User talk:Flex/Archive 4

Moving a page
Hey Flex. I've got an issue and I was wondering if you could help me out. A client/friend of mine has asked that I help clean up his Wikipedia page. It's Corky Coker of Coker tire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_%22Corky%22_Coker

The issue is that his name IS Corky Coker, and he's like the wikipedia entry to reflect that. Any idea how to chanege it's wikipedia's URL? Qmax 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. See WP:MOVE, but you will want to wait until after the verdict is in on the page's WP:AFD. --Flex 13:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge the page was not added by an associate of Corky Coker, so I hope you did not infer that from my comment to you. In fact, infering from the conversation I had with him, he said there was a wikipedia page out there about him, and that it had his name incorrent. Hence my asking for your assistance. Qmax 21:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I had in mind User:CokerTire who created the page according to its history. --Flex 01:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes me wonder if someone in the organization did it. I'll do some digging. Question: is having an entry on Corky Coky worthwhile regardless of whether or not someone in his organization created it? Qmax 16:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding notability of the article, I made several strong arguments for notability in the article's discussion section. Qmax deleted them from the discussion page. Please see the history page for the discussion page of the Corky Coker article. The article was started by associates of Coker. When negative information was introduced into the article, another associate of Coker is trying to have it deleted.--Info-freedom 03:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The page was most certainly added by an associate of Corky Coker. Note the username: CokerTire, the name of Corky Coker's company. Also, that same user deleted my comments in the Talk section of that article. It's a blatant vanity article. When an opposing viewpoint was mentioned in the article, the user CokerTire attempted to cover it up. BTW, here is a detailed article about Corky Coker's previous attempt at sockpuppeting: http://www.hotrodders.com/corky-coker.html Info-freedom 03:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's a "blatant vanity article" then is should be deleted without delay. Regarding the opposing viewpoint: the substance of your complaint against Mr. Coker is not encyclopedic in nature and doesn't belong here. --Flex 16:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing Dr. Hugenberger article
Hi, your edit sumary states you edited to "try to make it fit better." Might there also have been an effort to make it sound less controversial? Have added link to signators of the referendum as citation. Please let me know if you would like more. Best, JimCApitol3 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I again adjusted the wording to make it more conformant to the WP's neutrality policy (see esp. WP:NPOV). The source you cite is fine to prove that he "personally supports" the referendum, but it doesn't prove anything about him "actively supporting" it (e.g., by collecting signatures or encouraging others to do so, preaching sermons, etc.). The claims about living people are subject to special, more rigorous restrictions here (see WP:BLP). See also my response on Talk:Gordon P. Hugenberger. (PS, please put discussion on this talk page rather than my user page.) --Flex 14:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Corky Coker Material
I would like to know how the Coker Material related to hotrodders.com was unsourced.

There was a website with Mr Cokers own writing in a message board. A page listing this information. It was written as a historical event with no bias.

So I am going to ask you, what is your problem? Wikipedia is supposed to be about collecting as much information as possible which can be supported (which the material most certainly was) and to be UNCENSORED.


 * Sorry, I should have said "poorly sourced." The website given does not meet the criteria to be a reliable source. Beyond that, I question if the incident is notable at all in this context. It may be important to you, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the Wikipedia. --Flex 13:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to the user above, I request that you please elaborate as to the specifics of "poorly sourced". I am familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing criteria, and, I run a (fledgling) wiki myself, so I am familiar with the basics of wiki protocol. Also, please re-read the discussion page for that article. My discussion comments had been previously twice-deleted by the user CokerTire and the user QMax, in an attempt to cover-up this situation. They have since been re-instated by a Wikipedia administrator. Thanks. --Info-freedom 15:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS. Under "Issues to look out for" one is "Do they have an agenda, conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" Titling a page "Corky Coker is a Jerk" and leading off with this sentence:


 * We think that Corky Coker, of Coker Tire, is a jerk. Actually, we think a lot worse of him, but all we're going to say is "jerk".


 * certainly displays a strong view and bias. It does not WP:NPOV, and it is not reliable. --Flex 16:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV pertains to the article itself, not referenced sources. Such text was never inserted into the article, it was only part of a referenced source. The source represents the viewpoints of a large group of people. I agree that it contains strong views, but, IMO, not enough to discount its credibility. Regarding conflict of interest in evaluating sources, first-person bulletin board posts made by Corky Coker were also rejected as sources. Also, regarding NPOV, look at the current external links on that page: besides Corky Coker's company's url, and a link to his marketing association, there's a link to a "press release" from a company that awarded Mr. Coker a "Person of the Year" award, which the source claims is a "prestigious honor that is equivalent to receiving an Oscar": http://www.meguiars.com/press/release_viewer.cfm?selected_ID=120 . I believe that such links bear the patina of reliability, but are actually far less reliable than the information presented in sources such as the "Corky Coker Is a Jerk" article. One is a piece of information produced by a company, whose overt purpose is to make money. The other is a piece of information produced by a community of thousands of people, whose overt purpose is to share information. --Info-freedom 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The lack of evident bias (NPOV, as it is called here) pertains to sources also (see again WP:RS). Of course there can be exceptions made for sources used as primary source material, but that is not the case with the "Jerk" article. The posts clearly made by Mr. Coker himself would be acceptable as primary source material if the subject is worthy for inclusion here (in this case, the forum dispute is not, IMO). --Flex 17:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flex for the welcome and encouragement. One question I have is once I am finished editing it wantsme to sign when I do then look at preview it seems out of place. Further, I have notfound other articles that are signed.

Thanks againDaytrivia 00:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

empty threats
Please stop vandalising the page and trying to remove content or I will get admins to block you.

Notice of temporary block - WP:3RR violation on Hugh Ross (creationist)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Your block is for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He's not allowed to get around a block by editing as 211.114.56.130!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.232.101 (talk • contribs)


 * Oh, the shame of it all! I contend that there was a misunderstanding here with administrator Jayjg, and I have appealed the decision to block me. I have also reported General Nolledge's violation of WP:SOCK to Jayjg by email because I cannot edit the AN3 page or other admin pages at present. (Note also that, contrary to what General Nolledge reported on AN3, I have abided by the block, though I too could get around it with a sock puppet.) --Flex 12:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You removed the paragraph ''Ross likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials. However, his entire scientific output consists of three co-authored astronomy papers , a singularly authored paper and a commentary to a paper by M.A. Stull all published between 1970 and 1977. '' four times in under 24 hours. That's a violation. Unblock rejected. Jayjg (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But notice two things: what the test consists of and where the text was placed in the article. The text evaluating Ross' research credentials is non-neutral: "Ross likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials." Likes to? Where's the reliable source proving this controversial assertion about what brings Ross pleasure? There isn't one, so in accord with WP:BLP, I deleted it (as I understand it, this part is not subject to WP:3RR). The rest of the section is really just a list of Ross' papers in scientific journals as references, and you'll note that I kept that new material but moved it from the "Biography" section (where it was being used to advance a non-neutral POV) to the existing "Bibliography" section where the facts can speak for themselves.


 * Thus, I believe I did not revert General Nolledge's edits in the first instance you cite because I incorporated his/her new and useful material in its proper place and removed unsubstantiated/non-neutral material in accord with the policies on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. After that, I did revert thrice (and only thrice) to the version that incorporated General Nolledge's text. Therefore, I believe I did not violate WP:3RR (compare also my attempts at discussion rather than further reverting at Talk:Hugh Ross (creationist)) and have been errantly blocked.


 * Please reconsider. --Flex 15:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all the material you reverted was BLP stuff, and you still reverted. I'm not very forgiving of gaming 3RR. I *have* blocked General Nolledge for another 24 hours for block evasion, if that's any consolation. Jayjg (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding so promptly, Jayjg! Could you please specify exactly what material it was that was not in violation of BLP but that I reverted and did not incorporate in that change? If that's not what the problem is, please explain further how I should have behaved differently. I ask not only in the hopes that the block will be lifted and my name exonerated, but so that if I am indeed in violation of the 3RR policy, I can correct my behavior in the future. --Flex 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:3RR again, especially the parts that say: "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. 'Complex partial reverts' refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention." and "Note that wikilawyering in an attempt to stretch reverts to 'arguably fit' one of the exceptions below is generally frowned upon and should be avoided." I've evaluated, re-evaluated, and re-evaluated this. I won't be responding again. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't completely understand how I have violated the policy, and I feel like at the very least this falls in a gray area. But since the block is only 24 hours, I'll just drop it. --Flex 16:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To be a pilgrim
I am curious as to why you have put an "nn" tag on To be a pilgrim which has to be one of the dozen most famous hymns. -- SGBailey 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Salman Khan
Hello, Flex, thanks for helping concerning Salman Khan's article. So far, things have been quiet there and I hope it stays that way. Thanks again and best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 12:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

HaH!
That's OLD OLD OLD-ness! 68.39.174.238 13:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (PS. Speak of which, you didn't sign yourself!)


 * I am a bit confused. The only thing I think I have edited that you have also edited recently is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas, where I simply posed a question that went unanswered. Am I missing something? --Flex 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Herman Dooyeweerd.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Herman Dooyeweerd.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilse@ 20:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Flex, Where Are You?
Hi Flex,

Do you remember when you promised to revisit this issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Goodnews1? Please let me know your decision.

Thank you, Goodnews1

Puerile templates
I noticed your creation of Puerile and Puerile4. Puerile is the perfect word to describe many vandal edits, and I occasionally zing them using it in an edit summary, knowing that they will likely not have a clue. But I'm not sure it works to have a template named on the basis of and citing to a word that the majority of vandals will have never heard of. It's like telling a small child having a tantrum to stop being truculent and obstreperous. The templates might work better with immature or childish or maybe infantile.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Who you callin' truculent?! :-) Yeah, I know what you mean. I linked to the wiktionary entry for puerile to try to get the point across, and I wonder if in some cases using a "fancy" word might actually draw the vandal's attention to their childishness (especially regarding sexuality and body parts). What do you think? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Maybe some will click on the link just because they want to know what they are being charged with. My dealings with the cretinous vandal hordes though lead me to think that many more will ignore it. In any event, if I can be of future help in tweaking scatological, prurient or pusillanimous, give me a shout:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 18:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably most will just ignore it, as they do the other warnings. But then again, maybe they'll see the light. :-) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!
Welcome, Flex, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our administrator general Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Hús ö  nd  17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Calvin/Arminian article
Hmmm I wasn't crazy about the article myself, it's a little weasel-wordy to me but I really don't have a strong opinion. If you think it's acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines, I'd trust your judgement...you're a fair person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Schroder (talk • contribs)

Flex, I suppose there are many links to polemical articles like the one you pointed to, but they really don't belong here. 23:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

re sola scriptura
Thanks for alerting me to this. I will take a look, and if I make any changes, you may want to look them over. I wonder if on this article we should also put the Calvinist template too for NPOV sake.--Drboisclair 02:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:RCSproul.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RCSproul.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

wikEd


Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Covenant College Links
None of the links you removed were violations of WP:EL. Please be more careful with your edits. Qmax 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sinclair Ferguson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sinclair Ferguson.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  23:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Also Image:Francis Fukuyama.jpg, Image:John Stott.jpg, and Image:John F. MacArthur, Jr.jpg. I know you have uploaded many wonderful free image, and I hate to bug you about this. All the best. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Iacta alea est
ave,

I have proposed moving Iacta alea est back to its original title of Alea iacta est. Since you moved it in the first place, I thought I'd let you know and get your opinion on the move. FiggyBee 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reginald H. Fuller
'Preciate the edit, Flex. I'm going to try something out, borrowing from you. The Amazon site for the 1994 book is a unique online resource for listing the table of contents for the 1994 book. So, I hope that it warrants the exception rule suggested by (1) of you Wiki reference. For the Lectionary site, I distinguish a book publisher from seller. There is a staid descriptive writeup not available elsewhere. In the next edit, my intent would be to flag the source. That way no one would use it without knowing what they were getting into. Unique, useful content is the intent. My thx. Thomasmeeks 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Better yet. Bolder than I dared to be. Thx again.   Thomasmeeks 01:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Shawshank Redemption
No problem. I think you are right. --Jaseerabubakar 07:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

More replaceable fair use images

 * Image:Wayne Grudem.jpg

&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Source for Image of Cornelius van Til?
Hey Flex,

for the German article of Cornelius van Til I copied to Wikpedia Commons the image which you uploaded. It was suggested for deletion today because there are doubts that van Til granted permission to use it for any purpose (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cornelius_Van_Til.jpg).

Do you have infos about this? Otherwise this image might be deleted from Wikipedia Commons within a week...

Regards, Christianh from the German Wikipedia
 * This image has a source: The Works of Cornelius Van Til. I personally secured from the editor of the work permission for free use provided that the source work is cited, which it is here. --Flex 01:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You must provide some sort of evidence of this claim. Unfortunately, we cannot simply take your word for it. If you could provide the text of the email in which the editor granted this special license or alternatively provide a way to contact the editor so that someone else can verify your claim, that would satisfy our needs to verify the copyright status. Kaldari 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

MacArthur
You recently reverted an edit of mine, suggesting I read WP:POL. I have looked through that, and can't find anything relevant. Nor can I conceive of any good reason why people should be listed in the order "MacArthur, MacDonald, ManIntosh, Macarthur, Macdonald, Macintosh", which is created by the retention of capitals in the category sort key (surely "MacArthur" and "Macarthur" belong together). Would you care to enlighten me? --Stemonitis 11:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I was too hasty. I have reverted it to your version. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You had me worried for a while there — I thought I'd overlooked something important. Thanks for making the change. --Stemonitis 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples for including secondary content tags?
Hi there. I think it would be much better to display Calvanism in the historical passages that cover it rather than putting it next to Luther because there are thousands of other denominations that should be included if we use your standard. Please respond. Thanks you. (F0xfree 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC))


 * Please see Talk:Sola_fide. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Shawshank
Hey, what was the policy to which you were alluding with this edit? The anon edit looks correct. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The message wasn't quite accurate. I was just being lazy and using my revert good faith edits button. The real problem was that the text was referring to what Brooks wrote in his letter just before he died, not what he carved in the wall. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, reading it again, I see the confusion. I see what the anon meant, but in the context of the rest of the paragraph, you're correct.  I modified it, including both quotes.  I hope it helped. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Greg Bahnsen.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Greg Bahnsen.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: A True Church criticism
I started adding the criticisms to counter the "linkless" template at the top of the A True Church page. Also, in many of the cases, the criticisms offered by the A True Church group seem to be the only criticisms being represented at all, with the only exceptions being articles like Billy Graham. If A True Church offers the only criticism, then why not provide it to balance the article? --qrc 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, checking your mission statement, you said that you believe both in creating fair and balanced articles and in not giving articles undue weight. So the question, then, is, Which is more important, balance or weight? --qrc 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see User_talk:Qrc. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Flex, Sorry For Changing the Post So Much
I suppose I shouldn't go hacking and slicing someone elses work. But two of the bigger problems I have with the Limited Atonement page are:

1. Concerning the practicality of Limited Atonement. As far as I've experienced, churches that hold limited atonement have taught me that its practicality in very important and real ways! The way you worded it makes it sound like Limited Atonement isn't really all that practicle.

2. The opposition is brought up against Limited Atonement, but the main problem of the disagreement isn't brought up: What did Jesus Christ actually do on the Cross? Did He actually die for sin, or not? If so, then who's sin? The entire world's sin? Then why do people go to hell if He died for their sin?

And also it would be fair to bring up that Calvinists (which I am) holds strongly that Unlimited Atonement limits the atonement in a different form. Calvinism limits it in quantity, but Unlimited Atonement limits it in quality. I do not believe it would be unbiased to put that, since it's historical fact.

Anyway, I'll respect your judgment, please respond how you think about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.195.235.211 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Hi! Welcome to the Wikipedia, and no apologies are necessary. The article belongs to all of us, not me. Let's take this discussion to Talk:Limited atonement where it might get input from other interested parties, too. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Scripture lists
Flex, the worst use of scripture lists that I have ever seen is in the Trinity article. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity portal
I'm also annoyed by the image of the Sacred-Heart that is often used for the Christianity portal. That image is not appropriate for most contexts in which it appears. I would like to see the Portal template merged with the Christianity Template anyway. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

See the File links section on the page for the Sacred heart image. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with you. Let me know if you propose changing that image. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Analogia Fidei
I thank you for clueing me in on these helpful articles. FYI, this term comes from Romans 12:6, which is variously interpreted to remove any idea of it being a "body of doctrine." Faith is either the fides quae creditur (the "faith" which is believed) or the fides qua creditur (the "faith" that does the believing). When it is quae, then analogia pisteos (Gk) is understood as the body of doctrine that is believed and forms a criterion for preaching (prophesy) and teaching. The RCC and we Lutherans speaks of a "depositum fidei" related to this which comes from the Pauline Pastoral Epistles: 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:12-14. You have touched on the differences between RCC, OC, Protestants, and Lutherans.--Drboisclair 20:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A True Church
Saw you have been involved with the A True Church article. I just saw that it is back up. I'm going to jump in and quesiton its notability on the talk page if you want to join in. Pastordavid 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Warfield touchup
This is a fairly minor comment, and it can be removed as soon as it is dealt with. I do not think that your last revision to the article on B.B. Warfield (see following link:) is as smooth as the way it was before, not that I am trying to be critical. This is a relatively small point, certainly. Your change actually created a grammar mistake because there is no prepositional link between "the understanding" and "the view". I do not understand why "the view of" needs to precede "inspiration." Do you think that it is hard to understand the way I originally wrote it? Because it contains a grammar mistake now, I think I will revert it unless you really think it is hard to understand. No worries, friend. --Whiteknox 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops. Fixed. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 00:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Increase Mather
I honestly didn't know that. I've responded on the talk page. 68.39.174.238 07:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[[Noahide Laws
Thanks for contributing to this article. At the moment there are too many refs in the lead which not good according to WP:LEAD. I will be moving them to the main body of the article when I get around to copyediting the rest of the article. As for the points which where contended, I think the main ones are sorted now. frummer 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)