User talk:StAnselm/2013

This is an archive of past discussions with StAnselm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2013

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  ... (up to 100)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Acts 29 Network is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acts 29 Network (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my goof. Basileias (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Acts 29 Network, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GregJackP Boomer! 00:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

has started.. --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. Tomorrow morning my employer is sending me to a somewhat remote location until February 17. During this time I will have a little or no internet access. There's a possibility I may be able to edit wikipedia for maybe half an hour, two or three times a week at most, but it is a distinct possibility that I won't have any computer access at all during this time. Normally I don't tell anyone when I get sent on errands like this (normally because nobody notices I'm gone, lol) but our Jehovah's Witness friend, with his well meaning but obvious conflict of interest attitude, is still not entirely satisfied with the JW predictions in the article. He is now proposing removing the 1918 prediction that we agreed upon, and rewording the 1975 prediction in a manner which I believe skews far more in favour of JW's than a neutral article should. I just thought I'd ask you to keep an extra lookout on the page as I will most likely not be watching it. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you edit there, FYI duplicate article back at Gospel of the Hebrews I'm afraid. If you have time. Hope you're well. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the recent info added to this page because of truth being distorted. In no way does the info listed reflect who Louie Giglio is or what he stands for. If you insist on having that particular information posted, it would be a good idea to post both of Louie's responses to the situation.

Dgfalldine

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your work at Acts 29 Network. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits (I should say, thanks for your interest - it's nice to know that someone is reading). I sourced these edits to McGrath, but I haven't yet had time to say what book it is - so more to come. (McGrath is a professor at some college in the US) PiCo (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a reply on my own Talk page. McGrath's book interests me because it's directly on this subject, but as I say in my reply to you, I'm not sure it counts as RS.

My own interest in religion is purely as history - I have no spiritual/religious "feeling" in me. But I am interested in how these books came to be written, what the original communities and authors were trying to say. And I'm awe-struck at the artistry of some OT works like Genesis 1 and 2-4 - simply amazing, works of literary genius by any measure. But, for me, not spiritual - I regret that I don't understand the spiritual mind - and I rather suspect that my own mind must seem rather cold and strange to those who do. PiCo (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StAnselm, I am having some disagreements with JHutson and we have worked towards consensus. The heading: "Securing the Reformation" does not have consensus, so it shouldn't be in the article. Is that what you are referring to when you say we are having an edit war? When we reach consensus on the heading we'll leave it as we have agreed. Until then the heading does not have consensus, is not neutral and by MOS should not be in the article. Do you think we should ask for help at this point?Markewilliams (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Archer (Fifth Monarchist), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Henry Archer, an English Fifth Monarchist, predicted in 1642 that Jesus would return in around 1700? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Archer (Fifth Monarchist). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How again is "Calvinist" not a subset of "Reformed"? tahc ^chat 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for a moment, person who names themselves after a saint on the interent, but please, tell me what exactly it was about my editing an article for relevance and adding legitimate sources to an article constitutes a 'personal attack'? Was it that I stumbled upon a personal crusade you were carrying out against some other user? Or do you just block people for your own personal self-interest? Why do you care so much? Detail what made it a personal attack please?

Who are you, a total random, to be littering my unused talk page? Seems you're the one doing the attacking (from moonandantarctica2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.107.123 (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2nd post from moonandantarctica2:

WHAT!?!? I called the person you were warring with on this public IP address I'm using a 'nutjob', i initially thought your user name was nickD, then corrected myself. So I was saying, 'Stanselm, that guy (you're warring with) is clearly a nutjob, but...'. Please re-read the edit post and it will be a bit clearer in this context. Essentially i was agreeing with you. I certainly did not call you a 'homophobic racist'. You can post an apology for your false accusations and warning here whenever you're ready thanks. I only got involved as I went to use wikipedia and found that the IP address here at the hostel was blocked, so I poked around to find out why, and frankly, because I was bored got caught up in it myself. Just because two people share an IP address doesn't mean they are the same person, or do you not understand how the internet works? As for accusations of 'sneakiness', i didn't bother directly referring to the correction as it was pretty clear from the repetitive subtraction and addition of words displayed on the history that I obviously was maintaining my original approach to the article, therefore only mentioned the NEW addition. (moonandantarctica2)

Jeffmsmith70 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the talk page that you've been involved with this article since 2007. Since the article must still be on your watchlist (how else would anyone have responded so quickly to a minor change), I suspected this was a personal interest in article's topic. Which lead me to your user page and the confirmation of the hunch. I wanted to introduce myself as a fellow editor with a shared interest (in fact, your top two userboxes will soon be added to my user page). Senator2029 ➔leave me a message 08:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the polish you gave to William Skinner - its still got a way to go so do join in if you are intrigued. But thanks anyway! Victuallers (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the offer but I'd advise against it - I'd much rather just work this article up. I have been noticing that any articles get a fair number of views anyway. Victuallers (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I have added some extra stuff about John Adam and there is a lot left in the articles referenced. I'm quite intrigued by this guy as he seems to have been undervalued - his bio implies that he was underpaid. Victuallers (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanktyou for adding articles to Actress categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know an editor has expressed concerns about canvassing on the talk page of the genesis creation narrative article. Pass a Method talk 13:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that it will probably never be known for sure whether the Phoenicians ever sailed to the Americas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 23:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Stop deleting Islamic and Baha'i content on multiple articles please. Pass a Method talk 23:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at David (disambiguation), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pass a Method talk 00:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Greengreengreenred 02:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Louise Allen (tennis) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Allen (tennis) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. James086^Talk 08:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the result of this report: WP:AN3#User:StAnselm reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Warnings, move protection). It contains warnings for both parties about the editing of Abraham (disambiguation). A consensus needs to be found about Abraham before any further reverts occur. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I've reworded the DYK a bit to get it under 200 characters; hopefully that's what you had in mind. Concerning the original DYK: "...that Boston minister John Cotton agreed with banishing Roger Williams in 1635, but supported Anne Hutchinson during the Antinomian Controversy until the day of her excommunication?" -- it was actually worded correctly. Cotton supported Hutchinson until the very day of her excommunication; I don't read it as implying that he dropped his support as a result of the excommunication. She had spent the previous night, and in fact the previous week, at Cotton's house, so that Cotton and Davenport could work on her theological errors. This was very much what Cotton was all about. He would much rather have corrected the errors rather than lose the soul. In fact, he was disappointed that Roger Williams was banished before he could correct his errors (not that he would have been successful), though after the fact he wrote Williams explaining why he had been banished (thus implying that he in essence agreed with the banishment). As I wrote the original DYK, it seemed very clear in my mind, but perhaps others would have interpreted it as you did. Water over the dam. Hope you find the new DYK to your liking.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, did you review a DYK article? I think you need to do a QPQ unless you've submitted five or fewer in your career.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure only one QPQ is needed per nomination, and this is a single nomination. But I'm happy to find another one to review. StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's fine, if only one is required; seems, however, I've seen multiple QPQs for hooks with multiple new articles. I'm not sure of the requirement, though.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was wrong. Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines says "one article reviewed for each bolded article in the hook". I'm actually in the middle of reviewing an article, so I'll be sure to finish it off. StAnselm (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StAnselm. (It's been a while since we've connected.) Hope you're doing well. 1. The concept is aka "New Testament household code". I'd like to establish a redirect from that term to the "domestic code" article. Pls refresh my memory as to how to establish a blank article with the title "New Testament household code". From there I remember how to use Redirect. 2. It needs to be found when one searches for Haustafel or Haustafeln. The German titles are very often used in the titles of English articles written on the subject. What do you recommend? 3. In the literature, Domestic Code is nearly always capitalized. I think I recall that title searches are case-blind, but throughout the article, I've tried to be consistent capitalizing Domestic Code. Do you still prefer lower case for that term in the title? Thanks for your help. Afaprof01 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StAnselm - I wanted to check in on the categories you are adding to many biblical scholars. I think we should make Category: Biblical scholars a parent category of Category:Old Testament scholars and Category:New Testament scholars. I think the vast majority of subjects should be categorized as either Old or New Testament scholar, almost never both, and maybe only occasionally categorized as Old or New plus as a biblical scholar. What think ye? Ἀλήθεια 20:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely - that is my intention. But we can also have the nationality category as well, as I added to Paul R. House. I have put a note on the Category:Biblical scholars page to indicate that it is a parent category, and I've been busy recategorizing. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. OK, I'll take care of doing that for the other articles that I've created. Thanks! Ἀλήθεια 20:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up question. Do we really need two categories, Category:American theologians and Category:American Christian theologians? Are there any theologians of other religions in the parent category? I would also be willing to bet that more than a few of the articles in the former would be better categorized as biblical scholars rather than theologians. For instance, just the first one on the list is Ezra Abbot, mis-categorized as a theologian. Ἀλήθεια 21:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. There are a lot of silly duplications like this on Wikipedia. It should be changed with a wholesale category merge. The thing is, getting a result at WP:CFD can be a long and tedious process, so it's the sort of thing ignore. As for the second issue - that's something that can just be changed on a case-by-case basis. Many people will be both theologians and biblical scholars, but I would think there has been a fair bit of miscategorization. I only just noticed Category:Translators of the Bible into English - a few of the articles I've worked on needed that added. I also generally add Category:Bible commentators if they have published three or more commentaries. Anyway, thanks for your work. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, I think the next step in this review is up to you. If you no longer want to be involved, please let me know and I'll put out the call for a new reviewer. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, StAnselm; our joint DYK doesn't seem to be going anyplace, likely because of the double whammy of having two reviews needed, and then my very long Cotton article. Do you think we might have better luck just going with separate DYKs, if we can get administrative approval? There just aren't likely many who want to review two articles together, especially if one of them is nearly 100K in size. Thoughts?Sarnold17 (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uneasy myself with the reliance on one book. I'll see what I can do. (Til E. is often pig-headed, but he's sometimes right just the same).PiCo (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think you're wrong about this one. From my reading of the rules, you can't have a "disambiguation page" unless the words have the same name. Obviously "Theosis" is a different word from "Divination" so there must be some explanation why "Divination" could be considered some kind of "Theosis." I will leave it be but am sure it won't last like it is. LCS check (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How comes that disambiguating? Few dozen yet left, yes? LCS check (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StAnselm. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jeff Iorg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: better to wait till the AfD is over, moves during AfD can confuse the system. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evangelism Explosion, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the evangelistic training program Evangelism Explosion is used by over 20,000 churches worldwide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Evangelism Explosion. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

On 13 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Preparationism, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that criticisms made by John Cotton (pictured) about the doctrine of preparationism were a factor in the Antinomian Controversy and Anne Hutchinson's banishment from Massachusetts in 1638? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by per the very obvious comment included? Pass a Method talk 23:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted that myself actually. But i did not mean what u think it means. I meant that many denominations flip-flop on the issue and we should not be using the lede as an update. Pass a Method talk 23:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 02:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, StAnselm. Could you please stop removing the "Category:Biblical scholars" from articles on biblical scholars? Even though they are also listed as either "New Testament scholars" or "Old Testament scholars", the broader categorization is also necessary if the respective page is to show up when someone clicks on "Category:Biblical scholars". Thanks.

Just note, if you revert 3 times, and they revert 4, you are still edit warring. Arguing "I only did it 3 times" isn't likely to be taken as a good excuse. Just leave a neutrally written note at a wikiproject which is in scope to get more editors to comment and then you can see where the real consensus lies, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the move process - and did the cut and paste by accident. ok. sats 08:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so having reverted me are you going to do the move or shall i? sats 09:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for spottingmy error - fixed now - cheers !sats 14:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For creating Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas (and especially for avoiding using the fringe and copyvio laden phoenicia.org)! Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been working on this article. Feel free to comment here. — Confession0791 ^talk 21:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were cautioned about deletions only a few days ago. It appears you are merely continuing. Pass a Method talk 20:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a report at the edit warring board here Pass a Method talk 21:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your e-mail, btw. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reassessment seems to have ground to a complete halt. It seems perfectly clear that it should be delisted, but what is the procedure? Do we have to wait for an admin to do it? Jpacobb (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be associated with wikiproject on christianity,can you give me a helping hand sir?`Uncletomwood (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi StAnselm/2013, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Uncletomwood (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncletomwood (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi St.Anselm: As you may have noticed, the same-sex marriage article has been taken over by people who have made it into an editorial. I need help in cleaning it up and presenting both sides. I wrote in the talk page: The Wikipedia policy states that not only are articles to be written fairly and with encyclopedic language, but opposing viewpoints are to be included. This is not the case with this article. It is a blatant example of one side of a debate being presented without equal weight to the other side’s opinion. Nevertheless, three hackers have taken over and immediately (sometimes within one or two minutes) reverted any changes I make. Can they be reported to Edit Warring? Even when I open up the article for discussion because the neutrality of the article is in question, they immediately take that down. All my edits are immediately removed. Please help.Theanswerman109 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again: Thanks for the response on my talk page, and I appreciate your advice and comments. The reason I posted that the article is not neutral is because both sides of the argument are not presented. Only pro-same-sex marriage quotes are given, and when I post an alternative quote from a good source (such as from the American College of Pediatricians that stated same-sex marriage is not good for children), the quote or addition gets immediately taken down. Sometimes this is done within 2 minutes. In addition, I want a discussion regarding the lack of neutrality in the article to take place, but the same three people immediately take down the tag at the top and say that no discussion needs to take place. Please let me know if you think I should post the comment again from the Am. College of Pediatricians which states the following: The American College of Pediatricians reaffirms that the intact, functional family consisting of a married (female) mother and (male) father provides the best opportunity for children. [T]he College does not support the alteration of this time-honored and proven standard to conform to pressures from “politically correct” groups. No one concerned with the well-being of children can reasonably ignore the evidence for maintaining the current standard, nor can they or we ignore the equally strong evidence that harm to children can result if the current standards are rejected,” says Den Trumbull, MD, President of the American College of Pediatricians. Please advise.Theanswerman109 (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you've done most of the work on it, I'm letting you know I've put a prod on it for lack of notability. The reason I've given is "Small church with no reliable independent sources given. The three references given are their own site, a list and a directory entry whose info differs from the article, and which states that they can't guarantee the info or even that the church still exists (but I think it does...)." It seems they've been there in one form or another for 150 years, and achieved a membership of about 250 - split between four or five parishes, and mostly non-locals as well. I noticed your rationale for declining speedy, and I can't think of any automatic notability for church denominations, congregations or even churches. (Or synagogues, mosques, sacred groves, temples or whatever.) Possibly with some RS (currently lacking), there might be notability. Good luck. And thanks for trying to rescue it. I do that to apparent no-hopers sometimes. Some actually survive. A lot don't. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Calvin Synod - United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church in America, Chile and the St. Andrews Presbyterian Kirk, Christian Presbyterian Church in Portugal, Reformed Church of Latin America articles. Wrote your opinion. Please help I was Cryx88 Thanks!

Thanks a big bunch for your attempt to reason with Yeoberry. I hope it pays off in the end. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again: Thanks for the response on my talk page, and I appreciate your advice and comments. The reason I posted that the article is not neutral is because both sides of the argument are not presented. Only pro-same-sex marriage quotes are given, and when I post an alternative quote from a good source (such as from the American College of Pediatricians that stated same-sex marriage is not good for children), the quote or addition gets immediately taken down. Sometimes this is done within 2 minutes. In addition, I want a discussion regarding the lack of neutrality in the article to take place, but the same three people immediately take down the tag at the top and say that no discussion needs to take place. Please let me know if you think I should post the comment again from the Am. College of Pediatricians which states the following: The American College of Pediatricians reaffirms that the intact, functional family consisting of a married (female) mother and (male) father provides the best opportunity for children. [T]he College does not support the alteration of this time-honored and proven standard to conform to pressures from “politically correct” groups. No one concerned with the well-being of children can reasonably ignore the evidence for maintaining the current standard, nor can they or we ignore the equally strong evidence that harm to children can result if the current standards are rejected,” says Den Trumbull, MD, President of the American College of Pediatricians. Please advise.Theanswerman109 (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion on my talk page between myself and Fladrif. Turns out Yeoberry signed with his email address at one point, [email protected], which is Carpenter's email address. I knew this but didn't add it to avoid charges of outing, but since he added it himself... shame I didn't notice this earlier. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my new article on an Australian beetle!Felixthehamster (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the 1999 Brill/Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Christianity and find, somewhat admittedly to my surprise, that some of the longest, and presumably most significant, articles in that source don't yet exist here. These include various "Theology of (X)" articles, including the article "Calvin's theology". One might think that such an article would be redundant to the "Calvinism" article, but, actually, both of those articles exist in that source, and both are over 2 full pages apiece, indicating that there is some apparently good reason to break them up. The full list of articles in that source, FWIW, can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles#The Encyclopedia of Christianity. I note that you are one of our self-described Calvinist editors, and it was on that basis that it occurred to me that you might be among the individuals most interested in perhaps creating an article on the subject of Calvin's personal theological/philosophical views. I'm going over the list to see which articles might exist in other titles here now, with the hope of nominating some for upcoming contests, but thought this one in particular might be of interest to you. I could myself if requested perhaps e-mail the content of those articles to you, if you requested and gave me your e-mail address to send them to. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Coconut Creek, Florida, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you have a moment, please cast an eye on Great Church, created it to fill a gap, but not very familiar with the subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cryx88 created the article Chiese Evangeliche Riformate Battiste in Italia but somebody changed this to Baptist Reformed Evangelical Church in Italy, this is however incorrect, it's vandalism, please help to convert the title to Evangelical Reformed Baptist Church in Italy or Chiese Evangeliche Riformate Battiste in Italia. Thanks

I'm assuming from your chosen user name and from contributions I've happened to see from you that you might have an interest in or be able to answer the question I asked at Talk:Passion (Christianity)#First sentence. My understanding (which I'll frame in-universe) is that the Passion is meant to convey the human suffering that the Son of God underwent in bodily form, and that our contemplation of the terribleness of this suffering is intended. At the article, it's said that the Passion is the "passing" of Christ, which strikes me as both implying a false etymology and rather depriving the concept of the power of its intended meaning.

It would be a distraction for me to pursue this, as I was only linking to the article, but if I'm not mistaken it should be fixed, and yours was the first editor's name I thought of. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 111th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a perfectly acceptable word, like Englishes for instance. Get with the program St Anselm--we're not in 1109 anymore. I don't mind your edit, but you should know that it's no longer hip to be square: now, it's hip to be hip. Or post-square, if you like that better. JSTOR 1450222 is an early hit, from 1889. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that many of us are ordinary folks who are not hip to the lingo. We tend to take 'weasel' as 'weasel' just because it is what we are used to. (How did that poor animal's name come to be such an insult, anyway?) And I have seen wording like 'some scholars' used freely and frequently elsewhere in Wikipedia, and such phrases are considered quite normal in the mainstream community, including many acedemic works. Plus, when you delete my entire idea rather than just change the 'weasel words' I assume you are hostile. Plus, the idea I was countering was a rather angry anti-democracy idea, or so it seemed to me. I was trying to make the article less politically radical. Sorry if I came across as hostile. I hope there are no hard feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.5.116 (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you're saying it's not "commonly known in North America" as the KJV? You are surely not so foolish or inexperienced here to believe that the current first line is acceptable, or will last? Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your minor changes to the article on Kaloost Vartan. He was a great man and the more material we have on him, the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.142.52 (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All comments were referenced, especially those under the controversial views section. Some of the wording was even lifted directly from the websites referenced. All of the websites referenced come from the personal blogs of reputable theologians and pastors. Look at the citations if you would like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaptistBolt (talk • contribs) 03:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source came from a self published article. It would be beneficial if you looked at the sources before you criticize them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaptistBolt (talk • contribs) 03:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed sentences that reference 1st party sources as they do not meet the standards of Wikipedia. However, the sentences that are referenced by 3rd party websites should be allowed to stay as they meet the publicly stated standards of Wikipedia. This man is a controversial character, and his views should be listed on his Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaptistBolt (talk • contribs) 03:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Template:World homosexuality laws map shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Furthermore, you have deleted sourced material to return to a non-NPOV version, citing a nonexistent consensus. Cavann (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me, I created the Calvin Synod - United Church of Christ but somebody changed the title to Calvin Synod - United Church in Christ. Please change back the correct version. Recently created the Presbyterian Church in Japan and the Japan Presbytery - Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America. I think these are noteworthy to keep them. I recently added some pictures to the Presbyterian Church in America and edited the Reformed Churches in South Africa. I created the Old-Reformed Congregations (unconnected). Please read them and wrote your poinion.

Your sincerely Cryx88

Would you review this edit, please? I think it should appear lower in the article, not in the lead. Thanks. :) — Confession0791 ^talk 22:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Keep Up The Good Work Theangryryno (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StAnselm, I just wanted to alert you to my new edit, plus an entry on the talk page. Wanted to make clear where I'm coming from in reaching a resolution. Thanks for that clarification about the doctrine being shared with Lutheranism. I didn't know that. Best wishes, Evenssteven (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Protestant Church in the Netherlands - Reformed Bond. I think it is important to have a separate article on Wikipedia. Please read it, and wrote an oppinion.

Thanks

I wrote about the artickle about the Protestant Great Church in Debrecen. In the Hungarian language it is the Debreceni Református Nagytemplom, that in English the Reformed Great Church in Debrecen, NOT PROTESTANT. I think the article should renamed to Reformed Great Church in Debrecen, from Protestant Great Church.

Hi StAnselm, I just wrote on my talk page a suggested addition to the page on Vern Poythress. Vpoythress (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Domenic Johansson custody case is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domenic Johansson custody case until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw that you contributed quite a bit to the page for this, so I wanted to make sure that anyone heavily involved with the creation of the page is aware of its nomination. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]