User talk:Doc glasgow/April-Aug05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

This is an archive, talk to me at User talk:Doc glasgow

Contents

Welcome

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk to me

Kenosis

Excellent job of adding to the Christology section of the Kenosis page. An important theological concept...concise & well done. KHM03 16:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HS-2000

Thanks for pointing that out. Be Bold! If you think it is a copyvio, it probably is. For the future, it is pretty easy to tag. Place {{copyvio|url=THEURL}} on the actual page and then go to copyright problems and list on the bottom of todays section with [[THEPAGE]] from [THEURL] ~~~~ . Good luck in future editing. Oh, btw, how did you find my name, anyway? Burgundavia 00:21, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

apology

No need to apologise, but it was nice of you to say those kind things about me. I've been through the learning experience in six months on Wikipedia and you haven't done anything I haven't done myself in the past. We learn, which is cool. I think it's great that you're so involved and interested. I think VfD is a good place to learn about the way Wikipedia works. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christian View of Marraige, Roman Catholic vs. Catholic

I noticed that you have reverted some of the changes I had made earlier.

I had recently changed most of the wording in that section to make a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the entire Catholic Church, of which there is a difference. There are Catholic Curches that are not Roman Catholic that are in full communion with Rome (i.e. they're under the authority of the Pope and Vatican) and ipso facto have the same general dogmatic views concerning marriage.

Although this could be an arguable point considering the vernacular terms used to describe the Church, the 'Catechism of the Catholic Curch' is the official title of the document, and certainly should not have been changed. Roodog2k 18:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It's sometimes a mistake to edit "Catholic" to say "Roman Catholic". You did this, for instance, on the "Trinity" page, where it used to say "Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant". Now it says "Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant". But to add "Roman" there is to exclude, for instance, the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht, or the Anglican Catholic Church, from any of the three divisions. Frjwoolley 23:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Granted, the difficulty you flag up. But "Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant" will not do either. It is not NPOV. Most (if not all) protestant denominations claim to be Catholic. As I've pointed out elsewhere, that claim is explicitly made my most prostestant theologicans and churches, see eg. [1]. Indeed it is a contention of the apostles' creed that the whole church is "Holy Catholic and Apostiolic". The Roman Church has always claimed to be the Catholic church - but to describe it as such is inappropriate as the title is disputed. Again to use Catholic to mean episcopalian alone (Roman, Anglican etc) is also problematic. (Anyhow many Anglicans would view themselves as both Catholic and Protestant) Cheers--Doc Glasgow 23:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC) (A protesting Catholic)

True, good points. But still, almost all of the folks we call "Protestants", if you asked "Are you Protestant or Catholic?", would have no hesitation at all in answering "Protestant"; and none of them, or almost none, would object to "Catholic and Protestant" as describing the two sorts of Christianity they're aware of. On the other hand, asked the same question, Old Catholics and Anglican Catholics and Polish National Catholics (and who knows who else) would answer, unhesitatingly, "Catholic". And this isn't a meaningless use of the word, either. These groups all believe in the sacraments as real means of grace, Saints who intercede for us, the Mass as a sacrifice, Apostolic Succession, Purgatory, the indissolubility of marriage, the canonicity of the "Apocryphal" books, and dozens of other things that we think of as distinctively "Catholic" as opposed to "Protestant". (They have nuns. They call their priests "Father". They wear silk brocade vestments.) They don't believe either in the Pope's infallibility or his universal jurisdiction, and in that way they're more like Orthodox than like Roman Catholics; but it does make sense to think (and speak) of them as "Catholic". Slippery words, all, and no good solutions. Frjwoolley 04:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but in common speech 'America' means the U.S. and does not include Canada, Mexico etc., but one would not expect such clumsy nomenclature in an encyclopaedia - so I don't think common parlance is necessarily a good guide.

Further the dispute over Catholicity is not merely a matter of names. The term is theologically loaded as well. The early church differentiated between ‘Catholic Christians’ and ‘heretical groups’. Thus the 'Catholic Church' was the one true apostolic church (hence the creedal statements). In claiming to be the Catholic Church rather than one part of it, the Church of Rome is implicitly (and explicitly) designating Protestants as schismatic – they are not to be regarded as ‘true Catholics’. The Protestant view has always been that catholicity is not a matter of institutional continuity - but doctrinal faithfulness to the apostolic teaching. Thus all true Christians of whatever denomination are Catholics.

Similarly to limit the term Catholic to those denominations that share certain doctrines and practices with the Roman communion is also contentious. It again tends to present these as marks of the true catholic church - and relegate all else to heresy – or to schism.

Please note, I am not arguing that the protestant view is correct. (That is irrelevant by NPOV standards). Merely that the designations are disputed (among theologians, if not the man of the street). There is obviously a problem in how to designate the family of denominations closest in practice to the Roman Church - perhaps as clumsy as it sounds 'Roman Catholic and related denominations' could be used or simply Episcopalian??--Doc Glasgow 11:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Christian Marriage, part two

in respose to what you posted on my talk page...

Naw, its cool. you make a good point. The terminology is often misleading and unclear, even within the Church. My point was not to make a distinction FROM Protestants (i.e. Protestants aren't catholic), rather to be more INCLUSIVE regarding the Eastern Rite Churches in full communion with Rome. They do not generally refer to themselves as Roman Catholic, despite the fact that they are 100% part of the Church and the Pope. They have their own methods of saying mass, and traditions conerning the sacrements.

See this link for what I mean. (Scroll-down for the bit about the 'particular churches) [2]

So in short, I wasn't even THINKING about protestants when I was writing what I did. :)

Roodog2k 19:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


my proposal

Hi,

I just announced I am stepping away from the proposal discussion for several days. I know I have polarized the discussion, which I didn't want to do. If you are willing, I hope you will visit the page periodically and do whatever you can or think is appropriate to facilitate discussion between both sides.

Thanks

Steve

Deleting article

Why you want the article to go (BT Broadband)? • Thorpe • 09:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

    • A list of services and their prices does not really belong in an encyclopedia - and in any case it will keep changing. A link to BT Broadband website from the BT page would be more appropiate. However, if you want to make a case why it should be in an encyclopedia, then please do so one the VFD listing. I'll be happy to listen to your arguements and reconsider my opinion. --Doc (?) 10:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank You Girl

Hi - I've just rewritten this article which you voted delete on at vfd - thought you might like to take another look...? Grutness...wha? 03:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good job - I'll change my vote --Doc (?) 12:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of tyrants

Please read what I have written on the page, because I hope that on reflection you will change your position. Philip Baird Shearer 18:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Haters

I'll leave it up to you whether or not to remove the copyvio, but as I said, I think it is probably not. Unfortunately, the contribtions are so old that it is unlikely that the two contributors will even see the notice and therefore won't defend it. My guess is that the article will be voted off anyway (although the use of the word by ravers apparently has nuances that I don't think a dictionary will typically cover). DS1953 03:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No_Answers in Genesis

On notability, this site has been cited by BBC News, assorted academics, the Geological Society of America and by a conference supported by the National Science Foundation, the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and the Geological Society of America. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, that might have changed my vote, but I've been away and it's too late now anyway. --Doc (?) 18:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

CSD expansion

Hi there! Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load, I've put together a proposal to expand CSD, here: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal. Before it is put to a general vote I would like your advise on the wording and intent; could you please take a look? Thanks, Radiant_>|< 13:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fun with deletions...

Thank you for your patience in dealing with our anonymous vanity-posting friend. I speedy deleted what I thought I could get away with. The vanity is unfortunately not speedy-deletable as far as I can tell. (I've been away and am not entirely sure what is current common practice, but the official rules make vanity articles vfd candidates.) But I wanted to speedy delete them. Good work! -Aranel ("Sarah") 9 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)

verses

Please note that Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses is a VfD and not a poll. If you vote "merge" it will only be interpreted as a vote to merge, rather than agreement with the merge outlined, which would require a vote of "merge per above" or "merge per Uncle G".

If you change your vote from "Keep" to "Merge", I can assure you that it will not be interpreted as being a vote for Uncle G's proposal, but rather simply a vote to merge in some as yet not discussed manner. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)

But I want to keep some of the verses and merge others - your proposal is too blunt - and isn't a Vote for deletion anyway --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Tiberius Junius Brutus

Thanks for the heads‑up; as you may have read at the Vfd page by now, it is, unfortunately, a true story, at least in its main lines. Some details are either new to me or have skipped my memory (along with my shoe size and on occasion my own name), but on balance, I've no reason to disbelieve them, either — although I'm poking around just for my own curiosity. Best, Bill 16:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew

Hi, I've been looking at that VfD (since Ril asked me something about the RfC for Melissawhateverhernameis) and I noticed you voted delete. My question is, is the delete because the present article is original research or because the topic is inherently oringinal research? This will help me know how to vote. Thanks. gren 12:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been a bit partonising with my 'this is complicated' attitude. But it is. I'm going to sit down this evening (GMT) and set down my thoughts on the issue. I tend to think the topic is invalid itself. 'Authentic Matthew' is not a common scholarly term - and what it could denote (a source specific to Matthew distinct from Mark, Q or Luke) is better discussed under Matthew's gospel or The Synoptic problem. This article is connecting some important debates that are discussed elsewhere in order to push a non-notable theory. In short, I think this article should be deleted and not ammended - it is not needed in any form. --Doc (?) 12:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you notice

That many of Melissadolbeer's (and sockpuppets) recent contributions claim that you and I are sockpuppets of each other? ~~~~ 17:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Infant Communion & Protestants

I know little to say about the subject. I know of no Denomination that allows such Communion, though I would suspect that most follow the Roman Catholic rejection of the Apostolic practice. But who am I to say? --Sophroniscus 19:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that Lutherans have, at least, considered the issue under the name Paedo-communion. --Sophroniscus 21:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I'm interested. I'm occupied today with family concerns -- Mother-in-Law in hospital -- but even so, I took the time to lookup the term Paedo-communion and update this page with what I found. I shall be glad to include the information you have supplied if I can find some support for it on the internet.

I just happened to discover the term Paedo-communion by accident last night. Sitting in my hotel room watching TV I happened to flip over to EWTN, just moments before EWTN briefly displayed the term. It seems someone had sent in a question and they were responding. Perhaps my Mother-in-Law's sickness was no accident but part of a diabolical plan to get me to see that word? --Sophroniscus 22:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have included the document as an external link. --Sophroniscus 19:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Eastern-Rite Catholics

Regardless of what anyone else may think, Eastern-Rite Catholics are not Roman Catholic. Their churches are in hierarchical communion with the Roman Church. That may be a difficult concept, but it's very true. I know. I have attended both a Ruthenian Catholic Church and a Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. They are not at all Roman. Nor are they at all like each other. --Sophroniscus 19:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Melissadolbeer has opened a request for arbitration against you (at WP:RFAR). ~~~~ 09:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. FOr the record here was my response:

This is plain ridiculous. I voted for the deletion of Authentic Matthew supporting (-Ril-)'s contention that it was 'original research'. I was not aware that there was any other dispute - I have had no complaints from Melissadolbeer. (-Ril-) and I have (civilly) disagreed on quite a few issues - the allegation that I am his sockpuppet is just crazy. (My edit history speaks for itself). I somewhat resent being dragged into a personal dispute between these parties. This seems like a bad faith RfA. --Doc (?) 10:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've improved your banner a bit

MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY


~~~~ 13:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Disruption

Hi, DG. We need a new article on the Disruption of 1843. At present it redirects to Free Church of Scotland, but that seems a bit weak to me. Strikes me, you might be the person to start the new article. Can I tempt you? --Doric Loon 13:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I could get up the interest to make a start on that article. BTW Free Church of Scotland needs an overhaul too - there is much there that belongs in the disruption article and other stuff that has more to do with the history of the Church of Scotland between reformation and disruption (perhaps we need a general History of the Church in Scotland page). There is also an article on the United Free Church of Scotland, which in fact tells you little about it - the bulk of the material actually concerns the Free Church case, which I think should be a separate article - it would be good to have some help sorting this lot out. --Doc (?) 16:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Moving Beer run to Wiktionary

As I stated in the talk page, the article will eventually be expanded to include information on beer runs as a cultural phenomenon.

BTW, poverty isn't necessarily a bad thing. As Ayn Rand proved, those who do not produce enough value from which to make a living are not entitled to a living. Kurt Weber 17:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, enjoy your cultural beer runs, and let your 'proof', that starving chidren are not entitled to live, be of much comfort to you. (And, meantime, I will ask myself why I humour stupidity.) --Doc (?) 18:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Gladly. I defy you to refute a single word Ayn Rand or I have ever said or written. Kurt Weber 19:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm ... let me think ... nope, troll food is available elsewhere --Doc (?) 19:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bible verses

I added another section for "verse-by-verse Biblical analysis should be transwikied to a WikiBible instead of left on Wikipedia with the possible exception of "notable" verses" as something that could take votes *in addition* to votes for other section, so if you support that idea go check it out. Thanks! — Phil Welch 22:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

SimonP (the creator of the 100 or so gospel verse articles) has tried to claim that the votes for the "only notable verses" section would include most of the 30,000 verses of the bible because he sees them as notable. To avoid such a POV twisting of the votes, I have added a new section - [3] - for voting on whether the number of notable verses is more like 30,000, or more like 30. Would you care to vote there as well? ~~~~ 00:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper

I see that you voted for deletion of an article by Famekeeper, stating that given his pattern, it was unlikely to be useful. I agree. I have taken on the unpleasant task of writing up a Request for Comments about his filibustering on talk pages. Could you please visit it and see if you agree with it? Robert McClenon 11:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, but all i was referring to was his edit history - I've never had any run-in whith him. --Doc (?) 11:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Doc

Yo, thank you for letting me know what happened to the Efed article. It's no a redirect, but there was a lot of information that has been lost (and frankly, the article User:Hedley cited as better is pretty bad, and nowhere near encyclopaedic). I'm trying my first ever VfU. I feel so proud. :) Proto t c 09:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

My god I'm dumb. Deletion log. Deletion log. Cheers! Proto t c 09:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:BV

Thanks for the heads up. I think people started voting before it could be seconded, but I think we'll fail to notice that for convenience' sake...isn't it ludicrous that we're voting on whether to close a poll because we think polls are evil?  :-p Tomer TALK 10:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Bundesprüfstelle

Hi Doc, thanks for your message. I know, that the article is half in German, as I'm currently translating it myself. I just accidentally saved the article instead of previewing it. I'm working on it :)

OK, Ich wünsche Sie viel Glück --Doc (?) 13:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Impostor --Ril--

Thanks for the headsup on the impostor - your edit summary warning got my attention as it went by on CDVF. Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 22:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

consensus

The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were

  • Delete - 21 (58%)
  • Keep - 11 (31%)
  • Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).


Would you be prepared to re-add your vote there? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Fake Copyright Violations? What's up with that?

Hey - what's up with your copyright violation notice of The_God_who_wasn't_there? Is this some form of electronic book burning? The material you referenced is an ad for the movie!--Marcperkel 19:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, assume good faith. I marked it as a copyvio, because I believed that it was. And the fact that it has been deleted indicates that someone agreed with me. The text of the second section of the article (as I recall) was identical to the 'ad'. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with the deleting admin. Secondly, I am NOT into censorship, and I actually would have voted keep had it not been a copyvio. If you want to re-write it in your own words, I'll vote to keep again if it is VfD'd. --Doc (?) 19:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well - if you are an honest Christian then why don't you tell the admins that YOU were in error and ask then to reverse it. If you look at the discussion you'll see that the movie author actually wrote the ad. So - let's see if you are willing to admit error and fix it.--Marcperkel 20:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no need, I see it has not in fact been deleted (you miswrote it above and a redlink appeared - I assumed it had been deleted). If you supply your evidence on the copyvio page, it will survive that proceedure. Unfortunately, i am not in a position to check what you are saying. --Doc (?) 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Doc, you followed the correct procedure, so don't feel bad about it. I've started a rewrite at The God Who Wasn't There/Temp. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • He did not follow the correct procedure at all. The copyright holder verified that the material was not infringing. Now Doc Glasgow is going around recruting people like you to do his dirty work. False copyright violations are illegal under the DMCA. The copyright holder has made a statement on the discussion page and provided a link to verify that the infringment claim is not true. If you keep doing this he may just put Wikipedia and you by name in his next movie. So - stop it! --Marcperkel 23:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't recruit anyone - I looked for an impartial second opinion, since you were attacking my motives. Since I'm in the UK, I don't give a monkey's about the DCMA - so please STOP TROLLING. --Doc (?) 23:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, it looks like a good faith edit to me. --Alan Au 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm used to seeing religious nuts, but now we've got atheist nuts. You acted properly to protect both Wikipedia and the original author, don't let Mr. Hostility get you down. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for info

Since you write on Church of Scotland topics, would you perhaps be interested in contributing to Eucharistic discipline? Thanks. JHCC (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew the sequel

The POV that was in Authentic Matthew before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see more people working on WP:MEP!

I noticed you list WP:MEP on your page. I'm involved with this project and I just wanted to thank you for joining us - we can really use all the help we can get. Thanks, and enjoy your creation of stubs! JesseW 05:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

False Prophet

Thank you for the correction -- bleary eyes at 3AM after reading VfD half the night....not a pretty sight. Robert A West 14:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/c/User_talk%7EDoc_glasgow_April-Aug05_9e60.html"