User talk:Flex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
Welcome to Flex's Talk Page |
|
[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Michael_Horton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Michael_Horton.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Earl Gates
I would like you to know that the "apparent non-notable" Article regarding Earl Gates, was unjustified on the basis that the person wrote the article himslef. He is a coworker of mine and I added him in becasue he technically is a civil servant, currently serving in the United States Army. I apologize for not knowing the current rules regarding notablity. Thank you for making me aware of thi issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk • contribs)
[edit] RorikStrindberg
Flex, I have having difficulty finding out how to cite information on wikipedia. can you direct me to where i will learn more about wiki citation?(RorikStrindberg (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- Yes. See WP:CITE for the mechanics of how to do it and WP:V for what things need citations and for what sort of sources should be cited. I took the liberty of restoring the section you added to Cotton Mather and touching it up a bit. Probably the material on the trials from the sections above should be incorporated in your new section, or your section should be incorporated there. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, for the info. I am going to write a heck of a lot more. The project is for a class (University) and i am in the process of gathering all of the information that I would need to write an informative section on Cotton Mather. I had just got something up so that I could show that I was doing some work, aside from my reasurch. Thanks for the Help again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RorikStrindberg (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Intellego or intelligo?
Thank you for welcoming me.
I know the difference between indicative and subjunctive.
Please cfr. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intelligo and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intellego .
Maybe wiktionary needs some fixing, too.
Manderlay (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It does seem that there are two spellings of the verb, with the intelligo deemed "less correct"[1] or "lesser"[2] by classicists but nonetheless being in common use, particularly in Augustine (cf. some of his other works) and subsequent Latin (cf. "Crede, ut intelligas" and "Credo, ut intelligam" in Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985). Perhaps it is a change from the classical spelling that was incorporated into Ecclesiastical Latin, though not eliminating the classical spelling (cf. Fides et ratio[3])? In any case, it seems clear that the intellig* is the original in the case we're discussing. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Father
Rather shows, like "pope" below, and the general condescending tone, the strong POV of your source, does it not? Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- They are certainly ardent Protestants and passionate abstainers, but in this case, since they clearly delight in touting the successes of the temperance movement, their distinct point of view seems actually to add weight to the fact that Catholicism wasn't greatly or lastingly affected, unlike parts of Protestantism. My favorite quote from that article is when they say, "The temperance cause is so pure, its logic so complete, so utterly unanswerable, that it might have routed all its enemies had the contest gone on without interruption [viz., the Civil War]." I suppose it did regularly route its enemies up until the passage of the 21st amendment, but "utterly unanswerable"? --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orthodoxy and alcohol
Phiddipus and the other users cover the topic well. Moderation is (obviously, in line with scripture) always encouraged, but drinking itself is not frowned upon. There are little traditions here and there which involve alcoholic drinks.
This article contains a modern treatment of alcoholism and addiction, but briefly elaborates on the history of moderation and the views of the church (and cites a canon or two concerning priestly behavior). It's difficult to find direct treatments on the subject, because most sermons and encyclicals are devoted towards a general abstinence from sin (drunkeness being considered among those). The Orthodox Christian information center touches on the subject here where it notes the prohibition against festivities on the eve of a holy day (which includes the normal Sunday) and relates a Tsar's prohibition against drunkenness and the sale of wine on Sundays. This identifies drunkenness amongst the mortal sins (see the footnote). This is what I've come up with from a quick search. I'll contact my priest and see if there is anything more official or historical on the matter, and if there are any books which can be referenced. I hope that this may have been of some help for now.--C.Logan (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Great welcome?
Thanks for sending me the welcome package. I notice you also promptly reverted the one edit I did make. You didn't give me much reason to stay did you? Robint49 (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Os Guinness
He isn't notable at all. I think this entire article should be deleted. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think he'd pass the notability guidelines fairly easily, but there certainly are other problems with the article, which I've tagged appropriately. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
| The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
[edit] Catholic view on bible inpiration
The piece that I deleted is quoting as its source the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, from Leo XIII, 1893. (There's a boxed quote also from Vatican I, but the primary quote is Providentissimus Deus). This represents a period in Church history when Leo was attempting to reject all modernity - you'll recall the famous quote to the effect that the Church has no need to accommodate itself to the modern world. The Church never directly disavows any encyclical, but it can come awfully close. It did this in 1943 with the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII, which effectively reversed Leo's directives on the subject of biblical scholarship and, inevitably, biblical inspiration. Divino Afflante says in effect that the bible has many authors and that Catholic scholars should study the times in which they lived and the context in which they wrote - a far cry from Prov.'s insistence on the purely divine origins of scripture. As I mention, the Vatican never expressly contradicts earlier pronouncements, and so the language of Afflante is a little obscure - it speaks of "the biblical author," for example, leaving open the possibility that there is but one author - but in the context of the times (1943) it was clearly intended as a move beyond Leo's obscurantism. So far as I know, there's been no subsequent encyclical on the subject, and Afflenate represents the Church's current stance on the issue. (You're free to revert my deletion if you wish, I don't want to get involved in an edit war over this minor matter) PiCo (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted link
Orenwhite (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Hi Flex, is there any special reason you have removed the external link i've added (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblical_theology&oldid=215465326) which is a free bible dictionary? do you find it unrelated to the subject? (becuase i really do
- It is not relevant. The subject of Biblical theology is not an article about theology according to the Bible in the common sense of those words; rather it is a method of study of the progressive history of revelation in the Bible. The discipline is so named for historical reasons, and the name is unfortunately ambiguous. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Greg Bahnsen
Hi, thank you for providing a reference. I'm particularly interested in the usage of the term "British Isles" in this article. Can you please provide references to show that Greg visited the "British Isles" as opposed to perhaps just "Great Britain" or "Ireland". Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- The source supports using "British Isles," and I don't have time right now to do more digging. Do you challenge the reliability of the source? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hi - short answer is I challenge the use of the term "British Isles" - it has probably been used in a context that implies that British Isles = Britain/UK (which is not the same thing). I've emailed the author and the response so far is I do know he spoke in Russia. And somewhere in Britian. I'm still researching though and I hope to find more info. So far, only a visit to Scotland can be confirmed. --Bardcom (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] knetknight's edits
Flex, thanks for the info. I appreciate your kind correction and informative summary of relevant links to help me contribute in accordance with WP guidelines. I'll read them carefully and proceed from there.
--Stephen, AKA knetknight (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Is it appropriate for me to remove your comments from my talk page after I've processed them? I'm not at all bothered by them, just want to keep things clean and figured people could see'em in the page's history if they just really wanted to... not that I seriously think anyone's gonna give a tiddly-wink about my talk page's history but, hey, ya never know.
--Stephen, AKA knetknight (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- You may delete old discussions from your talk page, though general practice is to archive them. See WP:TPG. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lord Faulkner
I provided his autobiography, Memoirs of a Statesman, as a reference. He makes numerous allusions to it there; how glad he was to see apple juice, rather than orange and an amusing incident in which he was almost photographed holding a bottle of mead after the Darlington Conference. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
