User talk:Flex/Archive 6

John Gill
Thanks, Flex. Missed that vandalism on John Gill (theologian). Brian0324 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect News link
The link I gave people for the News article to add to their watchlist was incorrect. It should've been WikiProject Calvinism/News. For everyone else, I went around and corrected the link, but yours is on an archive page, so I thought I'd comment on it here.

-- TimNelson 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions
Hello, you were the guy who welcomed me and I was wondering about a few things. First, is it okay if I delete your welcome? I was reading the talk page of another user, and it said that it's rude to blank your own talk page. Also, I was adding a few userboxes to my page, but now there in a really weird arangement. Could you please explain how to organize them. Thank you for welcoming me. Supernerd 10 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Supernerd_10. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 17:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again, but I have another question. How do I cite sources? I added the "Predictions" section to the article about Jules Verne and I have a source for my info. The problem is that I am not sure how to cite it. The URL is http://unmuseum.org/verne.htm Supernerd 10


 * You can follow the existing reference style of using tags (see the example in the intro to that article and cf. WP:FN). I'd also suggest using the template between those ref tags so the format is standardized. Something like this: . If you don't know all of those cite_web fields, you can omit any but the url and title. Cheers! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 12:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

John Piper
I saw you were working on this article - are you cleaning out the crap that the COI editor put in? I didn't want to revert your more recent work if you were already on top of it. RJASE1 Talk  15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was/am cleaning up after him/her. You'll note that I also warned about the COI on the user's talk page (editing the articles related to Piper, not just supplying links). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Have a good one - RJASE1 Talk  18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Unum
Hey Flex, once again, if you have the time, I need your advice/expertise/input on this entry: Unum. If you look at the edit history, you can get a sense of where the dispute it brewing. I stumbled across the entry a couple days ago and started cleaning it up, removing a whole bunch of non-encyclopedic content, adding the standard business infobox etc., and I was planning on expanding it, even to perhaps include some of the apparently "negative" info about Unum if it could be tied to an actual news story and/or content authority.

My problem is, I can see a fight brewing, and I want to know what you think is the best way to handle it? As always, many thanks. Qmax 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so it is not about defending either the company or consumers. On the other hand, the LA Times story does address a topic that seems to me to be worthy of note, and the other sources provide primary (though not necessarily reliable) sources on the matter. So, I'd say the criticism can stay at least in some form, and the rest of the article should be expanded to discuss Unum as a company (revenue, business model, whatever) so that the whole article doesn't appear to be criticism. The bit about the logo and rebranding seems like superfluous marketing fluff and should be reduced to a phrase or a sentence, not its own section. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that was pretty helpful. Qmax 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Help Please
I tried to nominate Wade Bowl for deletion, but I seem to have messed up somehow. Can you tell what I did wrong? Gorgeous Ferns 04:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Perhaps someone else lent you a hand. If not, what do you see as the problem? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Letter from a Christian Citizen
Flex, you tagged Letter from a Christian Citizen as not notable but it seems to pass the amazon book test. I'm curious if you think this is a good test for notability. -- Vince 05:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Presence on Amazon is not sufficient. See WP:BK. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Was the notability tagged removed by you or the individual who wrote the article? I was indeed mistaken; the wp:bk criteria are stricter than I thought. Thanks for pointing this out to me. --Vince undefined 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was removed by User:Thirddave, though I don't think WP:BK is yet satisfied. I added an AfD to get more input. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yea I believe User:Thirddave wrote the article (which was actually just a copy and paste from the book's website). I backed the deletion on the AfD page --Vince undefined 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me about this?
Hi, I'm a relatively recent user. Something strange happened to me yesterday, can you please shed some light on this? While I was NOT logged in, a window opened that said that my own IP address had been flagged for vandalism several times, and so I had received a "red" advice. Also, immediately afterwards my attempts to log in failed (I got a "there's no account by this name" message). Today, however, I logged in succesfully. Now, I believe I never did vandalism. Every time I changed anything it was for a reason which I explained in the talk page. Also, this is strange because I never edited Wikipedia without logging in first. So, it's either: 1) The vandalism flagging is a mistake, or 2) Someone else is vandalizing from my IP address (is this possible?) Can you please help me about this? thank you. Caballaria 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is quite possible that someone else is vandalizing from your IP address -- it happens a lot. Many service providers (e.g., AOL) dole out floating IP addresses to their clients, and if you happen to log on from different machines, say, in a university computer lab, you could also get a different IP. I wouldn't worry about the warnings if you were not the culprit. If the vandal in question happens to get blocked, you can petition for your account to be allowed to login despite the block. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed external link
Hi, can you explain why you removed the Discourse DB link on Gonzales v. Carhart? Yaron K. 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes: It does not appear to conform to the guidelines on external links. In particular, it doesn't seem to obviously meet the positive requirements of that guideline, and as a "user-powered" site, it seems that it should be avoided under the negative provisions for a number of reasons (neutrality, reliability, stability, etc.). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 17:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope you reconsider. Discourse DB has been used as a resource by many people. Yaron K. 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
I hope I can accurately contribute to Wikipedia. I'm still learning though so bear with me.

Semper Reformanda

Five Pointer 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Puritan
Thanks, Flex. I did not cut-and-paste for my additions to the Puritan article; the work is my own, taken from various sources which I have added to Further Reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrustyCain (talk • contribs)

Epiphyllumlover
Thanks for the tip about which sites are appropriate and which ones are not. I tend to make a lot of the same kind of edit at the same time, depending on what I feel like doing, so you might notice me putting in citations, a site links, or new content all in at the same time. Ironically, your kind edits on my links actually saved them from total reversion from Hu12, who seems to be determined to rack up as many "antivandal" points as he can. He reverted all my links on that list of sites, save for ones where others (like you) had made edits first. I respect a careful razor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epiphyllumlover (talk • contribs) 09:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks
Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for the welcome - Teknolyze


 * You're welcome! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

question
Why did you remove all the scientific Christian apologetics like Behe's Darwin's Black Box and Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial? I believe both of these books were best sellers. I think you did it for idealogical reasons and not any rules at Wikipedia. Jazzman123 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First things first: please assume good faith and don't attribute motives. You apparently have no idea what my ideology is, and in any case, I try to keep my biases in check.


 * Second, which article are you talking about? I presume you mean List of apologetic works rather than List of Christian Apologetic Works. If so, the answer is because a separate list exists just for Christian apologetics that had the same content, so I added a and redacted the list to the "popular" section (see WP:SUMMARY). This way the Christian section doesn't dwarf the other sections (cf. WP:NPOV), but the complete list is still linked to. If those books belong in the "popular" section feel free to add them. (Perhaps a better path would have been to delete all the books that didn't have their own articles.) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of redirects
Hi, in the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23, you wrote "Redirects don't qualify for categorization." In fact, there's a whole series of categories specifically for redirects. And Redirect merely says, "Redirects should not normally contain categories that would fit on the target page" (emphasis mine). That would seem to apply to this particular case, but your suggestion of a much broader rule than we actually have worries me slightly. Not a big deal, but I just wanted to point that out. Cheers, Xtifr tälk 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right you are, and I adjusted my comment accordingly (my vote didn't change, however). Thanks for the clarification. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 12:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CFD tag on Reformed churches
Hi Flex, I just saw this edit. Don't cfd tag go on talk pages?

Blarneytherinosaur talk 02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right you are. I moved the tags. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Zapsteel 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)hello flex i am user Zapsteel. Supernerd 10 and i go to the same school. check out my page Bionicle history.


 * Hi! I presume you mean Bionicle History, which I have suggested be merged into the existing Bionicle articles. You'll also want to check out the five pillars of Wikipedia and how to write a great article on making such articles great. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Zapsteel 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)thanks for your advice flex i am trying to make Bionicle History a better page. The only reason I have not been working on it lately is because I've had a hard time keeping it safe from the user known as skysmith. I am also trying to add pictures to it.


 * Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you don't own that article. It seems that the general consensus is that it duplicates existing content, so why don't you help improve the existing content instead? (If you disagree about the duplication, you should bring it up on Talk:BIONICLE.) As for images, be sure you follow the copyright policies of the WP, or they images will quickly be deleted. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Flex I would like it if you would not change my pages in that way I worked so hard on it. please if you could change it back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zapsteel (talk • contribs).


 * All I did was create a merge request. Someone else redirected it, but I tend to agree that that is the right move. Please re-read my previous comment. Having your work edited, integrated with others', and even removed is all part of the collaborative process here. As the notes at the bottom of every edit window say, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly..., do not submit it." --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Zapsteel 14:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Sorry but the main reason I want my page back to normal is because the one that merged with my page only talks about other things and not my parts of my article. I do understand what you mean flex and I'm not angry just i am still working on my page.Zapsteel 14:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're not angry -- that's good Wikiquette. I will reiterate, however, that there is no "my page" here. It is only "our page" (see WP:OWN). You should add your material to the existing article on BIONICLEs, and if it grows to the point where the community decides it deserves its own page, it can be branched off then (see WP:SUMMARY). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 15:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Zapsteel 18:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)I see what you mean flex. and i'm sorry for all the trouble i caused. I will add the information i already have to the new bionicle page.


 * No problem, but I presume by "the new bionicle page" you mean BIONICLE. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP Christianity
Hi, I saw your name on the WikiProject Christianity Membership page.

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 14:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nomination
I just thought that you should know that I've nominated you for Adminship.Supernerd 10 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered, but you missed two things: first you should ask the person in question before creating an RfA (I'd decline at this time), and second, while you created an RfA page for me, you didn't transclude it on the main RfA page so others could see it and vote on it. Thanks for thinking of me, though. :-) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Piper and alcohol
I reverted the Piper article you changed. Check Category:Evangelicals who teach Abstinence from Alcohol and you'll see that every person linked in that category has a section that discusses their views on alcohol. --One Salient Oversight 08:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll see that I reduced the quote and surrounding prose and added other stub sections so that his view on alcohol doesn't receive undue weight when it's really just a minor facet of his theology. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 01:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's great. Thanks for that. --One Salient Oversight 01:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Van Til
Hi, Flex. Please take another look at the Van Til article, and re-consider your editing note, that it is "original research". The book, "Jerusalem and Athens" will assist you in this. What I wrote is not "original" with me, and is fully supportable (with regard to both, Dooyeweerd and Clark) from that one feschrift alone. Warm regards. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the material itself, but it struck me as a synthesis, which is proscribed under WP:OR. If you have a source for it in J&A, let's re-add it and cite the source. Cheers! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 01:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to hunt down the book, since I seem to either have lost it or given it away. I think it's an important point, however - since it illustrates the disturbing "wobble" that Van Til put his finger on, and which ever since has frustrated those nearest to him from understanding him.  &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Heroes of the Christian Church
Hello. Please see the talk page for the category. Homagetocatalonia 01:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Evangelicals who teach Abstinence from Alcohol
I've done this a few times in the past you know, Put Capital Letters Where They're Not Needed...

--One Salient Oversight 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Haven't we all? :-) --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Poythress
If you've ever time to invite him, the Townhall writer of the blog The Procrustean has a powerful grasp of Poythress's perspectivism. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've emailed him. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 01:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing the article. As far as the "Did you know" section, what about
 * Vernon Sheridan Poythress is a Calvinist theologian and New Testament scholar who argued in a in a 1983 article that mathematics is the rhyme of the universe.

I don't think very many people know that! Anyway, I added that bit, and I'll hunt around for more. StAnselm 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's good. Now to find a free picture (I emailed the webmaster of frame-poythress.org). --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 01:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the various triadic figures he discovers in mathematical thought, in light physics, etc. Science is not my field, though. Procrustes could give vigorous help, if he's interested. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. He had a tremendous impact on me in my first year of university. I particularly like the triads. StAnselm 04:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like the five day time limit is the absolute maximum. The sooner the better, I think. StAnselm 23:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. See Template_talk:Did_you_know. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 00:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good faith
Relocating this comment from my user page:


 * If you assume good faith then why did you edit out my information regarding the 1646 First London Confession of Faith. These people believed in predestination. It just happens that they believed in the power of the gospel, not the law. So did Paul. Just like others before and after, they attacked the view that the law could convict of sin in a saving way. They did not believe that the preparation of the terrors of the law applied to the heart could convict in any way. They offer a significant departure from the Protestantism that surrounded them, the Protestantism that had its roots in Augustinianism. The legalism of the Protestants versus the gospel and grace of the 1646 folks. After they departed the 1689 folks fell away. I would hope that you would record them for the true history that they hold too, a resurgence of the true gospel of the early church, where Paul said that he was determined to know only the gospel among the gentiles. He knew. bgamall

Your edits in question were not in conformance with the neutrality policy, but if they had been, their controversial nature would have demanded attribution from reliable sources. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Flex,I apologize for posting this at your personal page. I will keep these comments to the talk page. However, since when is the 1646 confession of faith controversial when it clearly states that the terrors of the law in preparation to receiving the gospel are not ever necessary? That is what sets this statement of faith apart from 1689 which was a capitulation back to Westminster. Obviously these 1646 folks new something that the Protestant tradition did not understand, and if you read Peter's sermon to the crowd in acts 2 you see that gospel conviction was what happened. Flex, where in scripture is the law called the sword of the Spirit? The gospel cuts, and that is why Augustinianism is false. Now, all I wanted was for you to fairly represent the 1646 view. It deserves a place as a counterpoint to all the Protestantism and Catholicism is.


 * The position of the 1646 confession is opposed to the traditional view. But I am not misinterpreting their position. I am accurately speaking about it when literally no one else is doing so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by bgamall (talk • contribs).

The truth of your edits is not in question (yet). The phrasing was not at all neutral, which is a requirement here. If it were neutral, the text would bear further scrutiny under WP:V and WP:NPOV. Also, please don't revert articles to previous versions as you did to Martin Luther, John Owen (theologian), and Covenant Theology without explanation or apparent justification -- doing so introduced a number of errors including adding deleted categories, deleting interwiki links, etc. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 11:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But Flex, the statement that law preaching, law conviction is valid is itself not neutral. The counterpoint is gospel conviction, and the 1646 confession needs to be represented. I will even give you the opportunity here to express how I should go about this. You tell me, don't just give me negatives. Same for John Owen since you only have positives about him without the NCT view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.94.19.251 (talk • contribs).

I'm not opposed to significant, alternate views being presented (indeed, this is a requirement of WP:NPOV). The main problem with your changes on Martin Luther, John Owen (theologian), and Covenant Theology was that you apparently reverted to an old version that had a number of technical errors. You are free to introduce criticism from reliable sources that represent significant points of view, but please base it on the current text of the article.

The approach you took in Law and Gospel was better in this regard, but it was certainly not neutral. For instance, the phrasing that the new Calvinistic confession was a "capitulation to Protestant doctrine" and that the old Anabaptist version was a "testament to faith" is clearly biased (not to mention rather vague). Listing certain Bible verses like you did does nothing but push a POV since the Bible alone is not a valid primary source here (cf. WP:A). Lastly your exclamation point was not encyclopedic (cf. WP:MOS) and, in conjunction with your other neutrality violations, appears to try to unduly emphasize your position over and against others'.

As for the right way to handle these things: try creating a section on "Anabaptist view(s)" to parallel the other sections instead of limiting it to one confession. Keep your biases in check (we all have biases, after all, cf. WP:EQT), and try describe the view(s) without taking sides on what is correct (WP:NPOV). If your additions seem to be a reasonable attempt at neutrality, even if it falls short in some respect, it will be likely to remain and be edited by others rather than being removed. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 15:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Flex, I really don't care what the other Anabaptists believe because many of them were very like minded with the Lutheran and Reformed. See http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/luthermenno.html The only published exception to the reformed line was published by the 1646 people! They deserve their own separate space!!!!


 * If someone is a serious scholar, then I would hope they would give these people the recognition they are entitled to as being unique to the age.bgamall

Uniqueness doesn't by itself warrant its own space. Indeed, uniqueness may mean something doesn't warrant inclusion in the Wikipedia at all (see WP:NOT), and some (unique) minority views needn't be represented at all (see WP:NPOV). That's not to say that this sort of material certainly doesn't belong anywhere in the Wikipedia (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and New Covenant Theology seem like likely candidates), but it may not belong in all the articles where one might think it could possibly fit. Also, read WP:V: another criterion here is verifiability, not truth. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 23:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Flex, these people, the 1646 people, figured out the biblical basis of law versus faith. Unless you are prepared to call the law of Moses the sword of the Spirit, the Reformed view is not based on scripture. The people who were cut to the heart in Acts were cut by the gospel, not the law. Therefore, the 1646 confession is absolutely essential in understanding Christian thought. You cannot say, Flex, that they are a small band, so that must be insignificant. Jesus said himself that many are called and few are chosen. It is the majority that are in error. This is not insignificant. If you want to get in the way of the gospel, that is your call. But there is a price. There has been through history. You can ignore this position personally, and that is not my problem. But you are blocking the issue. You write it, if you are fair and balanced. See http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/swordofthespirit.html bgamall

This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or soapbox, so it must not be used as a platform to promote any viewpoint but must attempt to present all significant points on controversial issues of without taking sides. That's what the neutrality policy is all about. If a subject is verifiable and notable, then it is worthy of an article in the Wikipedia. If not then it may fit as a section in some other article. Anyway, I'm not blocking anything. I'm just asking you to follow the Wikipedia's rules as the rest of us must. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for affiliation
Would you please define the / your criteria on what constitutes affiliation or association? I suspect if I were weekly to host an Evangelical group in my home, my family, neighbors, and friends would concieve there to be an assocition between me, as host and participant, in the Evangelical movement. Park Street hosts the Ex-gay ministries group meetings on a regular basis, church staff and church members attend. The event is in their Sunday bulletin. Dr Hugenberger's absence at meetings doesn't negate this. Here is a difference I see between my church's providing meeting space to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), Big Sisters and Big Brothers, and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA): while we would not host an organization we found to be immoral or unjust, we will provide space, but we do not promote their meetings or agenda either from the pulpit or in our weekly bulletin. While our work with homeless shelters is promoted from the pulpit and in our bulletin, AA and the BSA are not.CApitol3 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded at Category_talk:Ex-gay_movement. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 14:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Note
Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines‎, when you deleted the text there, you did what you do not have the right to do. If you feel that the person was in error for posting that there, you must tell him such. You cannot just delete what he put down. Since I already pointed out that it was the wrong place, it is not your right to go ahead and delete it. You must assume good faith and wait for him to correct it himself. Please restore what he put and give him the chance to clarify or correct what he put, or I will have to revert it back to the time before you inappropriately deleted his comments. You only have the right to delete your own comments, not others. SanchiTachi 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, and I restored the section. It seemed to me like a bit of hit-and-run random text by an anon, but I see that it could be otherwise. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. SanchiTachi 01:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching that edit at Arminianism. Just want you to know I appreciate your contributions to wikipedia, and believe the body of Christ has/is/will benefit from your work here. David Schroder 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Systematic theology
Good call on your recent edit to this page. The list of theologians has been annoying me but I don't really have the expertise to prune it. I think you cut right to the pith! -- BPMullins | Talk 18:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Covenant Theology
hi, regarding your most recent edits/reversion to this article 1) I was wondering what technical jargon you had in mind? My recent edits mostly involved reordering that section.  I will try to get rid of some jargon (e.g. "probationary period") but otherwise, I may have missed what else there is that has not been previously explained in the article, or linked to another article. 2) I deleted the criticisms section because it seemed to me more polemic than encyclopedic. Much of the response to the criticism would seem to belong properly within the main article. No such "criticisms" section appears in the Dispensationalist article. They originally appeared with quite sharp language; I was one of the contributers who attempted to tone down the language. But with the point-counterpoint content currently present, it is extremely difficult to provide accurate encyclopedic description without some display of bias.

What are your thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.201.19.176 (talk • contribs).


 * I got your message, and I'll respond soon. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NorbertWiener.jpg
Hi on 24 March 2005 you uploaded the outstanding image of Norbert Wiener on the copyright basics, that anyone is allowed to use that picture for any purpose, provided that credit is given to RLE at MIT. Now I have to questions maybe you know the answer: I hope you can help me out. Best regards - Mdd 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If I use the image how do I give credits to RLE. For example if you show the picture in a tumb, do I add a text like with thanks to RLE at MIT
 * 2) Can I show this picture a medium in the Category:Systems theory researchers? With fair use images this is not allowed.


 * If you are using it within the Wikipedia, no additional citation is needed. All the copyright info is available by clicking on the image. If you are using it outside the Wikipedia, credit will need to be given explicitly. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - Mdd 15:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Biblical exegesis
Thanks WikiJonathanpeter 14:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Invite

 * Ah, You see, I'm a Lutheran with inclinations towards Remonstrationism. I must decline, because I cannot make the area justice. Said: Rursus 16:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Flex,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:NGC602.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-06-24.  howcheng  {chat} 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:JIPacker.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JIPacker.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perseverance of the saints - Lutheran View
Thanks for tightening it up

Peterbu 17:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. It strikes me that some in the Reformed camp, notably advocates of the Federal Vision, would present a similar picture to the Lutheran view. To me, it seems like more of a difference of terminology and emphasis than of kind, with the Reformed (not those in the FV camp) emphasizing the (invisible) grace of perseverance given to the invisible church (i.e., the elect) only and with the others (Lutherans, FVers, et al.) emphasizing the (visible) grace given to the visible church. The bible uses "save" in more than one sense, after all. Just a quick thought... --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cotton Mather
Please help me fix the article I wrote about Cotton Mather so that it is less like an advertisement. I have no interest in promoting them (they no longer exist) but wanted to show how their rise to success happened, with Noel Gallagher and Oasis being incredibly impressed, accolades from the press, and their notability. (It seems that if I write an article about a band without expressing such notability, some deletionist comes along and marks the article for speedy deletion with the comment "not notable"; I can't win!) Thank you... Gekritzl 11:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I went back and made changes to try to make it sound less like an ad per your challenge - your input appreciated. Thanks. Gekritzl 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Toronto church and ministries
Since you nominated The Merge Ministry and Reflex Ministry Toronto for deletion (and since the matter seems more your area of expertise than mine), I thought I'd ask you about this. The entire contents of those deleted articles has been added to Bayview Glen Church; I'm not sure whether this constitutes a WP policy violation, but it certainly seems to violate the spirit of the AfD consensus. In addition, the article Bayview Glen Church seems completely out of control: The "Programmes" and "Highway 242" sections are nothing but advertisement, "Bayview Glen's Creed" has little to do with the church specifically, and the tables (complete with portraits) of the unnotable former pastors are grotesquely inappropriate. I'm reluctant to AfD the church's article because the place may in fact be marginally notable. But going in and whacking out vast tracts of the article also seems unadvisable, especially in light of the interested users' refusal to let go of the Merge and Refresh material. Any suggestions as to how the Bayview Glen article might be reduced to an appropriate length and focus? Deor 16:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe User:GrislyDan is the same as User:65.249.163.82 (cf., where GrislyDan signs with the same signature as the anon did in the preceding discussion). I'd also bet that he is the Dan pictured here, who is/was apparently involved with at least one of the ministries in question. All this is to say, that I don't see that there are "interested users" but one interested user, who is personally invested in this material.


 * He seems eager and able to contribute but unaware of certain central Wikipolicies. Perhaps the best tack is to talk with him directly about the Wikipedia's approach neutrality, verifiability, and notability. If done gently, I hope we can avoid scaring him off and build up a solid Wikipedian at the same time. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I may have gone too far too fast, but I've deleted the embedded re-creations of the deleted articles (with an explanation on the talk page, citing relevant guidelines), as well as two other sections, which were verbatim copies of material on the church's Web site (which displays an explicit copyright notice). I guess I'll just wait to see what happens before attempting any further cleanup. Deor 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Protestantism
The CCEL resource have many Protestants' works and are useful for many studying Protestantism, why delete the links?Vegetarians17609ae 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the guidelines here indicate that it should not be linked. In particular, the Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and "a general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject". --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 23:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

George Whitefield
I did not think this picture (crossed eyes) was George Whitefield. It does not look like other portraits. Is it for sure supposed to be him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingsportbill (talk • contribs).


 * Yes, it is him. Not all portraits (or even photos) of anyone look alike. Compare the image I left on your talk page. Harvard and the Library of Congress are against you on this one. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 16:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian Torah-submission
Hi Flex. First, thanks for your welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you are a prolific and well-balanced. An editor has recently recommended the article Christian Torah-submission for deletion. I don't think there is any justification for deletion, but I'm afraid that there will not be much consideration given to the article since many people are not familiar with the topic. Since I see that you are very objective, if you're interested, I'd like to encourage you to weigh in on the discussion and make any more edits/citations that you think would be constructive. Thanks and keep up the good work. Namikiw 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

John Cotton
Thanks for your message. I like keeping discussions in one place (makes them easier to follow), so I have replied on my talk page, at User talk:BrownHairedGirl. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status
The Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to and/or  status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism Template
Hi Flex. Given yesterday's passing of Rev. Kennedy, the Dominionism template was jarringly brought to my attention. I see that you and others were involved in a very nasty fight about this a few months ago, and it appears that it may range beyond the template's lengthy talk page. But I am shocked to see that it reached the conclusion that it has apparently reached. I just posted some thoughts on my talk page. Does not the existence of numerous "reliable sources" disputing a particular association counter-balance the sources claiming it, to the point that Wikipedia should not be taking sides? You know better than I what went on (I've already spent way too much time looking at this issue, and I really should go back to doing real-world things for now), and you also know other users who are sympathetic. I wonder if, now that things have cooled off for a few months, this might be a good time to pre-emptively go to an administrator and lay out a reasoned case that this template is inherently POV. Thoughts? --BlueMoonlet 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I recently changed my username for the purposes of greater privacy, but we have met before, when you invited me to join your Calvinism WikiProject. --BlueMoonlet 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also quite dissatisfied with that template and its corresponding article. I think the best way to address the issue is to improve the Dominionism article with reliable sources (and perhaps question the reliability of some of the current sources), and then the template will have to follow suit. One problem is that its people on the left raising this whole conspiracy theory about Dominionism, and folks on the right don't give it enough credibility to even bother debunking and criticizing it except in passing. There were two or three admins involved in the discussion before as well as the authors of some of the sources labeling people dominionists, so I don't think appealing to them is going to result in changes from above. In any case, I don't have the time or energy to work on that now. I comfort myself with the fact that that article is not likely one of the more popular ones on the WP. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What was decided? I saw what seemed like an allusion to a user or users being blocked, but didn't see any overall administrative decision on the matter of who should be included on the template, or indeed whether the template should exist.  Who were the admins who were involved?  Did any of the authors you refer to actually reveal themselves, or did you just surmise their identities?  --BlueMoonlet 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Search for "admin" on that talk page. User:Tom_harrison, User:FeloniousMonk, and (on the other side) User:Mkmcconn. There may have been another. See also Talk:Dominionism. The decisions that were made toned it down a bit, but not enough for my liking. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PS, read WP:CONSENSUS. That's the goal, not top-down mediation (usually by the WP:ArbCom, not individual admins). --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 13:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, and thank you for your guidance. I've been heavily editing the Dominionism article (and cleaned up the Dominion Theology article while I was at it).  I am striving to improve the article's clarity and fairness, but we'll see if anyone notices and how they react.  --BlueMoonlet 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Double Predestination
I can't remove all the bible qoutes as I'm showing the warrant for double predestination, though I'll probably make them into a list (later, not now) - but I still need to show the text (with parts in italics and explanation), otherwise it's just a philisophical assumption or prooftexting.

I showed qoutes from Calvin (with parts italics) to indicate that he did believe in double predestination (as some Calvinists say he never really believed it).

I'm still new here at wikipedia so I'm not familiar with normal format of an article and other features, I'll try to edit it little by little to conform to the norm.

Also, if Double Predestination is to be merged to Predestination (Calvinism), I'd like the verses to be shown because that was my point in writing it. It wasn't represented and defended in Predestination (Calvinism) the last time I checked.

Avielh 17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome, and thanks for your contributions so far! I think that there's considerable overlap between predestination, unconditional election, predestination (Calvinism), double predestination, and reprobation and that they (particularly the last four) should somehow be combined into fewer articles. The issue with quotations is not that the article shouldn't have any, but that the article as it stands now consists of more quoted than non-quoted text. The nature of an encyclopedia is to give a summary of the matter rather than to be exhaustive or polemical.


 * Also, since the matter of the Bible's and Calvin's advocacy of d.p. is debated by scholars and theologians, that should be explicitly noted and both sides presented from reliable sources. That can include quotes from the Bible and Calvin where appropriate, but since that is the material that is under debate, the quotes should be discussed in terms of the major reliably sourced views on the issue (cf. WP:NPOV). Trying to prove the case from Calvin or the Bible directly (as you say you are doing now) is considered original research.


 * For what I would consider a positive example disputed matters addressed fairly and in a summary style, see Christianity and alcohol and total depravity. Again, welcome, and let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree, if the article was Calvinist Predestination or Reformed Predestination, I have to be neutral presenting both Double and Single Predestination, but since the article is Double Predestination, it is expected that the article supports it (nobody qoutes all the numerous bible verses that (seemingly) contradicts Calvinism in "Calvinism"). I'll just provide a link to CalvinisticPredestination or Single Predestination (if any exists). Besides, Calvin really believes in Double Predestination, that's why I'm qouting his work. If single Predestination Calvinists say he's did not, let them show it from Calvin's work (otherwise no one can qoute anyone, because someone can always disagree). Also do I really have to qoute some guy's work, regarding some guy's work, regarding some guy's (Paul) work regarding Double Predestination to be not considered original reasearch ? How far does it have to be ? I mean I can't qoute Calvin (by whose name Calvinism originated) simply because some other guy doesn't believe in it ? The belief in Double Predestination originated primarily in the Bible, and not in theologians. If I have to choose then I'll just have to add more content rather than delete those texts (on which the truth of Double Predestination actually hang).


 * Look man, I'm not angry or anything, but I am having to spend more time in dicussions than to actually contribute to the articles I want (and I'm planning to contribute in Unconditional Election - I hope you won't criticize me if I qoute bible verses directly). If someone wants to discuss Double Predestination in "Predestination (Calvinism)", then I'm all for it, he can link it to Double Predestination (See Main Article) if he wants. But I think its unfair if you want to delete Double Predestination (or most of its content) and change it to a redirect to Predestination (Calvinism) because you think it's convenient. Anyway, I'm supposed to add internal links today (Internet shop - I don't have internet at home) but I'm almost out of time.


 * Avielh 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides, you just don't want Calvin's qoutes and those verses shown, do you ? : ) Most single predestination Calvinists interpret some of Calvin's qoutes according to single predestination but hide so many qoutes (almost dreadfully) supporting double predestination... I'll write an article on Single Predestination (short one) then I'll link it to Predestination (Calvinism), I'll write a good defense for them... but I think they're wrong. Also those verses I used are used by double predestination Calvinists... nothing new, its not like we use different bibles (ok, maybe sightly different), they're all noted in Zanchius' work. Avielh 16:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First, let me remind you to assume good faith, which means not attributing motives as you seem to do in the last paragraph. Second, I'm not trying to remove any appropriate content. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of quotations (that's WikiQuote). Quotations from the Bible or Calvin are fine, but they should be relatively few. Nearly all the text should be your/our own words, and footnotes should point to the reliable sources on the matter. Cf. WP:QUOTE.


 * To quote Paul or Calvin to prove that they believe in D.P., however, is begging the question. Everyone reads those same texts, and some come to different conclusions. When the interpretation of a text is the very matter that is debated, we need reliable sources that express an interpretation on both sides (see WP:OR). Most importantly, you cannot say, e.g., "Calvin teaches double predestination," even if you and I believe that to be true, because the standard of Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." (Read that last clause again if it didn't shock you.) We must always seek to be neutral and present all notable points of view on a subject (see WP:NPOV).


 * Wikipedia is also not a theology text, which means that we editors aren't writing polemical theology or seeking to instruct Christians (that would be Theopedia). Rather, we need to present all sides of the issue. (WP:RS: "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." WP:ARTICLE: "If different people have different opinions about your topic, characterize that debate from the Neutral point of view.") Since a number of notable Calvinists reject D.P., that should be noted in the article. In other words, it should have a criticism section, like total depravity does, though it could be integrated rather than a separate section. It doesn't mean the criticism should be as detailed as the positive statement about the doctrine, but it should be there and must be neutral.


 * All this is, of course, separate from the discussion about merging various related articles. Cheers! --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the overlink advice (I was getting tired of all that). Well I'm not qouting Calvin because I'm proving that he's a DP (although SP qoute him all the time), I'm qouting him because he's explaining dp... and people can see that (I mean just read them... and I chose not to include the nastier ones - because they could make Calvin look bad). I mean, you have to do some very fancy hermeneutics and cover up to make Calvin say he doesn't believe in dp. As far as a critism part, I really tried to think of that (Calvin not a dp?)... but it's just impossible... check out classes on covenantseminary.edu regarding Calvin's Institutes, look for Predestination... the only way Calvin is SP is if you hide his DP qoutes... and there's so many. DP : men perish (reprobated) because God ultimately purposed/is pleased for them to reject him for His glory... Calvin says it plainly in so many ways (SPers just don't want to see that). Whenever he says God planned/is pleased that Adam would fall (thus getting Sinful nature which would lead to total depravity), even that is already DP. Calvin specifically points to "Predestination" as ultimate reason for reprobate's rejection.Avielh 16:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The point about Calvin is that you cannot use the Wikipedia to "prove" anything. You need to state both sides of the case and let the reader decide. If one side is more commonly accepted, it should get more space. Please please please read WP:NPOV. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How does Wikiqoute work ?
Is it linked to Wikipedia ? Like a link ? Or altogether a different website ? Thanks in advance. Avielh 16:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a different website, but it is related to the Wikipedia. See for instance the "interwiki" link at John_Calvin. What I would suggest with regard to double predestination, however, is that you convert some or all of your references to footnotes. See WP:FN. Compare how Bible verses and secondary sources are used in Alcohol in the Bible (not perfect, but it should help). --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ooookay, that looks pretty complicated (alcohol in the bible), but thanks again. Avielh 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Double Predestination (Hyper-Calvinist)
Why did you delete the Piper's qoute ? He believes in DP(h). And you also deleted the main part in Calvin's qoute that indicates he's DP(h). Avielh 15:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

R.C. Sproul Jr.
Hi Flex. Seems like I have bumped into you on a couple Christian bio articles. Herbert Armstrong, R.C. Sproul Jr., etc.

On the R.C. Sproul Jr. article I've stated my closeness to the situation as a member of R.C.'s church. I have a very strong suspicion that Frame-work is the guy who put the entire case against R.C. Sproul together in the first place, and got him defrocked. He did this after learning he might be brought under church discipline for something unrelated. At any rate if my hunch is correct Frame-work is basically using Wikipedia to further his campaign against R.C. Jr. by linking to church judgments that he basically wrote the drafts for himself and then published on his website after Talbot rubber-stamped it. If you know how to get Frame-work's IP address I have the home IP (static) and a few others (proxy sites) that this individual likes to use.

This case is rather unique because this guy is unemployed and has used a platoon of pseudonyms to post slander all over the Internet for about a year. I think the word for this person is "sock puppet master".

I apologize for venting in your direction today. Cadwallader 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in tracking this user down or discovering his/her identity, and doing so is certainly against Privacy policy if not unethical. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would never suggest you do anything unethical, Flex. Two questions: 1. How does Wikipedia encourage Users to report and verify a sock puppet without comparing IP addresses? 2. If a person creates an editor identity and uses it as a platform to attack his own personal friends/enemies by defining their bios while pretending to be disinterested (meat puppetry), how does Wikipedia suggest dealing with it? In this case the meat puppet inserted all the external links to documents on his own web site, driving his site up in Google rankings. Cadwallader 04:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD vs CFD
As a rule, you should let the AfD run its course&mdash; although a passing admin might cut it short by speedying the article anyways. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for help on Walt Brown
Hi Flex. Since you have a lot of experience with doing biographies, I was wondering if you would be willing to assist on straightening out the page for Dr. Walt Brown. He is a creationist mechanical engineer whose page keeps getting vandalized. Presently you can read a massive critique of his theory, but his theory itself has been deleted. I'll write the text. I just need some backup when the highly POV evos come in and want to delete it all.Cadwallader 03:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't promise to back you up, but I will call it like I see it. I want as neutral an article as possible. Let me know if things get hot. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 03:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Devotionals
Thanks for the advice when it comes to direct people to pastors and authors devotionals. These are devotionals that I use daily and that I want other people to find for encouragement. Thanks for the help, please let me know if you have any other suggestions!Rope Trav, October 12, 2007

Sfmwol
Flex, Why do you say that my link is spam? And why was it deleted without comment? It is a real link, and refers to the subject matter from the other side of it. You have to know what something is not, as well as what it is. Not allowing "anti" views is counter productive to the purpose of a encyclopedia. Sfmwol 03:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfmwol (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not call it spam and didn't delete it without comment. See my edit summary. The other link was the spam. I deleted yours because the article appears to be unpublished and not by a well-known author, because external links should be kept to a minimum (see WP:EL -- it's preferable to use them as sources for citations), and because there is a general trend for people to promote their own unpublished writings through the external links, which is also against the guidelines. Did I misapprehend the situation? --Fl e x (talk/

contribs) 13:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC) No, you're right. After I thought about it, I concede.Sfmwol

Template:Dominionism
You said on AN that the main Dominionism article had recently seen progress. If you have time, and are familiar with the subject, you might want to look at the template and see if some consensus can be found there. I am no expert to the subject, and don't want to get involved with the actual content dispute so that I can stay a neutral admin, but having more people discuss the issue might help move things forward. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick note
You don't really know me but... I'm leaving wikipedia. See my talk page for details. ThebestkianoTundefinedC 22:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Cleary
In the very least we're establishing notability to be listed on a "notable alumni". The general WP:N criteria being "presumed", "significant coverage", "reliable", "sources", and "independent of the subject", in case you needed a refresher. Just a few via google:

http://www.local6.com/news/14505644/detail.html http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22704983-5012895,00.html http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/11/04/man_accused_of_attacking_body_at_funeral/6333/ http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=9943 http://www.kates-boylston.com/NewsPage.aspx?newsID=1025 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/11/monday_breakfast_bender_39.html http://www.worldnetdaily.com/page2.html

You can't actually argue against notability, being an argument in the negative, so I'd like in the very least a reason either why these sources don't establish notability, or why even if you recognize the sources the situation itself isn't enough to establish notability (based on the criteria of WP:N). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qmax (talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Schools
hey, i was looking for the creator of schools but i cant seem to find anything! can u help me ? concerned citizen, [aka User:24.15.205.63 ]


 * I may be able to. What sort of help are you looking for? --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism
Hi Flex. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeremiah Burroughs
Yeshuaslife 19:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)I am totally new to wikipedia, so I apologize if I did not respond here correctly...feel free to edit however necessary. You deleted a link on the Burroughs page of mine. The reason I put that on there is because I thought it might be beneficial for some to go through Burroughs Rare Jewel....perhaps that is not up to wiki rules..if so I apologize. My intent in posting the link is to glorify God and edify the body through journeying through Burroughs book. Please let me know. In-Christ Mike


 * Hi, Mike. I deleted the link for the reasons stated on your talk page. I don't deny that it might be useful (at least when it's finished), but that doesn't necessarily mean it belongs here. Compare WP:USEFUL. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Edwardses
Heh heh - yes, how did you know? I remember the first time I saw the athlete on TV, I wondered if he knew of the theologian. He is, of course, a committed Christian. StAnselm 02:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible
Good work Flex. You are rigorous. I liked your movement of sections of the article. Because I've been involved in more technical debates, I minimized other contributions, so it's nice to have a better logical flow.

I've reworked the SBL stuff so it follows the manual. It's great that it's not prescriptive (I'll use generic masculine pronouns in any articles I send them;), however, it accurately describes preferences in articles I read.

What facts do you want verified? It's great you ask the question, and others could too, however, Covenant Theology was a Reformation (16th century) idea and Dispensationalism a 19th century idea. Most Christians know these things and there is no controversy about who started them and when they lived. Obviously, the Old Testament was around as an idea (Marcion 2nd century), rather a long time before Catholics and Protestants split at the Reformation. Perhaps I should have put 1500 years rather than "more than a millenium."

To be quite honest, I doubt I'd be able to find a source that actually states "the OT was in Christian language for a 1000 years before Covenant Theology". The two ideas are so far apart in time, no one would think of comparing them. But check the Wiki articles and your historical questions will be answered. If you really still think citations are necessary, please copy some from those articles, everything's all there. Feel free to remove the refs, I only put them there to imply that the internal links in the text were enough for anyone to check further if they were uncertain.

It is not really a question of fact, it is a question of readers not knowing when Christianity started, or when the Reformation happened. They need to learn more about those things, not have a particular time indicated.

The one fact that could do with verification, imo, is the claim that Supersessionism is not well known. The Sprsn article covers this and explains why -- Supersessionism is a Jewish question about Christianity, not a Christian question about their own faith. Oddly enough, at about the time Christians were abandoning genuinely supersessionist theology, the word supersede came into the English language. Stop and think about that, and you'll realise why supersessionism is little known among Christians, why would Christians talk about an old theology with this new word? On the other hand, late 19th century critics of Christianity would use a new word to describe a historically dominant Christian theology.

It is notoriously hard to define how rare a word is. But the point in context is that Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are very well known indeed. By comparison, supersessionism is barely notable. (I had to work really hard to find reliable sources.) How do we put that in as a reference? Google hits?

A copy editor like yourself imagines what could possibly be challenged and marks those things for citation, that's great. And it's best to add a tag rather than leave one out. However, from my point of view, I put refs on all text I think might be challenged, because I don't want to write stuff up only for it to be taken down. I consider the risk of removal extremely low. Should a real challenge come up, then the tagging editor and I can do a google together and establish the point.

It's a non contentious fact, which links the text and explains why CT, D and S are listed in the order they are listed. It gives accurate colour, from a NPOV and adds or takes nothing from any argument.

If you insist, remove it by all means, it might increase traffic to the Supersession article I put a lot of work into. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My main concern with the s is that the sentences are rather weaselly. Who has "occasionally misunderstood" OT to be covenant theology or dispensationalism? Who has misunderstood it to allude to supersessionism? --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, some less educated Jewish editors say this kind of thing, and often their sources are Harvard University Jewish Society Newsletter, or Synagogue of Free Men Minneapolis, or whatever I imagine. In fact, I don't exactly know where they get it, because major Jewish scholars do not say such things. However, there's always someone who should know better that repeats an urban myth.
 * I'm open to suggestions. Suppose we knew for a fact that "You can always get what you want if you try hard enough." Suppose all the published literature in various relevant disciplines said this. However, suppose also that the Rolling Stones had a song "You can't always get what you want." And suppose people always quoted the Rolling Stones and never read the books. Then you just might find, that there was "an occasional misunderstanding" that you can't always get what you want, when in fact we really know better if we consult reliable sources.
 * I really wish I could say X, Y and Z misunderstand the OT to mean ... However, I couldn't write that, because that would be POV. I would have to write Buddhists, Hindus and Shintos believe Christians mean X when they say OT. This is actually a bit crazy, because why on Earth would we ask what these religions think the word means, surely Christians ought to know what their word means. If Christians disagree about it, that's a different matter.
 * So, I'm avoiding being specific, because I know that many Jewish people believe Christians mean Old as in out-of-date, however, as the section on Old in Old Testament explains, there is no evidence that this has ever been the Christian view, in fact quite the opposite.
 * You may like to note here that Alastair as an editor is not biased. In checking the facts about Supersessionism, I was disappointed to find that Christians really were supersessionist for 1500 years. However, in checking the facts about OT, sure enough, they have always officially fought hard to say it is 100% God's Word.
 * The meta-issue here is:

Regarding q1: German anti-Semitism in WWII ... large group of people with false (and morally wrong views) Regarding q2: There are many primary sources that assert these wrong views (primary sources are most reliable possible source for opinion of those originating those sources ... but not for facts those documents purport to establish) Regarding q3: Do any reliable sources print that UFOs have landed in the USA? No. Does a significant group believe that UFOs have landed? Yes. And there are plenty of primary sources that demonstrate the beliefs of these people. (again primary sources are often critical in establishing the POV of various people, they are not reliable for the establishing the claims made by the POV, but they are the most reliable evidence for the nature of various POVs)
 * 1) do large groups of people ever hold notable points of view that are wrong
 * 2) when people have wrong ideas, do these always end up being printed as true in some reliable source
 * 3) alternatively, does this ever happen without these ideas being printed as true in reliable sources
 * 4) how should Wiki deal with points 2 and 3?

So, how do we deal with this at Wiki? Well, it's a big and complicated question. In this case, I'm not keen to go scouting around for blogs, websites and word documents on university accounts that give popular Jewish beliefs about Christian use of Old Testament. However, if you want to be convinced personally, I could do this for you. My approach is not to name those who hold a false belief. It's so false no named person will publish, and no organization endorse it. That does not mean it doesn't exist. In fact, there are so many people who hold the false belief that one is bound to end up at Wiki and say, hey! What a biased article, how come it doesn't say anything about Old Testament as out-of-date testament. Show me some sources that prove that is not the Christian view.

And there, in somewhat more than a nutshell, you have the background to this text. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree (as does WP:WEASEL) that this is complicated. However, I have read with not inconsiderable breadth in theology, and I don't recall seeing this view from any except perhaps a tiny, forgettable minority (cf. WP:UNDUE). Hence I am challenging the claim: I'm asking you to find a reliable source that documents this view or to leave the (or perhaps ) requests in place for someone else to research. Primary sources should of course be used sparingly (WP:PSTS), and secondary sources should be preferred. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And I challenge the view that any source says that Supersessionism is a notable Christian doctrine. No Christian group I could find described its theology as Supersessionist. For the text to claim Supersessionism is even a Christian self-description would be WP:UNDUE (disproven easily if as common as you claim). For the text to suggest Christian reference to the Old Testament is a reference to Supersessionism is even more marginal a possibility.
 * I recommend deleting reference to Supersessionism ever being an association with Christian use of Old Testament and will do this, at some stage, unless it is provided with a reliable source.
 * By all means return the cn-tag and I will sadly delete this text that was added by my Jewish friend Dovi, against my recommendation. He accurately represents a popular, but untenable Jewish view. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice
I'm aware that I'm probably directing this question to the wrong place, but I wonder whether you could tell me, Flex, as a more experienced editor, where I would be best to ask for either a Peer Review for an article - or whether it would be better to go straight to seeking nomination for GA. The article in question is William Wilberforce, which I have been working on for some months now, together with others, with the aim of getting it finished in the Slave Trade Act anniversary year.

Time is probably too tight now for us to achieve that, but I'd value your opinion on (a) the article and (b) advice as to the best way forward at this stage. Thanks in anticipation. Cheers – Agendum (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say go right for the GA review. On a cursory review, it looks like it's in pretty good shape already. One note: WP:GTL says that "See also" links should not appear in the article text, while some of yours do. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD thanks
Just wanted to say a quick thanks for withdrawing your nomination at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 23. I wish that everyone who mistakenly made a too-soon-after-the-last-one nomination was as willing to give it more time. Obviously, if you still feel the same way about it in a few months, you can nominate again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Replies
Hello! I don't know your e-mail. You cordially invited me (Ustref) to participate in WikiProject Calvinism. However my additions are deleted by people. I want to describe Russian theocratic Calvinism in English language citing English resources, e.g. http://toracracy.com. But I see this is prohibited here. Also I want to add new significant material to page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_alcohol, but I think it will be deleted too. So please reply to my discussion page.

Ustref

Cinderella-Complex
I am not new and I won't condone that somebody disses me like that. The NPOV tag was set for good reason. If you disagree with the tag, you should discuss that at the talk page of the article. Greetz Janno (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Morphology, J. Alan Groves' AfD and the Accordance AfD
Flex, I was thinking of leaving the following note on the Wikiproject Christianity talk page, but I didn't want to do this if you would be uncomfortable or if you thought it was crossing the line, neutrality-wise:


 * Section heading: Help needed: 2 article deletion discussions and a possible new article
 * Please take a look at this article deletion discussion:
 * Articles for deletion/J. Alan Groves


 * ... and the suggestion that an article on Groves' Groves-Wheeler Morphology might be justified, either as a replacement for the Groves article or as a separate article. We heathen and earnest laypeople could use some additional input from knowledgeable editors here with both the Groves article discussion and the idea for a Groves Wheeler Morphology article. Part of our challenge is the lack of enough good sources; "sorta seems notable" is insufficient.


 * A somewhat related article about Bible software is also under discussion at:
 * Articles for deletion/Accordance


 * Thanks.

I appreciate your thoughtful approach to AfDs, such as searching for sources before nominating articles. It's a refreshing change from some AfDs I've been in. The Google News archive search and Google Scholar searches are new tricks I only just recently found out about. I only knew about Accordance by virtue of having used it in the past.

Let me know your thoughts; I'll be watching your page here. Alternately, feel free to post something else yourself at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity.

-- A. B. (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me. Thank you for being so considerate! --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 14:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I added a sentence about needing help with the Google Scholar search results. I also left a note on the WikiProject Linguistics talk page. -- A. B. (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Calvin as a theologian
I was looking over the edit history of John Calvin and I noticed that you removed his name from Category:Christian theologians. Could you elaborate on your reasoning? Thanks. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My reasoning, as I hinted at in the edit summary, is that WP:SUBCAT says a page should not generally be in both its parent category and subcategory. I saw that User:Schinleber added a number of theologians in apparent violation of this guideline, and I reverted them. I see on his/her contribs that more could be done under the same reasoning. I'm open to Calvin being considered as an exception to the general rule if that's what you're prepared to argue, but I don't think that is the case for all to whom the cat was added. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, I agree with your reasoning. I didn't notice the Calvinist Theologian cat, so I was thrown off a little. Thanks. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Db-software
This message is to inform you that a template you created, Template:Db-software, has been nominated for speedy deletion. The A7 "assertion of notability" policy explicitly excludes software from its purview. Thus, the template in question is speediable under speedy deletion criterion T2, misrepresentations of policy. Please read speedy deletion policies more carefully before creating your own tags, or request insight on the talk page. Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bibliolatry
I know that "more literal" is not quite right, but I think "different view" is so non-specific as to be nearly meaningless. I wonder about a different sentence in entirety. Kind regards, Fremte Fremte (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is vague, but it also encompasses multiple views (e.g., liberal, neo-orthodox, etc.) without listing them all. "More literal" on the other hand is backwards for what the sentence is saying. Fundamentalist literalists don't accuse liberals of being bibliolaters; just the opposite -- the former say the latter don't pay enough heed to the Bible. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Calvin
Sorry, I changed it in reference to a National Geographic Magazine, who did not mention him being called "John". But I agree with your decision now. Thanks! Ohmpandya  ( Talk to Me... )  20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanhoozer Edit
I am confused as to why you removed the information I added about Dr K.J. Vanhoozer... I dont understand why you would remove information just because the book does not have wide acclaim. It is true and accurate information that describes more about who Kevin J. Vanhoozer is.

I added more information, hopefully making my previous edit more correct. I am new at this and just trying to add useful information, I apologize if I am not excellent in my formatting, etc. at this point. I am open to recommendations and lessons. I am sorry if my edit is making unnecessary work for admins or something. Please let me know.

OK... well my edit keeps getting reverted and I do not understand... I am sorry for my newness to this entire thing. I really do have the best of intentions in editing this page, I just am not sure what I am doing wrong. I tried reading about the sorts of information that should be included in a wikipedia entry and dont think what I added was inappropriate or wrong. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl a hall (talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I took another whack at it just now. The problems (other than formatting and layout) were that the information about his culture book is original research and not necessarily notable enough to include here. Not every book he has written deserves coverage in the WP (see WP:BK, WP:NOT, etc.). Let me know what you think or if you have any questions. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So the information about his books is not worth posting then? I guess I dont quite understand OR maybe. I included citations just like the entry on OR says to prove what I typed was not my OR. That is all directly out of the works (books), especially the information about Is There Meaning in this Text?... Also the information about the Cultural Hermeneutics class is directly out of the introduction of the book, it is very easily provable that it is not my research. I think this information is actually very useful to anyone wanting to get a general understanding who Vanhoozer is and what he does. The entry seems significantly less helpful without it I think!? Isnt information about 2 large books he wrote important information in an encyclopedia article about who he is? Maybe this is just my junior-ness showing through though?!? The information I included seems the be very similar to many other wikipedia entries on other authors I thought (Richard Rorty being one I looked at). (And no, I have not uploaded any photos or such... i think it was a link I included to an interview with vanhoozer that was a blog that got it booted)Maybe you could give me some recommendations on the type of information that would be useful.

BTW, in your edit you cut out two books from the works section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl a hall (talk • contribs)


 * I'd say it's not worth posting unless you can find some independent reliable sources that indicate the book itself is notable or that it was influential in his career somehow. Otherwise, it seems that you're posting your own thoughts on who Vanhoozer is from your experience -- which is original research. The book doesn't have to meet all the criteria in WP:BK since we're not talking about an independent article for the book, but that notability guideline gives you some general guidance on what is important for the Wikipedia with respect to books. For instance, that one of his books developed from some lectures at TEDS does not seem like encyclopedic material to me apart from the book being notable as a hugely original contribution (like say, Barth's commentary on Romans, which is often called "a bombshell which exploded on the playground of theologians"), wherein its development could be significant.


 * PS, you can (and should) sign your posts with ~ . --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all I thought that including the fact that a book flowed from a class was pertinent information for a professor's career, and a journal article published in the Evangelical Theological Society disagreeing with someone is rather important as well, at least it speaks to controversy surrounding someone. I apologize for not signing my posts, I did not quite understand what that meant when I read it initially but now understand. Thank you for your advice on that issue. I also apologize for evidently missing the point of wikipedia surrounding the issue of notability, I was trying to add information about Kevin Vanhoozer that would make the page go from slightly less than useful to at least slightly informative (a google search leading to the TEDS page about him was far better than the wiki entry, at least it had a photo). I guess I would understand deleting my information if it was being replaced by better information but removing it at the expense of any information at all just didnt quite make sense to me. This evidently is me just not understanding what wikipeida is here for? I guess? While I understand that Kevin Vanhoozer may, in general, not be encyclopedic material (because evidently no one can/has wrote material that is wikipedia worthy other than where he went to school etc, (which tells you very little actually without understanding what he did with that degree/material)), I thought most anyone that would search wikipedia for him would find the information I added as useful. Of course Vanhoozer has not made any contribution to the theo world like Barth has, but if this is in fact the criteria for a wiki entry maybe its not worth the entry at all?!? Your removal just seems harsh considering I was adding information to a post that had virtually no other information at all, especially since it wasnt like I was adding pages and pages about a nobody. I thought the ammount I added was within the reasonableness of his notoriety. Karl a hall (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The main thing I think you are missing is that Wikipedia is a summary of verifiable, accepted knowledge, not personal reflections or original research (including primary sources synthesized into a statement of fact). The information you added could be notable enough to be retained if you can show it from reliable sources. If there are no independent, reliable sources covering it, then it is not considered verifiable or accepted knowledge. In other words, it is better to have a more limited entry for the time being than to have a page posing as an encyclopedia entry that is really just original research. I'd like to see the article expanded (and am happy to assist as I am able), but it needs to be done within the parameters that the Wikipedia sets. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Calvinism template
I left a comment on the template talk page. I would be interested in your thoughts. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Metzger - Reminiscences of an Octogenarian.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Metzger - Reminiscences of an Octogenarian.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:James Montgomery Boice.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:James Montgomery Boice.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

unconditional election - a new section?
I was thinking that a way through the beginnings of the doctrine in the church may be to add the beginning of controversy on the topic in the church. i.e. a section headed something like "the controversy of the doctrine" or "the beginnings of the controversy" since Pelagius, Vincent and Julian only raised their voices when they saw Augustine's new thinking. Similarly it can be said that Arminius began his opposition to Calvin thought after a period of reflection on what was taught, but different in that the teaching was well around by then. When it was not at all until Augustine. Jarom22 (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ISTM that such material may be more apropos in Predestination. Unconditional election exists as one of the five points of Calvinism, which certainly are drawn from Augustine but not formulated in precisely that way in the days of the Fathers. One can't say that the Fathers would have accepted or rejected a doctrine that developed more fully later without engaging in speculation, which is verboten here. I'd suggest we move the section from unconditional election to the former article. (As a side note, your contributions thus far seem to view novelty and development in se as militating against a doctrine, but I'd suggest that such a view would eviscerate traditional Christian beliefs -- from the formation of the OT and NT canons to the doctrine of the trinity, none of which were "settled" matters at the end of the first century.) --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

ISTM that your recent change gives the impression that there was a different view in the East church to the West church. This is not found prior to Augustine. All pre-Augustine Fathers taught persistently a doctrine of conditional predestination. As per the quotes I previously put. To then also add the idea that it has always been a view of the Scripture is equally wrong and biased on your part (with all due respect). Since The Greek Fathers and that is all of them up until the Latin became the universal linguo were teaching other than an idea of (individual) predestinating grace. I therefore cannot agree that this new idea was in development of any kind, but wholly introduced in the church by Augustine. And as such your comment of evascerating other developing Christian beliefs does not hold. It appears your whole aim in this new section change is to hide these facts of history and display a view introducing the doctrine as somehow pre-existent before Augustine. There is no evidence for this theory. Sorry.

If you have early church father writings which says other than that please refer to and quote it. I have found none. And all the authors and researchers I have read who have studied them have found none either.

This above is not a bias on my part but a pure reflection of the truth of the history of this doctrine and should be clearly reflected as such. Jarom22 (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First, please assume good faith. I am not trying to bury any details or hide facts. I am trying to present a neutral account of the matter, and you must seek to do likewise. Let's work together to make it happen.


 * Second, there is more temporal overlap between the Latin and Greek church fathers than you are allowing (cf. Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ambrose who all predate Augustine and who are contemporaneous with some of the great Greek fathers). The point is not that any of the fathers before Augustine held to the later-Augustine's doctrines of predestination (which they almost certainly did not), but that the understanding of the doctrine was not settled or much discussed before Augustine. It came to the forefront in the Pelagian and Semipelagian controversies, which is when it drew greater attention and developed further (not all in the same direction mind you -- the East didn't buy into Augustine's doctrine of original sin, as did the West).


 * The text that I copy-n-pasted from the predestination article says, not that they held to Augustinianism, but that their doctrines of predestination and free will were not fully worked out (the church was, after all, occupied with other matters, such developing the doctrines of the divinity of Christ and the trinity in contrast to various heretics). That being said, your sources are likely right that there was a general presumption of conditionality, especially among the Greek fathers (my aside's point above was that that fact doesn't, IMHO, militate against the truth or falsity of Augustinian predestination, though you seem to be arguing that it does). --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is good at least that we are talking.

Tertullian you mention was clear in his defense of free will in his "Against Marcion" writings. Please expand on what you are saying in terms of overlap. If you do know different please elucidate.

You seem to suggest there was a division between the East and the West pre-Augustine on related matters. My reading is there was not. The conditional predestination position was universal before Augustine: West and East. There was no suggestion in their writings that anyone was picked by God for salvation out of others who were not. Augustine started this and I know of no evidence that his very Manichee like batch of thoughts to make this appear real and valid as existing within church writings before him. Please don't think this is not neutral: it is just fact.

The reason this was not discussed (much or otherwise) before Augustine is just that: it was not an issue until he brought it up: in the sense that he introduced the very idea into the church which was then disputed. If you have evidence contrary to this please mention it. I am oblivious to it.

(you see all the bible passages are readily understandable without unconditional election inference; it is just some of that is lost to many readers and translation since and including the Vulgate have not helped; but whilst the majority practised the Greek language throughout the Roman Empire there was no unconditional election read in i.e. out of the bible text) Jarom22 (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In copy and pasting the section from the predestination article, are you saying you had little to do with the contents of that section? If so, I concur, that we need to work at both articles and indeed many places to improve things.

However, I am very conscious of my limited ability in editing in this medium and have thus far taken it step by step to learn and observe how things happen (and remain).

So, with your help we may indeed gain better substance and neutrality in both those articles and elsewhere. Jarom22 (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Regarding the fathers: You said above that "[t]he Greek Fathers ... that is all of them up until the Latin became the universal linguo." My point about the Latin fathers is that there was no clean transition from Greek to Latin, and the Latin fathers were still pretty early. Yes, the first fathers were all Greek, but Tertullian (who wrote in Latin and Greek) and Cyprian were both around in the second century and prominent by the early third century. I made no claims about the pre-Augustine Latinists' adhering to Augustinianism, which is silly, or even to a seminal form of Augustinianism. On the contrary, his views represent a new doctrinal development, just as the trinity (Tertullian's term) did.


 * 2. Regarding doctrinal development: my point is not that Augustinianism predestination existed before Augustine (in fact, I've explicitly said the opposite!) but rather that older is not the same as correct. Doctrines develop and get emphasized and refined at different times. They don't spring fully formed from the head of Zeus, as it were. To reiterate an example, the church didn't have a solid doctrine of the divinity of Christ until it debated and refined it through church councils and interaction with soon-to-be heretics. Hence, some earlier views could be judged heterodox by later standards, though the issues were not as fully discussed back then because they had other concerns (e.g., Roman persecution).


 * 3. Doctrines on predestination and free will are similar in that they rose to prominence in the Pelagian and Semipelagian controversies. They are different in that the resulting views are certainly less uniform than those issuing from the controversies on Arianism, Apollonarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism. For example, the West has generally accepted at least part of Augustine's formulation (e.g., original sin limiting free will), though the East has not. Calvinism, of course, is a further refinement of Augustinian soteriology.


 * 4. Regarding speaking Greek vs. Latin: this sounds very much like a logically fallacious argument to me, but what evidence do you have that ancient translations corrupted the understanding of this doctrine?


 * 5. Regarding my aside (which does not belong in the article): You seem to be saying, earlier is truer and better. My argument is that this cannot be so without jettisoning much that I suspect you hold dear. That doesn't mean Augustinianism is correct, just that it isn't false merely because it wasn't the doctrine of the earliest church fathers.


 * 6. As for your PS, I did not write the text that I copied and pasted, but it seems basically accurate. Of course, it could use some work and still needs to be reliably sourced.


 * 7. As for how to edit, please consult the links I posted on your talk page, and feel free to ask if you have any technical questions. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 18:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how best to respond in a manner that enables clear recognition of what I am replying to. I have thereby placed a number to each of your last response's paragraphs (sorry if that seems inappropriate). Please help me to know how to produce an indent different than yours for perhaps another (better?) method of particular response.[I have just now observed that it appears to be your addition of a colon that does it]

1. I understand your overlap comment better now. Thank you.

2. I fully appreciated your earlier comment that you did not claim "Augustinianism predestination existed before Augustine", but I have to disagree from the wealth of early church data (writings) that this was or can be termed a 'development': in the sense of improving something previously existing - since it was not 'developing' something already there [the word itself does not help the neutrality of the articles] - but, instead I do claim it as a package of new dogma, which was then (yes) developed further. It was the very argument of Augustine's critics at the time that this - introduced 'unconditional election' - was new, novel, and against the universally accepted thought (Julian, Vincent). Throughout history of beliefs we have had ready made packages produced and introduced from an individual with no less classic examples as Mohammed or Joseph Smith and many more. The tragic thing with Augustine is that it was not recognised quickly and sufficiently enough to indeed permit a new cult emerging, but instead then tarnished the church itself, not least due to its subtlety and compilation of texts used out of context, but all these as a package began with Augustine: not a 'development', but an introduction. Yes, I can only conclude as maybe not Zeus, but...[the last 2 sentences are of course personal comment; not needful to the revisions]

3. These comments are inaccurate and untrue to the pre-Augustine writers. The West and East were clear as to free-will and conditional predestination. There was no belief in original sin in the terms Augustine introduced to any form of total depravity or total inability: neither in the West nor the East. Pelagius objected to Augustine's introduced work; it was not developed or formulated after that in the sense of Augustine having already presented it. It was then refined yes, but new from Augustine 'pre-Pelagius' objection. It cannot be claimed that Pelagius' intervention and the reaction to that was what brought the matter to light. Augustine had already done that.

4. If by ancient we mean (from the time of Augustine) the evidence is there: how much do you want? Take a look at the Vulgate (remember Jerome and Augustine corresponded for 25 years) If you compare Romans 13:1 in the Vulgate to Acts 13:48 you will find the addition of "prae-" to "ordinati" which is there only to give the idea this was God who did this. Similarly look at the Greek word eklektos translated (English now) as 'chosen' or 'elect' whilst the predominant use of the word in the Septuagint reveals it as for something or someone of 'quality' without any idea of selection: e.g. the fat cows in Pharaoh's dream, tall trees, choice silver, pleasant land, young men (guys in their prime), etc. Then, of course you have later translations with additions like the word "his" in Romans 8:28 and 11:22 et al. The Greek is especially helpful in Romans 9.

Conversely, where is the response to my request for evidence from earlier writers that show Augustine did not introduce 'a (new) package' of thoughts?

5. I am not saying earlier is better. Only that earlier helps point to when this began and how. The earlier writings show nothing of something being 'developed' but a new addition. Truth is truth whether later as a true development to clarify like the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus and to those remarks I fully concur. But, this is not the case with this compilation of thoughts headed by the term in question (unconditional election).

6 and 7. If you are able to appreciate what I am saying (claiming?) that Augustine's was not a development in the sense of remoulding or clarifying, but a genuine introduction of new (package of) material within the confines of the church (it was already present outside), then I think it possible to begin a re-phrasing of this section to reflect that.

I am sure you understand, if true, the need to agree to change things in this regard.Jarom22 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's take this to Talk:Unconditional election, as you have already done, so it will draw other interested parties. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 05:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Five Solas & The Joint Declaration
joo (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Hi, Flex. A check on the History of Five Solas seems to suggest that you have removed the following text that I inserted in the article:

In November 1999, the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church issued a joint declaration that said, "By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works." [5] On July 18, 2006, delegates to the World Methodist Conference voted unanimously to adopt the declaration. The Methodists' resolution said the 1999 agreement "expresses a far-reaching consensus in regard to the theological controversy which was a major cause of the split in Western churches in the 16th century" over salvation by grace alone or by grace and good works. [6]

Why? Doesn't the joint declaration affect the way the Five Solas are viewed by various denominations?


 * It was located under the "sola gratia" section, so, as indicated in my edit summary, I moved it from the summary article to the detailed article on sola gratia because it provided more detail that was appropriate for the five solas article. Re-examining, this still seems like the right move since the detail concerned a few groups' interaction with it rather than something universally applicable. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 00:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

joo (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I see now where the text has gone. Still wondering about the Five Solas article. The Catholics, Methodists and Lutherans constitute large denominations of Christianity. E.g. in Adherents.com, Catholics (19.9%), Methodists (8.2%) and Lutheran (3.9%) are among the top four denominational families in U.S., 2001. Perhaps there should be at least a one-line mention of this Joint Declaration in the Sola Gratia section of the Five Solas article?


 * I don't think these groups are at all insignificant, but I still tend to think it doesn't belong in the summary article. Feel free to ask on the article's talk page to get more opinions. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 15:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rev. John Cotton
Hello, just wondering why you deleted the information in the Cotton article about his contact and advice to Rev. Levett in England? It seemed to me that it added a bit of color about Cotton's mentoring of younger protoges. If it was deleted because of lack of footnote, I apologize. I have only recently familiarized myself with the wikipedia footnote process. Thanks!MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC) And if necessary I would be happy to supply a footnote for the information. Thanks.MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This addition seemed out of place in the paragraph where it was inserted and generally of low significance in the context of the article. If there were more material on the subject, it might find a place (with the reference preferably), but as the article stands, it seems to me that the addition was a rather random factoid thrust in the middle of an unrelated paragraph. Why do you think it is relevant there? Is that what brought the scrutiny to him? --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, his action of corresponding with younger associates certainly wasn't what attracted scrutiny to Cotton. He had plenty of other reasons for scrutiny by Archbishop Laud. But I thought that the fact that he was trying to guide younger parsons of the same persuasion spoke to Cotton's role as mentor, and probably to his charisma as well (probably part of the reason he did attract increased scrutiny). In the case at hand, the person he was corresponding with was a private chaplain in a house of a noble, and that seems to demonstrate that Cotton availed himself of any opportunity to spread his gospel, no matter how 'risky' that might seem. In any case, it's only a sidelight but one I thought might add a bit of color. It's your call. Thanks for the discussion. Best MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wayne Grudem
An editor has nominated Wayne Grudem, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Christian Reconstructionism
A tag has been placed on Template:Christian Reconstructionism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ralph H. Earle
Thanks for your help and edits to Ralph H. Earle, Sr.! Aepoutre (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome! --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Benjamin_Breckinridge_Warfield.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Benjamin_Breckinridge_Warfield.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Simple English WikiProject
Hello! You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Christianity. I would like to let you know that a Christianity Project has been created on the Simple English Wikipedia and it is located here. If you are interested, please consider creating an account on Simple English and sign up for the project. Thank you! --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Learning, thanks for the welcome, question about proper way to respond to "{ad}"
Thank you for the welcome. I'm a huge Wikipedia fan and user, it is very popular in our household. I'm finding myself more and more randomly helping out where I can. I was warned it is addictive, and I agree.

I have a question about a " " you added to an article Threading Building Blocks. I'm not asking or questioning the merits - but I can't figure out the right way to respond. I did understand the opportunity to edit and fix - so I edited the page to try to fix it, which meant rewording and dropping questionable content. Now, I'm uncertain of the method to seek to remove ", or get additional guidance/feedback. I assumed just deleting it was probably not okay - but even that wasn't clear.  So I'll take you up on your generous offer to help newbies like me.  What is the proper way to remove the ad marking after enough editing? And... aside from my particular interest to clean up this article - perhaps there is an opportunity to spell out this in the information about this marker (what to do to remove the marker)?  It is probably somewhere I didn't read?

ParallelWolverine (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks better to me now. There's no set procedure for removing the template, and anyone can do it at will (hopefully after addressing any relevant issues in the article). I made a few more changes and removed the template. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 13:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - this is great community - and I really appreciate your help. I'll let you know if I have other questions.

ParallelWolverine (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Edwards
You were, as it turned out, quite correct. More complete reply on my talk page. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I were the editor of the Signpost, I think I'd have a headline dealing with the first time in Wikipedia history that a consensus-reaching discussion was labeled inflammatory:


 * Editors Reach Consensus; Administrators Fear Emotions May Become Inflamed


 * Did you have to work hard to become so hilarious, or does it just come naturally to you? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was your section title ("Discussion that affects this page which intelligent people would have copied to here") that was insulting and thus inflammatory. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 13:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I can see that. I will correct it. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I see now that I (or someone else) already changed it. I trust the title is less offensive now. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)