User talk:Flex/Archive 5

Bruce Metzger
I'm new to Wiki, so pls be patient. As a committed Christian, I am keen to see that the truth is conveyed to seekers - hence my additions to the Bruce Metzger article re his leaning to Westcott & Hort. Is this a personal point of view? I don't think so, but would appreciate feedback/discussion on how to best expand the content around well know commentators such as Metzger who clearly follow a certain biblical view.

BTW, I am working on the citations that have been requested. I will ensure these are added, or the the text will be edited accordingly.

Kindly, Andrew. Sydney. Atilsley 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome again! I edited your new paragraph on W&H because it did not seem to me to be in conformace with the policies and guidelines here, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. I think I kept the essentials while making it more neutral. If you disagree, let's talk about how we can improve it on Talk:Bruce Metzger. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Colin Tilsley
I'd like a little more help with understanding why the new text for Colin Tilsley was removed, please. I've read through numerous policies around POV, and I appreciate that there will be some overlap especially coming from a family member. But being a family member doesn't preclude me from submitting factual commentary surely? If I had a different username would that have made a difference? Wiki would be the worse for it if so.

My family interest aside, C Tilsley was a significant individual in the growth of missionary/evangelical work throughout Europe and Asia, so I wish to add as much content as possible.

BTW, I could not find a specific policy on commenting on family. Atilsley 05:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded at User_talk:Atilsley. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: my talk page.
When you are fighting vandalism, please do not target everything from the same IP address. Yes, someone has made a few vandalisms from my IP, but in stopping them you also reverted my legitimate edits and gave me warnings which I don't deserve. --70.53.92.224 18:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See my response at User talk:70.53.92.224. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 18:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In regards to your revert of 70.53.92.224's edit on Blood alcohol content, wouldn't it have been better to fix his/her code than revert to an inaccurate statement and accuse him/her of vandalism? --24.235.229.208 21:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I had reason to believe that s/he was not vandalizing as s/he did to other articles, then I would have tried to fix it. As it was, on cursory inspection, I did not see what s/he was trying to refer to and the user had a history, so I just deleted it. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ex Cathedra statements are not new revelations
According to the Catholic Church, Ex Cathedra statements are not new revelations but a more clear explanation of revelation. Please see Catechism of the Catholic Church 66-67. (online at www.vatican.va)

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.73.155 (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC).


 * See Talk:Sola scriptura. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bruce Metzger, LIST OF WORDS OCCURING FREQUENTLY...
Hi Flex, I've already been in contact with E.J Brill, Leiden regarding the matter, from whom I have formal permission to reproduce the book. Proof available if you should request it. You should know that in no have I tried to take credit for Prof Metzger's work or sought to gain financially from his efforts. In fact, my motivation in reproducing his work was to make his valuable work available to the greatest audience possible with the aim to furtherment of the study of my native language, Coptic. Neither have I proceeded to reproduce his book without the necessary permission.

Regarding the spelling of the word occurring in the title of the book. It is published as occuring and as such the proper spelling of the title includes this spelling mistake. This is why on Bruce Metzger's page I changed the spelling to how it was published and added the Latin term (sic) to indicate that it is incorrectly spelt.

Accordingly, I have reverted back to the changes that I originally made.

Regards, Ambrose.


 * Regarding the first paragraph, see Talk:Bruce_Metzger. Regarding occuring, someone else "corrected" it to occurring in both the title and the link, and I put it back to the published spelling when I deleted the link. I am well aware of what sic means, but while it should be used in a quotation with a misspelled word, as far as I can tell, it should not be so employed in titles (cf. sic). In any case, it should not be followed by an exclamation point. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

New, Calvinism, etc.
Flex, thanks for the welcome. I'm just learning the environment here, but would like to contribute more as time moves on. I'll be sure to read all of the links you supplied regarding Wikipedia contributions before my next submission. I'm also interested in the history of Calvinism, and have a doctorate in theology. I'm interested in reading your contributions on that subject as well. All the best to you. Tim 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
This is in response to you reverting my changes and your comments regarding it. Did you really have to remove everything I said? You could have just removed the language claiming that Calvinism is a minority (a very small one in my opinion). It is at least important to somewhat describe the doctrinal viewpoints Matt Slick has. I may have gone overboard, being someone who disagrees with Calvinism and is therefore somewhat biased in my writing style, but you have gone overboard my reverting my changes entirely, rather than making the minor, but admittedly needed, adjustments to them. --Mister Magotchi 08:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_Ministry. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian views of alcohol
Hi Flex,

Exceptional job!!

Thanks for all of your work.

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Flex,


 * Your continued work is exemplary! I am impressed with the Comparison sections which helps establish NPOV more openly.


 * Continue the great work...


 * Take care,


 * Larry


 * Lmcelhiney 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Metzger redux
Flex, why the large delete of the text at the bottom of the Metzger article re Wescott & Hort? For my first writing into Wiki, it sure does seem hard to make a contribution.... Atilsley 06:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not want to discourage your contributing in any way, but I believe your paragraph in that article was original research. I posted about it on the talk page, waited a week, and when I received no response, I deleted it in accord with the OR policy. I would not object to restoring the text (perhaps in some modified form) if reliable sources are supplied that substantiate the comparison with Westcott and Hort. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I missed your post in Talk page - I have been out of Sydney for 2 weeks. You raise an interesting question about Metzger re innerancy and the contradiction between the two articles. Is this my fault though? Westcott and Hort and the followers of higher criticism clearly do not hold to the innerancy of scripture. This is partly why I added the additional content. I note someone has added the Citation Needed tag to the earlier notes re innerancy. Isn't incumbent on the person who posted the earlier content to provide the necessary citations as I tried to do? And I'm still confused re the issue of new research. My post was to try and clearly show that Metzger leans a certain theological way. It would be no different to saying Billy Graham is Evangelical, or x is conservative, or Y is liberal. These are surely standard terms well known in biblical/theological grounds? I would kindly request the text be reinstated and I would value your assistance on helping me structure the citations to sut wiki's standards. Thanks. Atilsley 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's talk about this at Talk:Bruce_Metzger. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Metzger
Flex, I've read (and own) most of Metzger's books, and I remember reading something he said along those specific lines (inerrancy). I'll hunt down the quote and add it to the page.

Also, I've read some of the discussion here, and I think I see the point being made. One of the issues with inerrancy is the question of which words in particular are inerrant. For instance, let's say that the gospel of John says "the only begotten son" in John 1:18, as the Majority text reads. If a Greek text read instead "God the only-begotten," as the Nestle-Aland reads, then one of those Greek texts is not inerrant. The typical way around that is to say, "the text is inerrant as originally autographed."

But the problem remains. Which text is inerrant? It's like a defendant and plaintiff in court. You can't say, "the witness is completely reliable" without also telling us which witness you are talking about. The question of inerrancy, in short, doesn't do you any good all by itself. So, there are two directions one can take. The first direction is to say that God not only made sure the autographs were inerrant, but made sure that the text was preserved -- which would lead you toward a Majority text reading. The second direction is to say that God made the original rext inerrant and we have to do our absolute best to find it. The resultant text seems as if it is as inerrant as human textual critics can make it.

There are three things to consider: 1) even the Majority text is a moving target. The Textus Receptus is vastly different from the Majority text of Hodges, which is somewhat different from the Majority text of Pierpont-Robinson -- and each of those was reverse engineered from the apparatus of Von Soden's critical edition, which is closer to the current Nestle-Aland than to the Majority text.  2) If God could preserve the text through human scribes, he could certainly do the same through human textual critics (bringing us back to a good conservative comfort level with Nestle-Aland). And, 3) there are no doctrines affected between the texts. Dagg said in his Manual of Theology that even the greatest separation in the texts is not wide enough to permit our feet to stray.  In effect, both the Majority text and the Nestle-Aland remain "inerrant" by that definition.  The different camps will argue -- but that's not necessarily a bad thing.  Argument, when done fairly, serves to keep both sides honest.

Tim 14:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: I just surveyed my Metzger collection, and I can find no direct unambiguous statement regarding inerrancy, either for or against. He writes in two of his books about the canon being inspired, although his "Canon of the New Testament" (pp. 254-257) argues that inspiration wasn't limited to the Canonical texts by the early fathers, who regarded their own peers as producing inspired material. However, he also argues that the Canon is by definition the normative, or defining, texts of Christianity. Metzger writes like a scholar, because he is. His statements about inspiration are mitigated by the historical context of that word in reference to the Canon. His statements about normative status also find their meaning in context. In this case Christianity is itself the context. The Canon defines Christianity, rather than the other way around. In relation to Christianity, then, the Canon would be inerrant in the sense that it leaves no room for contradiction. That's not quite the same as the Evangelical meaning of "inerrant." But I don't think he contradicts the Evangelical meaning either. Metzger merely limits himself to terms that Christians and non-Christians alike can work with. He may have other writings on the subject that aren't in my collection, but if they are like the ones I surveyed, they will neither confirm, nor deny, the Evangelical meaning of the word. I'm not sure there is a good way to address his "view" when it is unstated. He limits himself to those things that can be supported in scholastic terms. Even if Metzger did hold the Evangelical understanding of inerrancy, the scholastic purpose of his writing would prevent him from stating it outright.

Tim 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tim. Did you see any reference to "infallibility" at all? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Flex. I checked on infallibity at the same time, with the same result.  Metzger does affirm inspiration, but he does not address infallibility or inerrancy.  However, the bulk of his work details textual-critical efforts to remove scribal errors that entered the text subsequent to the original autographs.  On a personal aside, one of the most intriguing features of the whole debate is that those who speak the most about inerrancy make the least effort to determine which text is inerrant.  And those who devote their entire careers to determining the correct text say nothing at all on the subject.  It's a curious quirk no matter which side of the debate one is looking at. Tim 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Prevenient grace
Thanks for the info/guideline Fl e x. :-) &mdash; James.S  ( talk •  contribs  • count ) 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maision Jansen article
Hi Flex. I know we've held opposite points of views on a few articles. It was a pleasant, and much appreciated, surprise, to find your help in organizing the Jansen article. Funny that we should share an interest both in Christianty, and in interior decoration! Thanks again. Blessings. Jim CApitol3 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * :-) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons User
In order to vote for the picture of the year, I assert that I am the same user as commons:User:Flex. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cite
OK, I've fixed the citation template and made it consistent with the MOS per your request. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proverbs Program
69.139.50.153 15:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC) I would like to know what is wrong with link to the Proverbs Program that you deleted? Please be specific.


 * Please see User_talk:Jbass. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1.    I will address some of your criticisms. First, you were correct when you said the website looked amateurish by the title displaying WebForm1. This was an oversight on my part because I had to rebuild the site using Visual Basic.NET 2003. This has been corrected. 2.	You said the site does not display using Firefox. According to a recent article posted at CNET: http://news.com.com/Study+FireFox+still+gaining+on+Internet+Explorer/2100-1032_3-5435176.html, Internet Explorer has 95.48 % of the market; therefore, ALL other browsers combined make up just over 4 percent of the browser market. The makers of Firefox should make sure their browsers are compatible with Microsoft Visual Basic. 3.	The site is unique because it randomly selects a Proverb. Name one other site that does that. 4.	I added a link to it that points to the World English Bible Website. 5.	The link may have not been appropriate in some of the areas that I posted to but it was appropriate in Book of Proverbs section. 6      The sole purpose of the website is to help spread the Word. I’ve done my part, so my hands are washed, spiritually speaking that is. :)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JBass (talk • contribs)


 * Let's consolidate at your talk page rather than bouncing back and forth between this page and your page. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV
You listed 65.241.114.199 on AIV. However, your warnings were given long after the account stopped vandalising. By the way, there is little point in giving a string of 4 "blatant vandal" warnings in a row, half an hour after the account has stopped editing. Just put one on, and report the user if he vandalises after that. Thanks, yandman  20:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about him not being active right then -- I should have put him on WP:ABUSE. (BTW, I added multiple messages to document the chronic, multi-article nature of the abuse.) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

 * Thank you for your welcome personal message.
 * What a nice gesture of welcome!


 * I love the Wiki philosophy and the freedom of it.
 * Good thing about this "freedom" is very educational in many ways.
 * It provides us with an opportunity to contemplate on what comes with a package of freedom, how to use and control such powerful tool as freedom.
 * By participating in Wiki, I believe there are lots of things for us to learn about real life freedom as well.


 * Freedom isn't easy. Freedom doesn't come free.
 * To be truely free, each of us has to contribute our time and effort, and to become part of active creation just like each citizen has its own responsiblity in the real free world.


 * I chose MediaWiki program for my new site as I love the freedom of it.
 * But, of course, I as an adminstrator, have to work harder to present free and fairly comfortable environment while requesting new members to participate in its creation from the scratch.


 * There are packages that are readily usable and easy to manipulate. You pay the money for those packages.
 * They are easier to use but confines our creativity within a set frame.
 * It may be comfortable, but allows us no diversions, and provides participants with no sense of involvement.


 * The freedom that Wiki presents online reflects our real life.
 * The choice between a coumfortable couch with TV set, or a open air and soil with lots of imagination.
 * With Wiki, we create tools along as we create our free world.
 * It also teaches us that we must learn the system and actively participate in it to move the system -- isn't this very true for our life experience (i.e., organization, government, and corporation, science, technoologies, languages, etc.)?!

With great appreciation and applaudes to all those who are making this possible --Kohyin 23:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. apology for my poor Englsih.

External Links From Hyper-Calvinism, Calvinism, & Arminianism?
Hi Flex,

Long time no see! I saw that you and David S. were discussing my article on Calvinism vs. Arminianism http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/calvinismarminianism.htm. FYI, the page was reformatted, italics deleted, and the site redesigned over the weekend.

Also, I found your old post below on my Talk Page. Looks like you planned to link to my Hyper-Calvinism article, but never followed through? http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/hypercalvinism.htm

Thanks, Greg Goodnews1 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond. I had dropped my watch on this page. I think the one on Hyper-Calvinism looks much better, and I will add it to Hyper-Calvinism and possibly Calvinism. The one on Arminianism, on the other hand, seems a bit too much aimed at proselytizing and has too many bold/italicized parts for my taste. I'd like a second opinion on that one, so let me ask around. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Greg. I'll look into it again when I get a chance. I've come to a new understanding of WP:EL since we last dealt with this, however. To wit: external links should be minimized and should rather be incorporated as references in articles rather than simply external links. It's time-consuming to retrofit all the existing articles, but you can see what I consider a good example of an article with lots of incorporated external links but no external links section at Christianity and alcohol. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Town names
Thank you for your welcome, Flex. My editing has mostly consisted of correcting grammatical and stylistic problems to this point, but I intend becoming bolder as the months pass. I confess that I'm still puzzling over how to direct people to an article about a specific town, when there are articles about several towns with the same name. Andrew E. Drake 04:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally, you can use the full name of the place, and pipe it if you want something shorter. For instance, if you want to link to some town called Springfield (of which there are many), you could link to Springfield, Ontario, Springfield, Michigan, or even Springfield (The Simpsons). If the full qualification of the place isn't needed in context, you can write Springfield which shows up as Springfield. Does that answer your question? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does, Flex. Thank you. Andrew E. Drake 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deprod comment
Hi. I've taken the prod off Charlotte von Kirschbaum since Google had plenty of easy stuff to start adding to the article, and I've left a message to help the newbie along. --Mereda 17:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 08:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
OverMyHead 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Me too Natalie West 01:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Helix Nebula
Hello, since you nominated the last nebula for featured picture and seem to be knowledgeable about astronomy, maybe you want to offer your expertise at this current nomination. Thanks, trialsanderrors 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User from 68.115.227.253 actively vandalizing
Changes made on March first by user at 68.115.227.253 [...] I noticed on his talk page you have warned him before, please investigate. Thanks! 216.129.31.125 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reverting that vandalism. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianity and alcohol
I can see that there is a 'Good Article' that's been waiting around quite a while without the tag to show for it.

The question I still have about it is: 'What exactly was the role of Christianity in the period of Prohibition in the USA. Why did it start and how did it come to an end' Surely it was a time when Christian wowsers got their hands on the government enough to close down all the pubs and bars for a decade.

It doesn't stand in the way of GA, but would be necessary for the next step.DavidYork71 16:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that that subject needs more detail. The next (and, if all goes well, last) stage of my research for this article will deal with that topic. Thanks! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Hey man, I need to add a disambig page for a entry Benjamin Thomas. There's another Benjamin Thomas who needs an entry, who founded the first Coca Cola bottling plant (and subsequently become a millionaire). Can't seem to figure out how to go about doing that, and I was wondering if you could give me a little advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qmax (talk • contribs)


 * Sure. The details can be found at WP:DAB. In essence, you'll want to add the new page as Benjamin Thomas (bottler) (or whatever). Then move the existing page to Benjamin Thomas (congressman) (or whatever), which will create a redirect from Benjamin Thomas to the congressman's page. Create the disambiguation page at Benjamin Thomas (disambiguation) with a listing for each BT, then change Benjamin Thomas to redirect to the disambiguation page (to do that, click here, which will redirect you to Benjamin Thomas (congressman), and then click on the link at the top that says "Redirected from Benjamin Thomas"). Before you do all this work, you will want to make sure he qualifies as notable and won't be deleted. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Flex. Not worried about qualifying as notable. He and his partner bought the exclusive rights to bottle coca-cola back in 1899 for $1, as Asa Candler (current owner of Coca Cola) didn't think there was any money in it. Made Ben and his partner billionaires (in today's dollars). Qmax

Ya so I screwed up and didn't do the move piece first, so I've got Benjamin Thomas (congressman), and Benjamin Thomas (coca-cola bottler), and the original Benjamin Thomas. Because I didn't do the move properly, I can't seem to figure out how to get the redirect from Benjamin Thomas going over to the Benjamin Thomas (disambiguation) page. As always, any tips would be greatly appreciated. And yes, I've got tons of newspaper articles etc. on the Ben Thomas coca-cola bottler ready to go on there confirming his notoriety as soon as I get all this sorted out. Qmax 01:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I fixed (read: kludged) it, and I disambiguated all the other existing links to the congressman. I also changed the caps on "Coca-Cola" in your article titles since it is a proper name. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tupac RfC
Ocatecir has provided me with five sources, that I feel alright with. I think that it's OK to put Lesane Parish Crooks in as his birth name (with a clarification that we don't have an official confirmation). - Mysekurity 00:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'm stepping back, then. Cheers! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe it's not as cut-and-dry as that, but I certainly appreciate your help in this dispute. Happy editing, Mysekurity  03:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Calvanism Project Invite
Hey Flex. Thanks for the invite to the Calvinism project. I'll peak in from time to time, but I'm still learning on the Wikipedia rules/conventions, and I'm sortof doing this whole Chattanooga Project thing, as Chattanooga related articles are a total mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qmax (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the invite; I'm a little busy right now, but will respond sometime during Holy Week (Is it Calvinist to speak of such "high Church" lingo??)..... Bacl-presby 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome script
I'd quite like to use your welcome script on Wikiquote - can I copy it wholesale, or change the wp to wq, or anything like that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free! (Are you asking for assistance in changing it?) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 11:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it does need changing, I'm as much use with a script as Ed Wood. Would it work if I just put it straight into my WQ monobook? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried it, but it didn't show up as a tab when I edited a talk page. It looks like it should work otherwise, but I'm not experienced enough with Wikiquote scripting to know what the differences are. I'm willing to help you or someone figure it out if you can put me in touch with a Wikiquotian who knows WQ scripting. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello!
Thank you for leaving the message of encouragement. I am looking forward to contributing to Wikipedia. I appreciate the links to the different pages on editing articles, etc.

Regards,

ty 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dream
I've been editing the Jesus page, but I had a dream last night that I should stop working on it, because it will just get reverted and I will be better off contributing somewhere else that my work wont be in vain. I'm still considering how much time i want to put into wiki at all, but I may do some edits on calvinism after i get over my cold. :) THanks for your invitation! Wyatt 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Biographies?
I notice you specify an interest in biographies. Is there any chance you could do the tagging for some of the various Calvinist categories (as listed on the WikiProject Calvinism Todo list)? If not, that's fine, but if you could let me know, that would be great!

I've also asked to have a go at some of these too, so if you're doing some, you might want to tag the ones you plan to do before you do them.

-- TimNelson 05:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I forgot to respond to this. It seems like you guys have just about finished it. I haven't had much more time to work on this (what with the Calvinism Template discussions and all that). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Barth & RBs
Hi. I added your request about people discussing Barth & the RBs to the new Current Discussions section of the Todo list. I figured that was the way to get the news out to everyone, at least for now.

-- TimNelson 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, thanks for the note. I am having a little trouble as my embedded citations/footnotes seem to work on some pages but not on others. I am trying to work around it. Martha p 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Martha p --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my typos, I am still getting the hang of this. I see that in the Rushdoony article you moved the quote down to the References section. Is that proper procedure for any quoted material or just for that particular quote? Should I put it back in the article as quoted text? Sorry for so many questions. Martha p 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary, but in this case I thought it was appropriate. In general, it's preferred that articles not be composed of quotations but rather summaries of them unless it is something particularly pithy or the exact wording is required. In this case, the main text reflects the author's concern, and the supporting documentation along with the (optional) quote is in the reference. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

quick note
Dear Flex,

The new Wiki Conservapedia could use some contributors to expand its articles on Christianity - especially its Christian apologetics articles. The site is more friendly to Christianity than Wikipedia. It is also less liberal. Jazzman123 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)jazzman123


 * Thanks, but no thanks. As iron sharpens iron, so other points of view sharpen mine. Cheers! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Calvinism news
Hi. I'm recommending to all participants in WikiProject Calvinism that they keep up with at least the News page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/News) for this project. The methods I'd recommend for doing this are any or all of:
 * Add the abovementioned page to your watchlist
 * Include the page on another page you look at regularly; in my case, this is my user page, since I keep my personal "todo" list there. That would look something like:

-- TimNelson 00:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Calvin
The article John Calvin you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:John Calvin for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Douglike 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure, it was about time by the sounds of it Douglike 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Flex, congrats on the GA for Calvin. It's a good looking article, glad to see that it passed.  -- Pastordavid 23:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Solas
Any objection if I promote this to top importance? I'd say we ought to finally end up with about 20-30 articles in the top importance category.

-- TimNelson 11:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. My earlier importance ratings were not very consistent by the time I got to the last ones. Feel free to alter them as you see fit. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 12:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind note
Thanks for this kind message. I plan to further provide grammer cleanup, introduce new images to the article and replace the "unreferences tags" with credible citations (for Egypt, China, Babylon and Greece) in the History of alcohol article. I'll keep you posted. Many reagrds and Cheers ! Moerou toukon 11:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you find time then take a look in the History of alcohol article. I'm finished with the article except for one sweep for grammer check. Cheers ! Moerou toukon 22:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment editing
Hi Flex. Thank you for your respectful but direct comment. I know that editing other people's comments is something to be careful about. I've been a registered Wikipedian for more than three years now, and I've also been frustrated in the few cases where other people have edited my comments. Though I don't care if someone fixes my errors, I know that other people sometimes do, and I try to be sensitive to that. In this particular case, I am trying to fix links that hit a redirect to Seventh-day Adventist Church. If you were to follow my edit history (the one for the IP that WP thinks I have only has a few of the many edits I've made in the last few days), you would see that almost the only thing I've changed on all those pages is the link itself. The Talk:Christianity edit was pretty much the only talk page edit I've made where I actually changed the spelling of something besides the link itself. I don't even care if the spelling appears to stay the same (given that it is only a talk page), I just want to fix the link target, which in my opinion is obviously intended to link to "Seventh-day Adventist Church." If you want to change the target, go ahead. If you would be willing to let me change just the target (nothing else), I will do so. As the user is an anonymous user (who didn't mention his/her registered username on the IP talk page), it seems extremely unlikely that I will be able to contact this user to request his/her permission to change the link target, especially since no one has anonymously edited from that IP since 7 December 2006.

Sorry about the repeated editing. I have an unreliable connection and thought that my changes just hadn't been made. I didn't see that they had been reverted.

If you happen to know anything about login issues beyond the help pages here, I'd love to be able to login again. You can reply to this comment on my registered username talk page (which is really the best place, since it will stay mine, while the IP will likely change) or on my anonymous IP talk page (which will make sure I notice when you comment, but only if you comment before my IP changes again). Please let me know how you would like to resolve the link target thing, or if you have a better solution, or if you just want me to leave it alone. I may not agree with your response, but I'm certainly willing to talk about it.

As you can see by my IP at the moment, my IP changes frequently, probably related to the fact that I am writing from a school. None of the vandalism warnings on the talk pages of these IPs are referring to me. My current IP claims that I'm in Germantown MD (I checked WHOIS), but I'm actually in Mexico. I have no idea why it says that I'm in MD.

Sincerely, Cromwellt|talk (writing from IP 67.142.130.40 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Sorry, Flex, the page we're talking about where I edited was Talk:Christianity and alcohol, not Talk:Christianity. --Cromwellt|talk 21:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can keep the conversation here. No problem.  :)  --Cromwellt|talk 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * With WP:TPG, I'd say you should resist the urge to correct links, typos, spelling errors, etc. in other people's comments because doing so can engender ill will and because you risk unwittingly distorting something they said by fixing it the wrong way. In this particular case, the redirect goes to the right place and the edits are pretty old, so why even bother? It just adds trivial changes to the database without much of a purpose, IMHO. There are plenty of misspellings and links you could fix in the articles themselves without worrying about the talk pages. Also, if you're into fixing spelling and avoiding redirects and disambiguation pages, you might consider using an automated tool like WP:AWB.


 * As far as logging in, what seems to be the problem? (I don't have any particular insights to share as I've never had problems logging in, but perhaps I can help somehow.) Cheers! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 21:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First I want to mention that I deeply appreciate your candid, frank, and friendly response. It is refreshing to meet another Wikipedian who doesn't see any need to bite someone's head off just because of a mistake, whatever the size.  Not that most Wikipedians do that, but cordiality is still nice.  Yes, I agree that I should resist the urge to correct other people's comments.  For me, the ill will is a much bigger factor, especially because I always try to be very careful to never change the meaning of a comment, but it is still a risk, as you say.


 * You're right, the edits are old and the link eventually gets you there. These are trivial changes, but I find value in them.  It is true that the servers don't spend much time on redirects, but I still would like all links going directly to the article they refer to.  Not that that will ever happen to all of WP, or even EN WP, but I can help.  Actually, I started fixing the redirecting links to that particular page because I wanted to make sure there were no double redirects, which would be a problem, and one worth fixing.  Being a perfectionist, I decided to go ahead and fix all the redirecting links instead of just the double redirects (I want a nice, clean Whatlinkshere page, with no indentions :).  A large percentage of the redirects I am fixing are on (main) namespace pages, not on talk pages, and in those cases I also fix the visible spelling of the link when it is wrong, since that should be right.  So I am doing what you were saying about fixing the article pages.  On talk pages (and even in archives), I have been fixing the appearance as well as the link target, but I think I'll change my policy based on your well-made point: I'm only going to change the link target, nothing about the appearance.  Does that seem reasonable?


 * I am interested in AWB, but I haven't really looked into it much. Thanks for the tip.


 * My login problem is a toughie, as far as I can tell. What happens is this: I click the register/login link at the top right of the page.  I enter my username and password.  It says I have successfully logged in, and even shows my username, etc., in the upper right.  But then, as soon as I switch to another page, I am logged out again.  I have checked my cookies, and I am accepting cookies from all Wikimedia projects that I'm working on.  It is possible it is a firewall problem, but I have no idea how to fix that.  And it isn't just at the school where I work: I can't login on computers in cybercafes in the area either.  Maybe they all have the same type of firewall or something, but I never had this problem until around December 2006, which was about the time our school changed its ISP.  I don't know if that is related, but if that is the case, it seems strange that I can't even login when I'm off-campus.  A bit of a puzzler, isn't it?


 * BTW, if you don't mind me saying so, I noticed that your contribs link in your signature doesn't go to your contributions page. The link should read Special:Contributions/Flex, not Special:Contributions:Flex.  Better to catch it now than later.
 * --Cromwellt|talk 21:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing that can cause this is if you're using a connection (usually broadband) that keeps hanging up. If you go to http://www.dnsstuff.com/, you'll notice that it says your IP address.  If you log in, then wait until you're logged out, and then recheck that, and it tells you a different IP, that could be causing it.  Maybe someone else will have other ideas.


 * -- TimNelson 11:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the login problem. Perhaps Tim's comments will be helpful to you. As for just redirecting the links on talk pages, that is the least dangerous way to do it. My personal policy is to fix redirects only in the main space, but I understand wanting to have a flat WLH page. Cheers! (PS, Thanks for catching my signature error!) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

John Calvin article
Let me pass on my congrats, as the others did.

Thought: have you looked at the 11 easy steps at WikiProject Biography? They'd presumably improve the article.

I've created a Calvinist Theologians infobox at Template:Infobox Calvinist Theologians. Could you run an eye over it and let me know what you think? I was going to add it to the John Calvin article, but then I hesitated; I don't want our GA delisted :). Let me know what you think (feel free to comment on the infobox discussion page; it's on my watchlist).

-- TimNelson 11:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tim. I have looked at those steps, and thankfully I think most of them are done or unnecessary at this point. We should add the infobox like you say. I'll take a look at the one you mention. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, are you interested in signing up as the facilitator for the John Calvin article at WikiProject Calvinism


 * --TimNelson 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also thought I'd mention that I think the bio thingy of Calvin at Portal:Calvinism/Bio Archive/Suggestions needs some more work; I'm assuming you're not watching that page, so I thought I'd mention it.
 * -- TimNelson 15:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!
Yay! Thanks! Now I'll need to add an "Awards" section to my user page :)

-- TimNelson 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Calvinism
It seems that I am largely ignorant of the histories of both the Barth question and the dispute with Yakuman. As you know, I am new to this page and almost certainly would not have involved myself in the argument except that I was asked for my input on a particular question. I assumed that my opinion was requested because of a lack of consensus. (Usually when there is existing consensus on an issue, additional opinions are not sought out.) However, this assumption was apparently mistaken, as a general consensus was achieved quite some time ago. Forgive me for my misconception here as well as my intrusion into an aged dispute with Yakuman, and please excuse me from this discussion. My time constraints are such that I can't respond as punctually as I would like. Furthermore, Barth's presence or absence in the template is not important to me.—Emote Talk Page 08:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery
On the talk page of the above article we have advertised for a GA-reviewer. Would you be interested to approach that, or could you suggest/refer someone who might? You are eligible if you have not made prior substantial editorial contributions to it.DavidYork71 09:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to meet you - v minor issue
Hi Felx. Good to meet you. V minor issue: in your edit to John Polkinghorne you described Prof Chen as "also a Nobel Laureate" which might imply that John was - alas not. I can't change this because some editors might report me for 3RR(!) - since I work on arguments for existence of God there are a few people who track my actions rather sharply :-). Thought I'd say hi anyway and I hope our paths cross again soon. NBeale 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings! But, you can call me Flex. ;-) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)