User talk:Steve kap
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Hello, Steve kap, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am CTSWyneken. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
- Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
- Provide an Edit summary
- Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)
- Create a User page
Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. --CTSWyneken 02:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Concordia
Dear Steve: Thanks for the note! I am a graduate of that Seminary. Currently, I'm a librarian at the Fort Wayne version of the sem. I hope my Welcome Wagon greeting makes you feel at home on the wiki. Thanks also for signing your note. May I suggest something? It is very helpful to have editors put for tildes (~~~~) at the end of each post. That will sign your username when you save the post. It helps develop a working relationship among editors. --CTSWyneken 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes! That does nicely. Welcome, again! -CTSWyneken 18:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Chalmers vs Goteborg U.
Hi Steve. I'm afraid I won't be of much help here; I know next to nothing about the master's programs. Finding a place to live can be tough; try Chalmers Studentbostäder. Fredrik Johansson 19:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Septimalization
Thanks for the message.
First, noting your concern on this - no doubt you are aware that you can be more diplomatic. That's all I was asking. Thanks for understanding, there.
As for the article, to explain my vote, yes, I know that the article is essentially describing something that is completely fantastical. My motives are to nondisriptively prove a point though. Wikinger has expressed a desire to make this work, so I'm going on good faith here and waiting for him to improve it - and yet, I know he won't be able to do it without obfuscating the living daylights out of it and/or trying too hard, thus...well, killing the article. On the other hand, unlike other articles I've seen go through AfD, though, the article's creator really does have a basis, however fantastical it may be. In one case, it's the Holy Bible - which many people consider to be anything except fantastical.
So there's my brain dump, before coffee - hopefully you can parse the decaffeinated ramblings of a lunatic mind. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Personal attack
Steve, please be careful not to make personal attacks at Sigismont (talk · contribs).[1] I am trying to explain to him that he is violating WP:NOR. Rather than attacking, perhaps you could have a go at trying to explain policy to him? He may accept that his theory is not suitable for inclusion, and if not we will be able to request community opinion on his edits. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 10:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying JFW. The comment was made in all earnest. I really think this person could be mentally ill and off his meds. But, in hind sight, I guess I should have made the comment to his talk page, rather than the discussion page. In any case, I'll let the matter rest, I'll let you handle it. Steve kap 10:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Most would view your comment as an attack rather than a genuine expression of concern... I understand what he wants - he thinks he can demonstrate from the 10 commandments that Jews were never meant to circumcise their children. The problem is that he is the only person in the world who believes that this can be so demonstrated. The arguments are based on egregious misreading of the text of the Pentateuch. But even so, we cannot include them because of WP:NOR concerns rather than the fact that his arguments are specious. JFW | T@lk 16:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it really was a genuine expression of concern, but, as I've said, should have made it more privitely. It sounds like you're saying there actually is a school of thought that supports his view, I find that a bit suprising. But, I don't know if you've ever read anything written by a parnoid scz., but the rambling tone is just like that. Although, I have to say, to me, it doesn't seem that much different from, say, post-modern writing or mainstream theology for that matter,, so , maybe its just me. Anyway, I'm done with this one, do as you will.Steve kap 20:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
