistake; you will be happier not going down that route. And, all of this discussion belongs on the take page of Hobbes, not here William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I can talk on Hobbes in that location, but where in the "Selecting" can a reader see that Hobbes was a Christian believer? If you can, then you have made your point and I apologize. If you cannot, then you have not convinced me that you are not a censor. Why didn't you answer my last question? Paul G. Humber (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here is proof of what I am talking about. I just checked the Hobbes page. There are 75 references to Hobbes but zero for Christ, zero for Jesus, and zero for Son of God. That's a huge bias! I just added to the Hobbes page, but I wonder how long it will last.Paul G. Humber (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, please discuss your proposed changes. When you add something to an article and it is reverted by another editor, please use the articles' talk pages (you will find the talk page associated with each article if you click on the "Talk" tab at the top of the article you are at) to discuss the change you want to make, instead of simply restoring your proposed content to the article again. This is known as the "BRD" process, where you boldly add something, and if it is reverted you proceed to discuss the addition. In the case of Thomas Hobbes, it looks like several different editors have reverted your additions, so you definitely need to discuss them. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bonadea, but when I click "talk", a bunch of different subjects come up. How do I create a new discussion? Paul G. Humber (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

There should be a tab labelled "New section" - or you could simply click on "Edit this page" and scroll down to the bottom to start a new section. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, Bonadea, but there is a section, "No section on his religious attitudes?" from August 2007. It seems 11 years ago, someone else had a similar concern. Is that what I should expect--to be ignored for 11 years? How can I get beyond just talk to true edit? It there no authority? Do atheists control Wikipedia? Paul G. Humber (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability for an explanation of how and why Wikipedia uses secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It says, "This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." How was I not doing that in providing a link to Hobbes' online book? Paul G. Humber (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Further down it says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]" That's what I was doing in citing Hobbes' own words, and I gave the exact link to use. I believe the person(s) who deleted my quotations of Hobbes has revealed a personal bias against Hobbes' words. It may be that he did not want people to know that Hobbes really sdaid what I quoted. As far as I am concern, I have been mistreated by one or more on Wiki. Please reconsider and let me post without its being zapped. Here it is again for talk consideration. "According page 465 in Hobbes’ Leviathan (reference to be inserted = https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/6/Hobbes_Thomas_1660_The_Leviathan.pdf), Hobbes’ belief was that Jesus was God immortal: “But though our Saviour was a man, whom we also believe to be God immortal and the Son of God, yet this is no idolatry, because we build not that belief upon our own fancy or judgement, but upon the word of God revealed in the Scriptures.” Earlier in the same book/reference (p. 315), Hobbes revealed his faith in Jesus’ resurrection, “The comparison between that eternal life which Adam lost, and our Saviour by his victory over death hath recovered, holdeth also in this, that as Adam lost eternal life by his sin, and yet lived after it for a time, so the faithful Christian hath recovered eternal life by Christ's passion, though he die a natural death, and remain dead for a time.” Paul G. Humber (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:PSTS says …"All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Thomas Hobbes. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate behaviour

Regarding your questioning of a user’s religious beliefs…Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines specifically says “Do not ask for another's personal details.” Your proselytising at Talk:Thomas Hobbes is also totally inappropriate please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)