Talk:Eternity

message: Narrowly a B class. May be High importance to the WikiProject, maybe only Mid.
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time/Assessment|WikiProject Time assessment rating]] comment 

message: The entire paragraph starting with "It is also equally possible that God can choose not to exist as he is all powerful" is nonsensical, speculative, and not evidenced by any religious belief. That is to say, there is no philosophical argument, mathematical postulation or religious tenet that states what would happen if God willed himself into non-existence. I just can't see how that affects an encyclopedic entry for "eternity" at all! - me  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.218.146 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for edit

message: In the article, "the philosophical aspect seems still very much relevant" doesn't indicate to what the aspect is relevant.  You can't have relevance to nothing. Unfree (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced 'philosophical aspect' into 'question'. Hopefully my contribution became more easy to read. --Marttir (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance vs. Irrelevance

message: Is there a reference for the quote in "eternity as a timeless existence"? I would be interested in using the quote; also, it should be referenced according to WP:CITE. Thanks! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears repeatedly in Augustine's Confessions and I suspect in some of his other books.  I suspect some or all of his books are on the web in Englsih translations, so maybe we can find it.... Michael Hardy (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I had just been wondering if it was a legitimate quote. I can probably find the passage in Confessions now. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote of Augustine of Hippo 

message: I just created an "Aevum" page to discuss the Scholastic concept of aeviternity. Would it be possible to change the redirection link so that "aeviternity" now redirects to that page instead of to this one? -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  Wikiscient (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Aeviternity redirection

message: The edit warring over symbols is ridiculous - among other things, it's unlikely that any really ancient symbol can be described as either exclusively Armenian or exclusively Georgian given the geographical realities. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery - edit warring over symbols 

message: Hi. I am user from Georgian Wiki. Just discovered, that our ancient symbol is recognized here as Armenian. Enough already this Armenian thefts. It`s ordinary, that Armenians always try to appropriate everything Georgian-history, culture, territories and also here-in Wikipedia. So, there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borjgali. Via link even in Armenian Wiki you can found that this is Georgian: --Achiko-84 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Borjghali is Georgian, not Armenian

message: Hi Cwobeel and the user at 89.110.17.156. You both are close to edit warring by reverting each others' edits too many times. The three-revert rule is in place to prevent edit warring by multiple reverts of the edits of others. Please engage in discussion and seek agreement between both of you and other users instead of engaging in repeated reverts or edit warring. 
Special:Contributions/89.110.17.15689.110.17.156, I agree with Cwobeel on this. Even though your edits might sound reasonable, your edits consist of original research as they seem to be put together by you, and you didn't list the sources where you got the information from. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and original research is unacceptable. I hope that you'll be able to find sources for the information you are adding, otherwise other users may be inclined to remove it. Optakeover(Talk) 15:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits do not contain original research. 89.110.17.156 (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If your edits do not contain original research, then please provide sources for the information, otherwise there is no way to prove that your information was not invented by you or someone else. Please read WP:ORIGINAL closely. Thanks, Optakeover(Talk) 21:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got it. I have tagged the article accordingly. -  Cwobeel (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring