User talk:Sterrettc

Welcome!

Hello, Sterrettc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Jack Rogers (American Clergyman), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ttonyb (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Statement of Faith
My Statement of Faith can be found on my User Page. I welcome any comments or questions about it here.

PCUSA List
Thanks for "List of Moderators of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America". This Will help, for References. -- -- . Shlok  talk. 08:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Re North Korea article, and my removal of your unsourced material
I'm inclined to think that the logical thing to have done would have been the addition of a link to the newly-created Shelling of Yeonpyeong article, rather than scattering information on breaking news across articles. I'm sure you've been editing Wikipedia long enough to understand the need for sourcing in the first place, rather than expecting others to do it for you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a link to the new article in North Korea, and will do the same for South Korea shortly. Note also that the article is linked on the Wikipedia main page 'in the news' section.

Progressive Christianity
Sorry about the delay – got caught up with other things. Obviously I’m not as progressive as I like to think when it comes to the use of technology! Anyway, I feel that my comments are accurate and appropriate. I did read your statement of faith and there was nothing that I would really disagree with. Maybe my experience of so called “Progressive Christianity” is rather limited. However the articles and that I have read in Life & Work (the magazine of the Church of Scotland) and other publications promoting “Progressive Christianity” have been written by people who would appear to have no understanding that salvation comes through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. While I have no problem with your own statement of faith the Wikipedia entry does raise issues of concern, particularly the paragraph on Differences between Progressive Christianity and Conservative Christianity. The statement there would appear to me to be a denial of what I believe to be the central truth of Christianity, that salvation is in Christ alone. It is therefore, in my view, a backward step which ignores the need of the cross. I cannot see it as anything other than regressive as it takes away what Christ has accomplished through the cross. I would say that I am a Progressive Christian in the sense that I try to do my bit in joining God’s work for the advancement of his Kingdom. However I would not be able to use such terminology as it has been hijacked by people who in my view are anything but progressive. I think it is entirely fair to assert that some (I refrained from saying many!) people hold this view of so called Progressive Christianity. I do not see the need for a citation as I think that this would be widely recognised as being true in evangelical circles. Even if you do not feel that Progressive Christianity does bypass the cross, it is still perceived that way by a significant number of people. I could have added another sentence to say that this view would be disputed by so called Progressive Christians. However it seems to me that such a statement would be redundant as the article already sets out what they believe. I do not seek to be offensive, but I do find it hard to take when people use (I would go as far as to say misuse) the word Progressive. If people label themselves as liberal, (or conservative) people can disagree with them and say “I am not a liberal (or conservative)” However when I am most definitely a Progressive Christian I object to seeing the term used in this way. I hope that gives you some understanding of where I am coming from, and even though you do not see things from the same perspective can see the validity of my contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinAStrong (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My view of Progressive Christianity is colored, in large part, by Harry Emerson Fosdick's Christianity and Progress, which, although it was published during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the 1920s, is remarkably apropos today. It contains a series of lectures given in 1922 at Vanderbilt University.  The progress which was finding great oposition at that time was the acceptance of evolution and modern, scientific cosmology.  In Lecture 4, “Progressive Christianity”, Fosdick expounds on the idea that Christianity is inherently progressive.  He sums of the first section of the lecture thus: “Progressive change is not simply an environment to which Christianity conforms; it is a fact which Christianity exhibits.”  In these lecture, the focus is not primarily on the significance of the cross, but, given his other writings, one could hardly argue that Fosdick sought to bypass the cross. Sterrettc (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment here because it seems like this may be the best place to comment on the disputed content in the Progressive Christianity article. I agree with you, Sterrettc, that it is best not to get involved in an edit war and that it is instead better to discuss the content in question and resolve the issue before editing again. However, ColinAStrong, you seem to be determined to keep the material in the article and took it upon yourself to add it back in before resolving the issue with other editors. You previously identified my taking it out as both rude and discourteous. Frankly, however, taking out content that is unsourced and has been removed by multiple editors is not rude or discourteous. People don't just have the right to add any content they want to an article; it should be confirmed by reliable sources. I agree with Sterrettc that the second sentence is the primary problem. I don't have much of a problem with the first sentence. It's perfectly fine to note that some Christians may believe Progressive Christianity is a misnomer because it seems inherent in the name that conservatives may be insulted by the term. I agree with simply leaving the first sentence in the article. The second sentence is a problem. You make two theological claims, that Progressive Christianity is "regressive" and that it "seeks to bypass the cross". These seems to be your personal beliefs. The beliefs of Progressive Christians may violate your personal statement of faith, but that does not mean that that opinion should be expressed within the article, especially within the lead section. I find it potentially libelous to label Progressive Christians as "regressive" or to state that they "seek to bypass the cross". Claims like that should really be verified by a reliable source. The current revision does not do that. In particular the claim that Progressive Christians seek to bypass the cross needs better evidence. I myself have never known any Progressive Christians who seeks to bypass the cross. I welcome your contributions to wikipedia and I'm sure you have a lot of good information to offer, but you should wait to add back content when it has been removed by multiplied other editors and is unsourced. I followed typical protocol and did not take it out because I wanted to discuss it first with multiple editors so we can reach a formal consensus, so I find it unfortunate that you did not do the same. Hopefully this clears the air a little and you can see where I'm coming from a little better. Eb7473 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Spellings and weird spellings
Hi, Sterrettc. I saw your parenthetical comment here. Being a frequent offender, I can't help offering my two cents. "Lede" is the sort of spelling I'd usually hate, too. The reason I don't is that it's a useful variant. Not only does it help avoid occasional ambiguity (Take the lead, as in take a leading role, versus Take [as an example] the lead) but on Wikipedia it's always a noun and generally refers to the entire lead section, so one doesn't have to specify lead sentence, lead paragraph or lead section. When Wikipedians just say "lead", I'm never quite sure how much content they're talking about. Also, the spelling has an interesting history, which never hurts. Fwiw. It's okay to hate it if you prefer! :) Rivertorch (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

South Korea
Can not understand why it was deleted. It also expressly source. If you as "Neither agree nor disagree", please use a legitimate investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous sensible (talk • contribs) 11:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Lubbock, Texas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Hub City


 * Moncton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Hub City

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Surname in biographies
While I agree with the concept to generally use the surname to speak about a person, and do so in articles I write, there are reasons to not do it, such as to distinguish several people of the same surname, often in a family. I think there's nothing wrong using the given name for sentences about growing up, and if the surname is used, it should be the right one. Butler married Butler is nonsense, because she wasn't Butler before she married. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)