User talk:Afaprof01/Archives/2009/Aug-Sep

Owned
Hi Afaprof01, "owned" is a slang word which means "thoroughly defeated", often with a humorous undercurrent. Wikipedia has an article on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owned I used it in the SBC edit summary in a light-hearted way considering our long-standing tug-of-war over SBC related articles.


 * Ah, so! Thank you, my good friend, for the light-hearted enlightenment and further education. That's one that is new to me. I'll be complaining to my students for not keeping me informed with the latest good slang. It hasn't been all that long since they explained that calling me the "O.G." was a good thing, along with saying I "rock." But I suppose my next move is to inform them that I "own" them in the Fall semester.... R U still in Calif? You may be getting the latest there before it filters over here. Afaprof01 (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice edits
Those were nice edits to Katharine Bushnell today. It had been over a year since the last significant improvement to the article, and I was sure it had a lot more potential. GRBerry 03:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks VERY much. I appreciate the affirmation and encouragement. I was inspired by Dr. Kroeger's Priscilla Papers article that I came across today in an old personal file. Afaprof01 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Need for protection
Because I watchlist the article, I won't protect the article myself due to a possible conflict of interest. I believe the level of vandalism isn't really enough to warrant indefinite semi-protection. I imagine the admin looking at the case will either decide there isn't enough IP vandalism, or they may semi-protect for a week or two. Yeah, sometimes vandalism slips under the radar for a bit, and it stinks when it happens (and it even stinks more when it's basically my fault for missing it, even though I had reverted other vandalism). Hopefully, this will be a wake up call. If things DO get worse, it can always be re-requested for an indefinite protection. We can also ask participants on the main Jesus article to please watchlist the article to help fight vandalism. Let's wait and see what a 3rd party admin thinks of your request. Thanks for contacting me regarding this situation.-Andrew c [talk] 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning:Javascript security issue
Hi! I need to inform you that I've protected Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Formatter because it allows users to add code to the javascript of other users. If you are an admin, you are still able to edit it, but if you are not an admin, please copy and paste it into your userspace to continue modifying it. We can set up a message at the old javascript page telling users to change their links. If you need help, please contact me or User:Eagle 101. Thanks, --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 00:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. As you update Formatter, I hope we'll be able to download a read-only version of it. It's a cool program. Thanks for all your efforts on it. Afaprof01 00:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity.
Hey again. There is an anon/user who continues to revert to his revision, which removes sourced information and replaces it with unsourced text. Most interestingly, he eliminates sources he disagrees with and claims that we must adhere to NPOV. To him, apparently, "adhering to NPOV" entails removing all views in opposition to his, which are decidedly Christian.

I'm a little irked about the whole thing, because he left this message on my talk page, which left me rather offended (considering, in part, the earlier ending). I don't easily take offense, but when my intelligence in a matter is called into question, especially concerning belief, it strikes a nerve.

In any case, however, I'm assuming that he will persist in his changes, so I thought you might want to know about it, for the sake of NPOV treatment of religious articles.--C.Logan 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
--Angel David (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus & the Money Changers/Christian Views About Women
Good morning. I received your message re: my October,'07 edits to Wikipedia's Jesus and the Money Changers entry. Apologies for my tardiness in responding accordingly, as I do appreciate your feedback.

Thanks for the offer to participate in the editing project for the site's Christian Views About Women article; while this specific issue falls somewhat outside my bailiwick, I do hope that you will keep me in mind for any other issues that arise in entries related to Western history, West Africa, the Levant, contemporary literature, politics, hegemony, and the littered interesection between theological ethos, nationalism, ethnocentricism & capitalism. Very best to you, & belated Happy New Year.sewot_fred (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
Greetings from a fellow wikipedian. I've noticed you've done some good work in the past on Christian views about women. I hope you support my recent spate of revisions, which includes moving most of the biblical material to a separate and more relevant article (Women in the Bible), and various other expansions. I'm hoping to add more history soon. Look forward to editing with you in future! Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work on this article, Tonic. I appreciate very much your Greeting and well-wishes. I, too, look forward to future edits with you and also dialogue from time to time. Thanks again. Afaprof01 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to USAFA
Your recent edit to the United States Air Force Academy article added worthwhile content, but also undid my edit that was added 25 minutes earlier. Why did you erase my changes? I feel that linking those three ranks to US-specific articles, when the article is clearly talking about members of the US military was proper and made the article better. Please help me understand your rationale for this reversion. Thanks. --rogerd (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008
This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Baptism
Would you please undo the punctuation changes you made at 02:28 ("Bible reference templates and punc. consistency")? They go against Wikipedia rules (WP:PUNC). Please clean up also some unintended results of your changes: the additional "{{"s that you can see in some of the footnotes and the redlink you have created in the "Ecumenical statement" section by writing "{{bibleref21|Corinthians|12:13}}". Though I don't see the point of some of your changes, I don't want to use an overall revert to remedy the matters that I am requesting you to fix yourself. Thanks. Lima (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I think it is best to revert, to avoid complications because of edits by others. You can easily resurrect the version that I am reverting from.  Lima (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that the clear rule on punctuation that used to be in Wikipedia has been removed, and that the link I gave simply reports, at present, the difference between the usage of the United States and that of Britain, Australia, Ireland, etc. I apologize for not having noticed that.  But I suppose that, as for the "honour/honor" question, an editor should not change whatever is the established style in an article.  Lima (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Lima, for your very polite and considerate challenge, and the respectful way you handled this matter. I'm very appreciative. While I have not had time to complete my efforts, my intentions were (a) to make consistent the inconsistencies between Brit. and Amer. punctuation, and (b) to use the newer template Bibleref2 that opens directly to the Scripture quotation rather than to a lengthy list of versions. I am not adamant about any of this--just hoping to cleanup somewhat. If you still disagree with my approach, I surely will not contest it. Thanks again. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Patriarchy and Equalitarianism
Complementarianism is sometimes confused with patriarchy, when in fact it is likely closer to being a middle ground between patriarchy and equalitarianism. For example, while patriarchy will say that a woman must be obedient to her husband, complimentarianism will merely say that she must merely fruitfully collaborate with him. This is also different from equalitarianism which holds that there are little anthropological differences between men and women, if none at all. ADM (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, ADM. In general, I agree with you and tried to point that out briefly. I wrote: "Complementarianism is a more moderate view than historical hierarchical tenets prescribing a male priority on religious grounds." Egalitarians don't ignore biological differences. Some feminists probably do, but Christian Egalitarians honor what they see as God-made uniqueness. In the Bible, the only two actual biological distinctions between women and men is that (a) only the woman can "bare" (give birth) and (b) only the man can "beget" (procreate). The real challenge is how do we distinguish culturally-specific instruction from eternal principles in scripture. Most of us understand instruction about footwashing and veils as cultural assent; we are divided on how we understand instruction about husband headship and wife submission. Both Patriarchy and Complementarianism maintain that there is an inherent male priority required by Scripture. They differ in the degree to which it is required. Egalitarians believe the overarching principles of Scripture are summarized in Paul's "In the Lord" principles and "you are all one in Christ"  differentiation.


 * I found it very telling to read that more moderate Islamic interpretations closely parallel Complementarian Christian interpretations in this area. Thanks again! Afaprof01 (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I need help
i want to start new subproject in wikiproject Christianity. Can you help me to do that?--Vojvodaeist 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Vojvodae. Please provide a little more detail: what subproject would you like to start, and what kind of assistance would be helpful to you? Afaprof01 (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I had to undo your edit to Catholic
I am sorry, but I had to udo your last edit to Catholic, because it left 7 broken citations in its wake. All parameters inside the web cite template should be written with small letters, otherwise this is what happens. I mean "url" not "Url", "title" not "Title", etc. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the mess-up. So much for automated cleanup. Thanks for catching it and reverting. Afaprof01 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

On Creation according to Genesis
You are close to breaking 3rr, and that of course can lead to a block. Please gain consensus for your edit on the talk page. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Traumatic brain injury
Hey, thanks much for the hard work on the TBI article. I made a couple changes to your work, and I wanted to let you know about a note I had left on the talk page about something you had added to the lead. I didn't think it was compliant with WP:LEAD, it seemed more like material you'd find in a magazine article than an encyclopedia. Anyway, you can see my comments there and we can discuss it there. Sorry to be so picky, I'm not trying to discourage you from contributing. Peace, delldot   &nabla;.  17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

John
Please don't include information that's not backed by reliable sources, and discuss the changes you want on the talk page. Leadwind (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Women in the Bible
Hello. Please check your last edit carefully, because it doubled the size of the article and appears to have inserted duplicate information that already appears in the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 20:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Malik! Afaprof01 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Salvation
I have indicated some issues with your version at talk:Salvation. If you do not even participate in discussing your additions, your edits will have to be removed without due consideration. -Stevertigo 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Women in Christianity
No probs Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes
Could I draw your attention to Hatnote. I think your attempt to link to all diabetes-related articles through hatnotes is not in keeping with this guideline. Instead, we already have an article series box Diabetes which fulfills exactly this purpose. Let me know if this is unclear or you disagree with me, but do not again add the hatnotes without discussion. Thanks. JFW | T@lk  07:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The existence of so many articles--with so much duplication--is a problem that needs to be addressed. I recall my first experience on the DM article. I felt totally confused. The series box, in my opinion, is not very user-friendly, and tends to be confusing. What's the harm of having a clear list of at the very top so the user quickly can scan and see what we have to offer?


 * As a fellow professional and Wiki editor, I wish you would not be so authoritarian with your "DO NOT..." and other demanding statements. I don't appreciate that, and I don't think you would either. There is nothing I can find that says is against Wiki policy.Afaprof01 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated note: with your rewrite of the lead of diabetes mellitus you made it sound like diabetes only occurs in Americans. Wikipedia is an international effort and therefore international statistics would be much more appropriate than those only focusing on the inhabitants of one country that has only about 1/20th of the world's total population. JFW | T@lk  08:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. I hope someone else will add comparable information about their part of the world. I'm doing the best I can and have a real heart for this subject. I don't pretend to be able to do it all.Afaprof01 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now for my unrelated note: what are your thoughts on our trying to clean up among the articles using links. For example, DM Type 1 appears in several articles. It is very hard to keep them all updated unless they are linked. I also find far too much MD tech talk in the articles. Wiki policy warns us about not making it appropriate and understandable by the non-medical-professionals. RegardsAfaprof01 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message on WT:MED concerning the organisation of diabetes articles. JFW | T@lk  01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Diabetes intro
I'm getting quite tired of your repeated attempts to place the Diabetes template at the top in the diabetes mellitus article. This is presently being discussed on the talkpage, and so far the only other respondent (apart from me) feels that the diabetes template should not be at the top. You are free to await other responses or take the issue to requests for comment, but please stop wasting others' time by repeatedly introducing the same change. JFW | T@lk  13:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need to quote my posts back to me on my talkpage. I will ignore your personal attacks while apologising for any situations where I might have sounded rude.
 * Please continue any discussion about the diabetes template on Talk:Diabetes mellitus. JFW | T@lk  22:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I have fixed the ICD-10 links, which are now working properly. JFW | T@lk  23:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please likewise continue any discussion about the diabetes template on Talk:Diabetes mellitus. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009
John Carter (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing References
Could you tell me the logic behind removing the reference to the original quote by Confucious? Why is it that you kept the original reference but removed the ability for editors to verify it? Historyguy1965 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyguy1965 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Article on Jesus
With regards to the question WHY DID GOD SEND JESUS TO THE WORLD? What do you mean by "unsourced"? Ronewirl (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A citation is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source. For example:
 * It allows a reader to find the source and verify that it supports material in Wikipedia.For information on citing Wikipedia articles, see WP:CITEWIKI. As editors we are reporters. Everything that we write must be attributed to a valid and credible published source. Most of what you wrote was from the Bible, but (1) you didn't cite chapter and verse, and (2) it was "preachy" rather than encyclopedic. We can cite a Bible verse or brief package as illustrating a point we are making, but it must be cited. If we cite what someone else says about the passage (presumably a credentialed expert), we must cite the article according to an approved citation style listed in the WP:CITEWIKI instructions.


 * I salute you for your heart's desire and efforts to share Jesus with others. Unfortunately, that's not the purpose of WikiPedia. We have to be reporters and keep our own opinions out of it.


 * This is also true in seminary and in academia. I will be glad to help you any way I can. If you have a passage or a point you're struggling with how to "Wikify" it and still retain much of the point/message you wish to get across, please contact me and I'll be glad to give you my best recommendation.


 * I know from reading your personal page that you have the heart of an evangelist. Your enthusiasm to share the gospel may at times make it difficult for you to write what you want to say. That has happened to me multiple times. Thanks for your zeal for Christ. It will be best if you can avoid getting a reputation of "preaching" on WP, and approach things from a different perspective. Blessings, and regards. AFAProf01 Afaprof01 (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Broken reference
I fixed a broken reference in Salvation, based on how I understand what you intended to do on 21 June. Please have a look at this edit. The problem is that the url doesn't exist. Could you fix it? Debresser (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Debresser, for locating and reporting the problem to me. I was using a university library, and the login was included in the auto MLA citation. However, that login does not work away from the library. I have changed the citation to show the hardcopy book that is available commercially and at libraries (most, I believe.) I printed out the very brief article--most of which I've quoted in the Wiki article. If you'd like me to e-mail it to you, please send me your non-Wiki email. Thanks again. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats fine. I am interested in the Wikipedia-technical side of things here. Why don't you use the Cite book template, like I did? It would be most fitting for this reference. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Netbible
You can use template:db-author if you want since you're the only author. You don't need to formally list it for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. I'd like that. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Saint Paul you deleted
"Radical" label used over and over. Sourceless and completely unencyclopedic. Sounds more like fundamentalist raving than sincere and objective dissent.. ([[WP:)

I contend my comments, which were not complete, are sourced by Saint Paul himself in 1 Cor 1:18-25. I was about to say this demonstrates an interesting counterpoint to the "radical" label, which is certainly, by both historical and mainstream perspective, is exactly that.

Afaprof01, this section on Paul is corrupted by fringe, atheistic perspective that is embraced by virtually none of world Christianity or mainstream Christian scholarship. I believe your calling my correction "fundamentalist raving" is your own flavor of that failing.

I do not believe you intend to behave that way. The radical ideas of atheist scholars should not be a part of mainstream information on Saint Paul or any other Biblical person. Those ideas are better presented under "Christian skeptics" or "Biblical Skepticism", something like that.

If you're encouraging encylopedia information on the Bible, it should support the Biblical perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homunculus653 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Homunculus653. I realize you are a very new user to Wikipedia, and I welcome you. I can identify with much of the frustration you express. "Been there...done that!" However, I have found--the hard way--that it is non-constructive to not work within the Wikipedia rules. (Apology for the flagrant double negative). The WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and WP:CS (Credible source) policies are foundational and non-negotiable. The very best way to work within the Wikipedia environment as a conservative Christian is to work within their rules. Much like a formal debate, personal opinion doesn't count. Credible source in this context does not allow using the Bible to justify a biblical position. Whether we agree with Wiki policy isn't the issue if we choose to be a Wiki editor. Many times I have felt frustrated by what to me is a liberal interpretation. The best alternative is to present an opposing view from a well-respected conservative scholar who is recognized as an academic scholar. The "liberal" interpretation and source is going to still be there. However, presenting a balancing opposing view that comes from a respected credible source is a constructive action that fits within the guidelines. The personal view of the editor should not be apparent because of the Neutral Point of View policy.


 * I'd like to be your encourager, and I got no pleasure in deleting your edits that don't meet Wiki standards. Being a Wiki editor in good standing does offer an opportunity to be "in the world" without being "of the world." I apologize for the offensive "fundamentalist raving" characterization. I should have been more courteous in my reason for edit. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit to Talk:Jesus
Just wanted to let you know that I am baffled as to how that edit wound up in there. The edit I intended to make was in response to an anon IP who challenged the historicity of Jesus. The text that wound up being inserted and that you reverted was some gibberish (as you correctly identified it) that had been originally inserted by another anon IP about 26 days ago. I don't know if it was some error on my part in trying to revert in the deletion of the section by Ohnoitsjamie but, in any event, my "real" edit was lost and that gibberish was inserted instead. Your were right in reverting it out. I just wanted you to know that the reinsertion of the gibberish wasn't intentional on my part and that I am NOT a kook, at least not intentionally. --Richard (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is so nice of you to write me, Richard. I must admit to steeling my nerves a bit before I open something that has been posted to my User Page, so yours was a very pleasant surprise! I had looked at some of your other edits and noticed the huge discrepancy between them and the "gibberish." I wouldn't know how to do it, but I even wondered if someone had managed to login as you. You may want to change your password if you think it could be fraud. It is a very strange thing, indeed.


 * I enjoyed reading your User page. Very clever use of the boxes. When Silicon Valley and Crypto are combined, I curiously wonder if you work in the computer security area. (Not a question.)


 * Thanks again for the very nice note. I look forward to crossing paths again with you--in the most pleasant sense of the phrase.


 * Meanwhile, let's keep "talking Jesus", and I'm not sure that we must "edit to talk Jesus" :-)

/* Your revert of my edit to Talk:Jesus */

Afaprof01 (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bible template
Hi. I'm not sure what 'db-g7' means in bibles but this replaced a previous template usually used in speedy deletion tagging of new pages. Maybe create a new template? -- Menti  fisto  15:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm confused at this point. I received this message after I requested a speedy deletion of Template:Netbible.


 * You can use template:db-author if you want since you're the only author. You don't need to formally list it for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

Then, I got another message saying I could use 'db-g7' for the same template-testing purpose. Using the Sandbox wasn't working for me since it was being reset very often within a session. I'll appreciate your guidance. Thanks Afaprof01 (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want your own personal sandbox to test out templates, you can create a page at User:Afaprof01/Sandbox. I've reverted your edits to the G7 template, that is a highly used template on Wikipedia, so please don't replace it any further. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or on here. I'll watch this page. Killiondude (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those db templates are to be transcluded when a page (in db-author's case, one that you recently began) needs deletion, not as the page itself. :-) They insert the pages which have them transcluded into categories so others may find them when needed, which in most cases meet the deletion criteria. You can test wherever you want in your userspace though, yes. --  Menti  fisto  17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU FOR YOUR HELP.Afaprof01 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Page: Resurrection of Jesus
Hi,

in your last edit, you reverted my reversion, and changed the definition from an event to a belief. Can you provide reasons for it on the talk page?

ReaverFlash (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was not my intent. Since it is an ongoing debate between you and another user, please change it as you wish. I doubt if it will be allowed to last, but I appreciate your courage.Afaprof01 (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I would change it but I'd be violating WP:3RR. Thanks for the clarification.ReaverFlash (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I still think "Within the body of Christian beliefs, the resurrection of Jesus is a core biblical event" is the preferable option and seems more neutral.

"According to Christians" would imply that the article is written from a Christian perspective.ReaverFlash (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument re: beliefs vs event could go on until the 2nd Coming. I'm trying to find a compromise that "we" can defend, and "they" can't deny. Essentially, your "in Christianity" should do the same thing, but so far it hasn't flown. No offense here if you change it.Afaprof01 (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"In the Christian Gospels" is another possibility. I'm just not sure what flows better. ReaverFlash (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is precedence in Wiki for a Lede beginning "In Christianity...." I think precedence always helps. It obviously covers beliefs, and it's somewhat covering that it's an event to Christians. But we can never be sure what will be the "take" on it. I'm glad you have the "patience" fruit.Afaprof01 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've made some changes to the page. Have a look and see if you want to make any changes. I've changed the wording from "the" event to an event, because the event really sounds POV. Some people may very well point to another event.ReaverFlash (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's very nice of you to let me know. I completely agree with your edits. It occurred to me that inverting the wording of that sentence further tones it down. "the" in quotes was particularly POV. Thanks again...Afaprof01 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empire
I went there on a package holiday. They have got the whole "grandeur" thing going on but frankly, it just smells. I couldn't ind a garbage pail anywhere!!! nd I kept forgetting, no tomator sauce, no tomato sauce. Time travel sucks. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Sounds like the HBO series on "Rome." Maybe you can reach it via your TV. Glad you got back safely. Did you pass Michael J. Fox along the way? He was into that Time Tvl thing. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yahweh edits removing proper version attributions
I sent an email on this matter last week. Did you get it? The main point is that while I appreciate your formatting improvements and other contributions, Wikipedia policy requires that quotations cite sources in a way that permits accurate verification. In the case of Bible versions, the citation needs to retain the specification of the Bible version. In many Bible articles, editors often do not object if this is omitted. However, the editors of the Yahweh article have specifically asked for version information to be included with quotations. Therefore, if you add some kind of live link, it must both link to the same version quoted in the text AND it must retain bibliographic information regarding the specific version in the text as it appears on the page.Michael Courtney (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time/effort to write me. And sorry, I did not receive an email from you last week. I apologize for making changes today in ignorance. And I regret the extra work that may require of you. Fortunately, today's changes were only 2 or 3 in number. I'll be glad to cooperate with your request. It's very nice of you to explain it to me. That really helps. Thanks for your commitment to this important article. Only the most important articles seem to generate controversy! With appreciation, Afaprof01 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Real estate
Hi, The quote format you added to Crucifixion eclipse seems to take up a lot of real estate for smaller quotes and makes the page harder to read - at least for me. May I suggest a more efficient format that you may find yourslef? Cheers. History2007 (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Marriage in Heaven
I have pdf document and some books but in different languages than English. G00labek (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires that the sources be "verifiable," and since this is English Wikipedia, that paragraph was removed because it was unsourced. Perhaps you can find the same information in an English language source that you can cite. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and your interest in this article.Afaprof01 (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon. I completed the section with verifiable spource. It is book by Meyendorff in Google Books service. Would you check it? Thank you. G00labek (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you, Afaprof01! I must admit I was astonished by your comment on Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus); after so much harsh comments, your comment came as healing. I accept your apology and I apologize for thinking that you are just another blind POV-pusher (that's what another user made me think). For the time being, you seem to be the only person with whom one could discuss and improve the article. Once again, thank you for being polite and civil! Surtsicna (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome, Surtsicna. Please know I am sincerely grateful for your kind acceptance of my apology. I felt very embarrassed when I came to realize Umm was not what it first appeared to me to be.


 * It is very sad how vitriolic, hostile, suspicious, and ultra-sensitive Wiki editors can become—myself included. Sometimes my heart skips some beats when I see the "You've got mail" yellow banner. I've become conditioned to expect a grand slam, but frustrated and being unable to go one-on-one to negotiate a peaceful resolution. As a professor I teach because I like/love people. I try (not always successfully) to accept disagreement from my students (especially grad students) without taking it personally and having a high-blood-pressure attack. Even after all these years, that's still difficult at times, especially if the student becomes arrogant, disrespectful, and eventually begins making it personal (e.g., "blind POV-pusher"). Strange, though, how some of my best student friends & grads started out on each other's least-liked list.
 * Re: the article. Based on your experiences and thoughts over the past 18 hours or so, what exactly is important to explain about Mary in this article? Let's start there and so long as you choose, I'll be glad to work together with you to help achieve your objective "according to the rules."

Gratefully and with mutual respect, Afaprof01 (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits look great. I wouldn't know whether you made a mistake in her Arabic name, as I don't speak Arabic (being a Slav). However, I think that Issa Maryam means Jesus Mary; the book "Religious tourism and pilgrimage festivals management" says that Mary's title in Islam is Umm Issa which means Mother of Jesus. Too bad you don't have time to express your opinion about the infobox; moving the infobox to Blessed Virgin Mary would improve both articles. Surtsicna (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward with citations in the Yahweh article
I'd like to reach some concrete agreement before investing the work to restore the version information to a number of the citations in the Yahweh article.


 * Excellent idea

You seem to prefer to have a live link, I think we need to maintain version information even for versions where a live link is unavailable.


 * I concur.

Do you find it acceptable to simply replace your live link (to a different version) with a text note to the proper version, or would you prefer to put the live link to the different version next to the citation to the note describing the proper version? I think the note and the live link appear a bit cluttered when both are in the text, so I'd prefer just the citation to the note, without a live link to a different version in the text. Is this acceptable to you?


 * I believe it is important for a reader to be able to go to some live link to read the verse/verses in context. It helps with verifiability, avoiding prooftexting, strengthens reader understanding, and is a safeguard against typos in the citation chapter/verse. I can envision the superscript notation including standard 3-5 letter translation abbreviations, and I can enable that in the template. Where there is a more esoteric translation name, and/or no live link available, then the is probably the only way to handle it. It's how I now handle more than two or three attributions sourcing the same text.

Also, please keep in mind that I've got a list of Bible articles that I am planning to improve with added citations, many of which might be to versions not at BibleGateway.com. There are many excellent translations that are not at BibleGateway.com, and I prefer not to exclude reliable references merely because they are not available online.


 * Nor should you. I'll be glad to write a live link template for any versions you use that have a live link. As you know, BibleGateway is e pluribus unum. Have you seen the variety at http://net.bible.org/home.php and http://bible.cc/isaiah/7-15.htm? And there are more…. Where you use a version that has no live link, I'd still like also to offer the user a live link access to the passage in some version. That may require the without the superscripting--much as you had originally done it.

In the future, please take care to only add live links when they connect to the same version that is cited in the original text note.


 * Noted

Thank you for your consideration.


 * You're very welcome. And thank you for your cooperation and attention to detail in this important matter.

PS: I teach Calculus at USAFA.


 * Did you arrive recently? I didn't see your name in the current Math dept listing. Are you the same M.C. whose BS was from LSU? I taught in what then was Astro/CompSci, and later in administration. I loved my 12 years there. I hope you're enjoying it. It's a great place.


 * Afaprof01 (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Original by Michael Courtney (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming SBC resurge/takeover article
The article currently titled "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" will soon change its name. An early straw poll narrowed the choices to six alternatives, listed at: Talk:Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover (once this thread is archived, see here.)

If you wish to rank the names suggested there, please do so soon. Please put other comments BELOW rather than interpersed among suggested names. Thanks. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Saint Peter --> Peter the Apostle
What do you think of Saint Peter --> "Simon Peter"? User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 08:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like "Simon Peter", but am concerned about consistency among article names for The Twelve + Paul. We know only one name for the majority of NT apostles. My suggestion is "Apostle xxx" for all with known given names listed in lede and in a Redirect.


 * Saint Paul has already become "Paul of Tarsus" and I don't care for that. In contemporary life I've never heard him called that, only "Saul of Tarsus" prior to the Damascus Road conversion experience.


 * What are your thoughts? Afaprof01 (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly beileve that even if you, me, or John Doe have not often heard him called, say, "Peter of Galilee" that that does not mean he his not called that a lot by some other group of like-minded folks-- and that all call him that in all their books, etc. Thus no one person can ever be really sure what the "most common" name is. And article should be based on the most common name. There is just nothing in the naming guidlines that any certain people with the same role are to be all named in a like form. There is thus no need to be concerned about consistency among article names for the Twelve.
 * To my experience he is most often called "Paul," "the Apostle Paul," and maybe "Paul the Apostle." But I have heard him called "Paul of Tarsus" by certain people, certain works, and in certain circles... mostly scolars or nonChristians. I think "Paul the Apostle" would be better and is more common, but don't care to fight over article names much. There is just too much other things in life I would rather do. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 17:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm now hearing that "Apostle" and "Evangelist" are out because they are honoraries like "Saint". True??? Afaprof01 (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No... not if that is the best way to idenify the person. The guidline only excludes "Saint"-- even if it is part of the most common name. There is a guildline somewhere to avoid honoraries when they are not needed... such as "President Bill Clinton"... but I don't think people will go for articles just named "Peter," or "Matthew," etc. Over here I could not even get them to agree to "Timothy". User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 00:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please refrain from moving the Saint Andrew article without getting a consensus on the talk page first! PatGallacher (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have voted and made comments at Talk:Saint Peter.
 * BTW, you should wait for someone else to move articles. User:Pmanderson seems annoied that you tried to move the other one yourself. He dosen't have any good arguments on the topic itself --so he has brought that up-- and it does make you look impatient. You don't need worry about if it will get done either. As long as it is listed with I tag I told you about, it will happen after a set about of time. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 01:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you?
In the page Vertebroplasty you appear to have made a revision as of 03:36, 11 August 2009 by editing and adding text and sources to the article. One of those citations that was added is causing a cite error. Could you please go back and fill out the full source information for the reference tag ? Thanks. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Apparently another editor removed text containing the line with the full citation, but I found the original and have put it back. It works now. Thanks for letting me know about the problem.Afaprof01 (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Afaprof01 -- Please let me know if you want input on how to start an orgainized dicussion on renaming the "Saint Andrew" article, etc. like I did here for this one. I would be glad to show you or help otherwize. -- User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 06:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Carlaude -- YES, most definitely. Please also consider doing the same for the Saint Joseph article and Saint Peter articles.Afaprof01 (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per comments on your Home Page, I think we have much in common when it comes to "matters of eternal significance." I appreciate your declaration. Any and all mentoring you send my way will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for the kind offer! Afaprof01 (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure.User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 05:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay -- what I did is use a tag that automaticly lists the page with other requested moves. This is has two key effects that hopefull (if a name can see setteled on) will increase the odds that the move will happen. #1. It will let new people come look at the issue that would not normally read the Saint Andrew page, and thus will not have strong feelings about the current name. I expect they will care about and understand good Wikipedia policy. #2. Someone with no dog in the hunt will come along in a week or 5 days and move the page if there is WP:Consensus.

All you need to do is post the tag, with a new recomended name, and your brief reasons, like such.


 *  Newpagename Short reason. ~ 

The best thing you can do to make it happen is post all your good reasons in there best brief form, at once, at the start, and then hopefull not comment anymore. This is mainly because the longer the discussion goes then the fewer and fewer newcomers will read it all and vote. More newcomers means more fresh eyes willing to look at good reasoning. It is also important, or course to pick a good name. I think Andrew the Apostle is going to be the best option but we can talk about that. It can't be too long.

So if you were following my post with Paul it would look like this...


 *  == Requested move == 
 * '' Newpagename Short reason. ~
 * '' Saint Andrew → Andrew the Apostle &mdash; This is dictated by the Wikipedia naming convention on use of the honorific "Saint". ~
 *  Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick. (See also List of saints.) Make redirects from forms with "St.", "St", and "Saint". Popes who are also saints are given their papal name, with a redirect from the forms with "Saint". For example, Pope Pius X, with redirects from Pope Saint Pius X and other forms. 

But of cousre you don't have to. Reply on my page if you have comments or want to run anything by me, like name ideas. Let me know if you want me to reply there or here. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 06:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul of Tarsus
Hey, about this edit you just made, the main article that you linked to is, as you can see, a red-link. So the information you took out was merely deleted. Were you planning on making this article? If not, then i'm going to have to revert your edit. Silver seren C 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's coming soon, don't revert it. ADM (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see what is your point. It's not OK to delete a major section on the prospect that something is coming. IF / WHEN it comes, it will be considered on its own merits. If what it presents warrants changes to the main article, that, too, can happen. Your approach sounds more like an advertising scheme, but it is mysterious. Afaprof01 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There needed to be a more precise article than what was on the main Paul of Tarsus entry. By the way, most secular egalitarians agree with patriarchal Christians that Paul did indeed promote the subjugation of women. Egalitarian Christians are in a terrible position because they have virtually no support from egalitarians outside of liberal Christian circles. ADM (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive the old cliche, but "you're preaching to the choir." I completely agree with your closing sentence. Unfortunately, so many conservatives have raised the women's issue to the level of orthodoxy. Ergo, if one doesn't support female submission and male dominance, that person is labeled liberal even if on all other doctrines they might be totally conservative. My objection is the removal of material in this present article before there's another place that it better fits. Also, we can never be sure a reader will go to a "secondary" article on the subject, so it wouldn't be good to let this article get one-sided. I salute your efforts and encourage them. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK
You wanted to know what it was? Silver seren C 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Afaprof01 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Women in the Bible
You have made several sweeping deletions to articles in this "series," but the reasons given were either non-existent or sketchy. Please give more detailed explanations for more than tweaks. Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not deleting anything, just re-organizing it. I feel that we can have specialized entries such as women in the Hebrew Bible and women in Church history while maintaining a good deal of general commentary. ADM (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Good idea. Thanks for your efforts. Better organization always helps. Would appreciate that info in the comments. The "see _____" was somewhat ambiguous. Thank you. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Rsd listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rsd. Since you had some involvement with the Rsd redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for deleting Rsd. We still need
 * (1) a delete of "Andrew the Apostle" which is blank. The Rsd was created when I tried to rename "St. Andrew" to "Andrew the Apostle", and discovered an "Andrew the Apostle" redirect.
 * (2) A move of "St. Andrew" to "Andrew the Apostle". I get an error message when I try to move it. Msg says to contact an admin. Thanks Afaprof01 (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)