Hello Brent Silby! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Masterhatch (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

I had to revert your changes to Classical theism because you broke multiple references. When adding to an article, you need to use the same citation style being used in the article. This article has a list of works cited and links to those citations using {{sfnp}} templates. It does not use <ref>-tag citations. When you change existing {{sfnp}} to ref tags, you cause the article to throw harv citation errors. Changing the existing referencing style is disallowed by WP:REFVAR - when you add to an article, you must use the same citation style as is currently the majority style in the article: in this case the article is completely consistent in using a signle citation style, so additions must also use that style. Feel free to add back your material, but properly add any new citations to Work cited and use {{sfnp}} templates to link to them so that you don't break the articles existing referencing structure. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thank you for pointing out, I am still pretty new to editing. I will try to add back my text with proper citations. Brent Silby (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing you are missing: secondary sources are preferred to tertiary sources; that is, replacing existing secondary sources (Schellenberg (1993); Howard-Snyder & Moser) with a reference to the tertiary Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, also is not cool. I wrote most of a that article, and I made sure the sourcing was to actual academic books. In my opinion your addition are vague and low quality, and I will likely rewrite them with proper sources. For example you say "In response to the problem of divine hiddenness, theists". What theists? See WP:WEASEL. And what's with the a) , b) and i), ii) - are you copying out of the IEP? We don't write like that here. Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, feel free to revert and I will try to source it directly rather than referencing the encyclopedia. Brent Silby (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, perhaps don't revert. It will be easier for me to pick up from the current spot. Brent Silby (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it myself. Also, please note that paragraphs containing only a single sentence are horrible writing style. Skyerise (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking your time! I will try to follow all of your guidelines going forward. Brent Silby (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're a good sport. Carry on! Skyerise (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE HazelfoxYT (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MINOR for when to tag your edits as minor. David notMD (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking! I have apparently been misusing this function. My apologies Brent Silby (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 192.184.150.127 (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I blanked the section is because the previous version of article went too much in the details of Christian theodicies, compared to other religions. As an example, only Christianity had 3 sections dedicated to denominational theodicies, even though there are various Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu denominations. Furthermore, by blanking that section I was able to bring the article under 6,000 words which is the sweet spot (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size). Brent Silby (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brent Silby That is because Christianity has had the most responses to the problem of evil. 192.184.150.127 (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not that much more to warrant taking up as much space as Judaism, Islam, paganism and Buddhism combined. I have nominated this article for "good article" and one of the main criteria is to not give too much weight to a particular viewpoint. Giving 3 separate sections for denominational theodicies when no other religion has been presented with them is in violation of that criteria. Besides, the article current is over 6000 words, so something needs to be trimmed either way. Brent Silby (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a compromise: I will expand "The Bible", "original sin theodicy" and "evolutionary theodicy" sections and will remove the "denominational theodicies" section. Brent Silby (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brent Silby! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Good article nomination, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Religious responses to the problem of evil you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MediaKyle -- MediaKyle (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Brent Silby. I just finished up reading through the article again, adding some more notes to the GAR and I also added 2 "Who?" tags under "Judaism" to be dealt with. I'm going to leave at this for now and go over the article once more in the morning with fresh eyes; after that, if no more issues arise, it should be just about good to pass. Thanks again for your patience, and great work on this article. I learned a lot about theodicies today. I'll be looking forward to seeing your next work. MediaKyle (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Meanwhile, I will work on things that you've mentioned. Brent Silby (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brent Silby I'm pretty well satisfied that the article meets the criteria now, just pinging you here because I think you missed the two "Who?" tags under the "Tradition and philosophy" subheader of the "Judaism" section MediaKyle (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @MediaKyle! I have fixed both "who" tags as well a "which" tag. Brent Silby (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks for pinging me. Take a look under the "copyvio" section, I ran another check and something did come up this time. I didn't bother checking but I assume that's just a leftover from a prior author. MediaKyle (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks for noticing it, @MediaKyle. I have completely paraphrased that paragraph. Brent Silby (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MediaKyle! With copyvio problems going away and the article being stable, is there anything else that needs to be done. Brent Silby (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brent Silby, I'm pretty sure we're all good. I was just leaving it open for a little bit as I had invited another editor to take a look and wanted to give them a chance to provide feedback if necessary. If nothing else comes up, I'll do a final go-over and pass it later on this afternoon. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MediaKyle! I really appreciate all of your commentary. Together, we have greatly improved the article. Brent Silby (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MediaKyle! I just wanted to thank you for taking your time on this review. It was a real pleasure cooperating with you. Brent Silby (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Brent Silby. Thank you for your work. I'll keep an eye on your future GA nominations to make sure that they don't languish in the backlog for too long. MediaKyle (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @MediaKyle!

I have tried looking for reviewers who would volunteer to review the classical theism article that I nominated. I have asked on various associated WikiProjects, as well as on the Teahouse, but was not able to find a person willing to do that.

If you are still happy to review the articles in my backlog, then I'd be more than happy to work with you to get that article a "good article" status! Brent Silby (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you're having trouble finding someone to collaborate with you. To be fair, good article reviews are a pretty involved process and they take time, so in a sense it would be expected that some articles will take a while to get picked up by a reviewer. If you're interested, I think Did you know might be another avenue to look at. I haven't yet engaged with it myself, so I can't speak too much on the topic, but I think it would generally be faster and not only that but allow you to possibly get the articles you work on onto the main page. The only thing with DYKs is that the article has to be new, or expanded fivefold. If you feel like doing a lot of writing, though, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to get a few DYK credits. Some people in the "DYK Participants" list on the page I linked above might be willing to help guide you through that process.

As far as the GAR for Classical theism goes, I will start that for you at some point in the near future, although it looks like you still have quite a bit of work to do. I just did a skim of the article and I'm seeing sections that are under-cited, and places where there aren't citations at all. What I'll do for you now is go over the article and throw a bunch of maintenance tags at it, that way you can spruce it up a bit before the review starts. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it would be good to start with maintenance tags. Will be more then happy to add references where necessary. Brent Silby (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added some tags for you. By the way, you may wish to read over MOS:GOD - the main thing is that we don't capitalize He and Him in articles, unless it's in a direct quote. MediaKyle (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brent Silby I just noticed you've only written 2.4% of this article, as seen here. This isn't a problem necessarily, but did you reach out to the main author before nominating it? You should typically have written at least 10% of the article before nominating, else ask the main contributor about it first. The previous article I believe you had written 15% or more of, so that never came up. MediaKyle (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @MediaKyle! Sorry, I have missed this message in my notifications. Yep, I have asked the biggest contributor for permission and her response was: "Feel free to nominate the article and to work with the reviewer to resolve any issues." So there should be no issues there.

I am currently in the process of finalizing another article that I have nominated earlier. Just this morning, a reviewer accepted and finished writing a review and there are just a few tweaks needed here and there before it will be (hopefully) granted the good article status. As soon as I finish with it, I will work on adding the citations that you have requested. Thanks again :D Brent Silby (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brent Silby I'm glad to see that you're having more luck now. I took a look at the article under review and added a couple maintenance tags to it for you. Good luck! MediaKyle (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @MediaKyle! I have cleared up all the maintenance tags on the classical theism article as well. Eagerly looking forward to you starting the review! Brent Silby (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brent Silby That's great! I may step in on the other review at Trinity first depending on what the reviewer there decides to do, not sure if you were following that conversation at all but I believe that article is still going to need some work. We'll get it all figured out. MediaKyle (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @MediaKyle! It appears that the good article tag was removed from the Trinity article. I would be very happy to go over it with you as soon as you are available. Brent Silby (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brent Silby Absolutely, I'm gonna say I'll most likely get started on that either tomorrow morning or afternoon (in my corner of the world) - the robot should ping you once I open the review. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle Alright, that's perfect. Looking forward to it Brent Silby (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @MediaKyle! Do you still plan to review the article? I am just getting a little bit nervous, because of you being inactive for so long. Brent Silby (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brent Silby, my apologies. A certain set of circumstances has allowed me to be quite active on Wikipedia over the past few months, as you may have noticed, but for the same reasons sometimes I have to go a couple days away from the computer - I'm not blowing you off. Now that I've sat down and taken a good look at these articles, if it's alright with you I think I'd like to start with Classical theism just because we can likely get that one done within a couple of days, whereas the Trinity review is going to take a lot longer, and will almost certainly require input from other editors. I'll open up that review here shortly. MediaKyle (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle Yeah, sure, feel free to start with that article. Brent Silby (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot hasn't kicked in yet, but I'm working on it now over at Talk:Classical theism/GA1 MediaKyle (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Religious responses to the problem of evil you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Religious responses to the problem of evil for comments about the article, and Talk:Religious responses to the problem of evil/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MediaKyle -- MediaKyle (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brent Silby! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Where to find a reviewer for good article nomination?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Trinity you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Trinity and Talk:Trinity/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FarmerUpbeat -- FarmerUpbeat (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Trinity you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trinity for comments about the article, and Talk:Trinity/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FarmerUpbeat -- FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Classical theism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MediaKyle -- MediaKyle (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, I just realized we've been at this for a while! We've made a lot of progress so far - I think I'm going to take a break now, and revisit the review later on.

By the way, before I forget, have you seen the article Theism? It's in rough shape, and apparently has been for at least three years. Bringing it from it's current state all the way up to GA would be quite an undertaking, but if nothing else, it could serve as a better way to navigate readers towards all the different articles regarding specific forms of theism, with a brief summary of each. Just thought I'd leave that with you as a potential future project :-) MediaKyle (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, thanks for suggestion! That's exactly what I was looking for. Currently, I have 3 articles waiting for review: classical theism, Trinity and soul, but as soon as I am finished with them, I will move on to the Theism article. Brent Silby (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brent Silby. I wasn't sure whether or not I should bring this up, but I think it'll be good to have this on the record, and for your own information. I ran a scan on previous iterations of this article, and the results suggest that a large portion of the oddities we encountered are a result of the fact that a substantial portion of AI generated content was added before we got to working on it. I'm still very unclear on policies around using generative AI on Wikipedia, but it seems to be the consensus that inserting entirely AI generated content introduces errors, which I'm almost certain is what we ran into today. I'm not one of those anti-AI purists, but as we continue to develop articles relating to religion this is going to be something to watch out for. For curiosity's sake and to validate the previous results, I used the same scan tool on your edits, which identified them as 100% human in contrast to the 80%-100% AI on other edits. The article is so substantially different now that it no longer resembles the AI output, so I don't think it's going to be an issue at all from here. MediaKyle (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle thanks for notifying me! Yeah, I had a weird feeling reading the whole "problem of evil" section, since it felt like a kind of a filler that you use when you need to artificially inflate character count. I guess it being AI-generated does explain everything. Brent Silby (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to ask you earlier, where did you find that "reference saving" tool you used the other day? I looked for it before and couldn't find it. Would come in handy for the articles I'm working on. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @MediaKyle!

The tools that I use are:

1. InternetArchiveBot - For adding archive links to links.

2. Citation Bot - For general citation maintenance. Brent Silby (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks a lot! MediaKyle (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on GA #2! Let me say I've really enjoyed collaborating with you over the course of this review and the last. I best let you add this one to the list yourself, as I might put it in the wrong place: Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion. Looking forward to working together further. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MediaKyle! It was a pleasure. Very nicely done. Brent Silby (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Classical theism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Classical theism for comments about the article, and Talk:Classical theism/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MediaKyle -- MediaKyle (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Wow, where did you come from? Your first thousand edits in less than two months have done an awful lot to improve several very important articles. It's genuinely really impressive, and I can only hope you continue to grace the encyclopedia with your efforts and good-natured ambition. Remsense ‥ 论 22:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Soul you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mr. Squidroot -- Mr. Squidroot (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brent Silby! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Talk page question, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I am sorry to interfere with your GA-Proposal. I know you worked hard on it, but I cannot see it passing GA right now. It is still too poor in coverage. This is not to denounce your efforts, but simply because the article has been a pool of random facts thrown into, without much professional structure. You already cleaned up a lot of the mess, but there are still some dots missing.

I added a few sources I think needs to be adressed, quite broadly. Originally, I planned to add them as soona s I have time for this, but it seems like I have not found it yet. If you do not mind, I would love to give you a hand with what I perceive as missing. In that case, I would drop a few sources, I am aware of missing in the article, but have no time to dive deeper into due to time-constraints in real-life. In taht case, you would just work the rest out and then promote it to GA, if this works for you (and yes, you can add the cool "worked on bringing it to GA-Sticker on your User page, of course).

I just do not think that at this point GA would be justified, it is rather B-class now, at least in my opinion. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I have seen your comment on the GA page. I would really appreciate you sending the sources you have in mind, which would really help. One thing I would like to say, though, is that I'd much this review be put on hold rather than failed, because I believe I can implement the proposed changes in a timely manner and starting the GA process anew is a very tedious task. Brent Silby (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I've been keeping an eye on what's going on over at Soul, and I happen to think you've been doing a fantastic job. Kudos!

Just a couple notes of inspiration for you: First of all, are you aware of the core contest that's going on right now? You're basically already participating anyways it seems. Also, there is currently an FAC going on for History of Christianity which I thought you may be interested in providing input in. If you look back on the history of that article, the nominator has been working tirelessly on it for a long time, and your expertise would surely be most welcome. And finally... Maybe you're getting sick of reading about souls for hours on end, and you're looking for some other articles to tackle. In that case, Outline of religion is what you're looking for - that article should guide you to just about anything you might want to edit in that topic. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Some incense for you!
	Hopefully not overly presumptive of either your tastes or your present condition. I just wanted to emphasize that I hope to see you around as before as quickly as possible! Get well soon. Remsense ‥ 论 18:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Soul you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Soul for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mr. Squidroot -- Mr. Squidroot (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]