User talk:Afaprof01/Archives/2009/October

RFA Closure
I'm sorry that I didn't notify you about closing your RFA there. I honestly thought about doing so, but I was in a rush and I hoped you will understand that I did not mean to be a jerk there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your apology, and it's fully accepted. However, I received the message from another Admin, and never gave the closing another thought. Thanks! Afaprof01 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin (just to clarify), I just saw that you were continuing to edit the RFA after it had been closed and thought I might as well point it out. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. In any case, it was VERY thoughtful and caring of you. And you were right: I didn't know it had been closed. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' interactions with women
Regarding this addition :


 * Christ is said to have brought a "new creation. The old has gone; the new has come.""


 * For Christians, a new age has dawned with the coming of Jesus. He created a community of reconciliation—the New Covenant family with the reversal of the effects of the Fall.


 * Please abstain from preaching ... this article isn't written for Christians, especially since Wikipedia is largely a secular/nonreligious organization. We can't include any type of wishy-washy emotional language commonly found in Charismatic churches.


 * Also, your statement is theologically incorrect : Jesus did not remove all of the effects of the Fall, he only tried to reduce them, because even the best of Apostles, such as Peter and Paul, were known to have sinned publicly. According to Augustine of Hippo, women are still bearing the burden of the original sin, which affects both sexes. It is offensive to pious ears when you say that all women have somehow inherited the Immaculate Conception, when in fact, this honor is exclusively reserved to the Theotokos, according to Pius IX. ADM (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Russell's teapot
Hello, I am having a content conflict on the page Russell's teapot. Editors seem to want to exclude a section for counter-arguments, a "criticism section", and such sections are fairly typical on very controversial subjects. If you have time, could you weigh in on the talk page?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerJ71 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The above post I think is WP:CANVASSING. At any rate, it is not at all a neutral presentation of the dispute.  This is not at all about whether to include or remove content, but whether certain content should be moved out of the main treatment and into a specially designated criticism section.  Not only does this directly flout best practices on Wikipedia, but also the proposed "section" at present consists only of two sentences (!), and so reversion seems to be justified even on purely stylistic grounds.  71.182.249.158 (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Marriage
I understand what you're trying to say on the Marriage article here, however, consensus already exists (as indicated in the note on the page). As you've already reverted this three times, please do not do so again as per Wikipedia's three-revert rule. If you feel the consensus definition should be replaced by a dictionary definition, please start a discussion on the talk page so everyone can weigh in. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Adam & Eve picture
Are you objecting to their semi-nudity? Tonicthebrown (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. I'm sure it must be a classic by some master painter, but if so, count me illiterate. I just find it distracting and not at all appealing every time I see it. Maybe I should see a shrink.Afaprof01 (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi,

Do you think this pic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The-Baptism-Of-Christ.jpg makes a better lead pic for baptism as opposed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baptism_-_Marcellinus_and_Peter.jpg ?

Flash 03:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Flash, sorry to be slow getting back with you. I think the The-Baptism-Of-Christ picture is better than Marcellinus_and_Peter. My only concern is that all of the attractive baptism of Christ pictures are POV in that they show baptism by pouring. If even we could find the one that has Jesus standing in the Jordan River while John either pours or sprinkles (don't remember which). It doesn't cover immersion, but someone can read that into it if that is their persuasion. I will keep my eyes open for something like that and will let you know if I find anything. Thanks for your work on this page.Afaprof01 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Doesn't look like there's anything good for immersion. The sprinkling way is much easier to portray, which could be why artists draw it that way. Flash 03:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Ce
Since you are a professor, here is a multiple choice answer:


 * Center for electronic commerce
 * Copy edit
 * Civil engineering.

Your choice. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Are "all of the above" or "none of the above" options? No??? I've seen some edits that look like somebody performed Civil Engineering on it (but not History2007!) Wrong again? OK, I'll pick "B." Clever. Thanks, friend. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)