User talk:Pastordavid/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.

Contents

Welcome Messages

Welcome 1

Hello Pastordavid! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Wecome 2

Oh, and since you didn't get an intro yet (I think): Hello there Pastordavid, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How to edit a page and experiment at the Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the village pump. -- EmperorBMA|話す 06:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome 3

Welcome to Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Also: you can play and experiment all you want in the Sandbox. If would like to ask questions about anything at Wikipedia, please feel free to message me HERE.

Here are a few other links you might find helpful:

We're so glad you're here! Welcome, and Happy editing!
Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia|wanna Talk? 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Theology-Related Conversations

Theology of Glory

How about we merge Theology of Glory and make it a redirect instead of deletion? --EmperorBMA|話す 06:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can do, I'll merge it and redirect... -- EmperorBMA|話す 06:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Jacobite/Nestorian

That was my intention in taking it to the talk page, but thanks for the heads-up. BTW, are you from Blair NE? I have family in the Decatur area. --Midnite Critic 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Trinity

I think it belongs to the lead.

For example,
  • Encyclopedia Britanica starts the article on Trinity with: "in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). "
  • Oxford Dictionary of the Bible starts with: "The Trinity is not explicitly mentioned in the NT: it was defined as a result of continous exploration of the biblical data."
  • The Oxford Companian of the Bible starts with : "Trinity. Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the cannon."
As you can see, to all these sources the scriptural source of the doctorine is important. Also, per WP:Lead, the lead should touch the important points. Cheers, --Karbar1 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fivefold ministry

Picked up the removal on recent changes reverted the removed tags. Warned the user. Have it watchlisted.--John Lake 07:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Hang on you are a pastor and you deleted my insert!?!? Why would you do that because it doesn't follow wikipedia guidelines? Because I didn't speak from a neutral position, why would you care are you to afraid to stand behind God's word? Frankly, you have the right to post that topic in what way you want. Don't forget what our founding fathers stood for and what thousands of men have died for

Well then i guess you are for taking religion out of schools and government buildings? Because hey it is a rule and we must follow it even though it is complete unconstitutional?

Hey how do you stop the deletion and when the vote happens who votes on it?

John 1:1

Added two more cents - to discuss RFC Blueboar 23:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you! And thank you for your input as well, it's been very helpful. It looks like a pretty good consensus is beginning to form on the article, and hopefully the new version will be a lot less biased. While you're correct that no one is "automatically right" on any article (even experts disagree in many cases, after all!), it's always very good to have someone that has a good understanding of the source material and has ready access to it. As to the previous version, quite realistically, I think it was one person just trying to do the best (s)he could-it's very hard, when writing by oneself and not having the writing examined by anyone else, to let personal views and "I think I remember this..." creep in. When someone else is around, they can say "Hey! What's your source for that? And there's an opposing view on this, we need to present that too." It can happen to anyone-even the very best journalists get read by editors, and I'm sure frequently corrected by them. Seraphimblade 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Popups should only be used to revert obvious vandalism as the edit summary is set for you and therefore can look dismissive or rude. Where you disagree with an edit I'm afraid you have to do it long hand so as to be able to put an informative edit summary. It takes a while to get used to wiki protocol so if you have any questions please ask. Sophia 13:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No problems. The guy has a bee in his bonnet and any edit war like that can get the article locked by an admin. Hopefully he won't revert me but we shall see. Sophia 13:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oecumenical?

Hi. I have explained the reasons for the changes here. If u need anything more to be explained, feel free to ask me. Regards Hectorian 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Blame it on Hectorian. He was attempting to call all the Bishops of Byzantium and Archbishops of Constantinope 'Patriarch' too. InfernoXV 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiho - how would you feel about having all the Ecumenical Patriarch X of Constantinople articles renamed back to Patriarch X of Constantinople? InfernoXV 18:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Eutychianism

I'm helping clear the backlog of articles to be wikified and have come across the above, which I note that you have been trying to improve. I left a message on its talk page that you may find relevant. Regards. Itsmejudith 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Could you take a look at History of Christian theology?

Hi, I have put together a new article titled History of Christian theology. I noticed that you reverted some vandalism on Christian theology so presumably you have an interest in this topic. I'm not 100% sure that we need two articles i.e. both Christian theology and History of Christian theology. The Christian theology article does tend to cover the history of Christian theological development already although it is all in bullet points and links rather than prose. I don't suppose it is possible to write an article that is only about contemporary Christian theology without covering the 2000 years of history that led up to it. So, what I'm trying to say is: I'm trying to decide how to provide History of Christian theology a raison-d'etre i.e. how to distinguish its scope from that of Christian theology. To that end, I would like to enlist your help in reviewing the History of Christian theology article and giving me feedback on how to improve it, specifically with regards to differentiating it from Christian theology article. And, it's OK if your conclusion is that there isn't a need for both articles and that the two articles should be merged. I m;yself am sitting on the fence with respect to such a course of action. Much thanks in advance for your help... --Richard 20:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. -- Pastordavid 21:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to Me

Thanks

Thanks for the encouraging comments. As I'm sure you know, there are a lot of sloppy and mishandled saints articles out there. Just working to make Wikipedia a more user-friendly place. See you around. Alekjds TALK 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my request for comment. It's easy to lose perspective which is why I do value external input in a dispute. Sophia 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wise County, Virginia

Thank you for your third opinion on Wise County, Virginia. I hope that you are still interested in collaborating on the problem you commented on; edit conflicts are difficult to resolve on sparsely-trafficked articles. --Takeel 13:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you haven't already gotten this

(barnstar moved to user page) That's more or less a joke based on the name. However, right now I am trying to assess all the so-called Vital articles for the various relevant projects, and that's going to take quite a while. At the very least, I intend to shortly finish the missing articles pages, and probably at least ensure that all the missing encyclopedia articles exist before working too steadily elsewhere. John Carter 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your guidance on the honorifics question. Cheers! PeterHuntington 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Misc Comments

Blair, Nebraska

Howdy. Consider visiting your edits here. When you add interesting trivia/claims, such as the stop sign, it is best that you cite them in some manner. I have left a citation request. Also, take care to avoid creating redlinks with brackets in your edits, particularly in user talk messages. Kukini 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No problemo. Keep up the good work! - Kukini 20:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A True Church

I was the one who restored A True Church. I did this because it was mentioned in the articles on Franklin Graham and polygamy and thought that it would be bad to have something mentioned in those articles that doesn't have an article itself. However, it's reference has now been removed from the Franklin Graham article. I'm thinking about deleting it and removing all references to it on Wikipedia. However, we need to do both of these things and not just one, if it is actually a non-notable group. Academic Challenger 07:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Evangelical Church of the Deaf

It looks like our common friend Adam decided without us and nominated the article for deletion... :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 22:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Now it seems that he slowly starts to understand how much he knows about religion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Church. I hope that he will be more careful in the future. Merry Christmas! --Ioannes Pragensis 13:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Parkin-Wesley College stub

Why remove {{Christianity-stub}} from Parkin-Wesley College without replacing it with a related more defined Christianity stub? Paul foord 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside the US a seminary may not necessarily issue Masters degrees. Also Theological College is typical Australian usage for Seminary. Paul foord 04:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mind of Mannie Fresh

it was a review copied entirely from another source that I was removing. I'm still lost as how to sign up. -&

Thanks for your RfC participation

Pastordavid, belated thanks for your participation in the Steven Hassan RfC. It helped us come to a good compromise. Tanaats 04:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A question about 3RR

Pastordavid, I would appreciate some advice about 3RR. 3RR doesn't control how many insertions one makes into an article, just how many times one deletes the insertions of another. So it would be easily possible for someone to go on a bit of a rampage inserting lots and lots of bad edits into an article, while the other editors would each be limited to only being able to reverse three of those edits per day.

The cards seemed stacked in favor of those who would make bad edits.

What does an editor do if faced by a "bad edit rampage" and he's pushing 3RR? Thanks. Tanaats 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A True Church

  • Pastor David, you wrote: "Please do not delete tags from articles that you have created." Is this a rule? No one else was deleting the tags, even after I had added the external sources. What was I supposed to do? --qrc 16:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A Bustle in the Hedgerow in Swarthmore

Dearest Pastor David,

Would it be acceptible to incorporatate another heading listed 'Swarthmore Businesses', under which Renato's, as well as other local institutions, could fall? And if not, what would be the acceptable heading under which a venerable establishment, such as Renato's, (for which anyone who has spent their formative years in Swarthmore, holds a certain significance) would fall.

I anxiously await your ruling. Cordially, Murraydeluxxxe

Regarding external Links

Dear Pastordavid, I can understand why you removed the link trinities.org/blog from "Christology" and "Heresy". However, it is a huge mistake to remove it from "Trinity". trinities.org - isn't your normal news and diversions sort of blog, but rather an ongoing resource, with unique & permanent scholarly content, namely, recent work on the Trinity by Christian philosophers. It's far more informative, say, than http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm You really should look more closely before you undo someone's work in putting up a link. Would you restore it, please? Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.238.33.58‎ (talk)


Kokkadichcholai_massacre

Both sides have now posted their opinion. Thanks RaveenS 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please responsd when you have time. Thanks [1]RaveenS 20:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks RaveenS 21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/s/User_talk%7EPastordavid_Archive_1_eb60.html"