User talk:Flex/Archive 6

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

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... --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. [1], 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. --Flex (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)

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". --Flex (talk/contribs

) 23:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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#John_Cotton. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The

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

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. --Flex (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. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, read

WP:ArbCom, not individual admins). --Flex (talk/contribs

) 13:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and thank you for your guidance. I've been heavily editing 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)

Avielh 17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for your contributions so far! I think that there's considerable overlap between

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.

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. --Flex (talk/contribs

) 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

WP:QUOTE

.

To quote Paul or Calvin to prove that they believe in D.P., however, is

WP:NPOV

).

Wikipedia is also

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! --Flex (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. --Flex (talk/contribs

) 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

WP:FN. Compare how Bible verses and secondary sources are used in Alcohol in the Bible (not perfect, but it should help). --Flex (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)

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)

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 "

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 Wikimedia:Privacy policy if not unethical. --Flex (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)

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

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. --Flex (talk/contribs

) 03:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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? --Flex (talk

/

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

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. — Carl (

You don't really know me but... I'm leaving wikipedia. See my talk page for details. Thebestkiano^T|C 22:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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? --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

WP:USEFUL. --Flex (talk/contribs

) 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 (

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 {{

weaselly. Who has "occasionally misunderstood" OT to be covenant theology or dispensationalism? Who has misunderstood it to allude to supersessionism? --Flex (talk/contribs

) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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:PSTS), and secondary sources should be preferred. --Flex (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)

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. --Flex (talk/contribs

) 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say a quick thanks for withdrawing your nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 23#Category:Anti-Islam_sentiment. 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)

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

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)

Flex, I was thinking of leaving the following note on the

Section heading: Help needed: 2

article deletion discussions

and a possible new article

Please take a look at this article deletion discussion:

• Wikipedia: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:

• Wikipedia: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

That's fine by me. Thank you for being so considerate! --Flex (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)

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

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. --Flex (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)

This message is to inform you that a template you created,

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. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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!

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

WP:NOT, etc.). Let me know what you think or if you have any questions. --Flex (talk/contribs

) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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 ~~~~. --Flex (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

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. --Flex (talk/contribs

) 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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 "

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

Wikipedia: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

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.) --Flex (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

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). --Flex (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. --Flex (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. --Flex (talk/contribs) 05:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Five Solas & The Joint Declaration

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

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. --Flex (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. --Flex (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? --Flex (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

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

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

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 (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</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! --Flex (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 {{

Wikipedia: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

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!

--

talk

) 05:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter! Issue IV - April 2008 Monthly Challenge: Article News Go on over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity . A lot is going on and your input is needed! Look over the recent changes list for recent improvements to articles, other changes and vandalism. Articles needing improvement can be found in Category:Christianity stubs. Twenty four articles are at FA level and Forty four are GA level articles. You can help by adopting a topic. Christianity Articles by Quality Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Christianity articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total FA 10 8 35 119 2 1 175 FL 1 14 20 35 FM 199 1 200 A 1 1 2 GA 21 16 194 431 29 691 B 205 235 788 2,112 312 154 3,806 C 350 799 2,282 6,446 2,337 463 12,677 Start 226 224 1,302 18,376 2 10,247 764 31,141 Stub 12 278 14,676 8,303 359 23,628 List 12 38 698 981 2 76 20 1,827 Category 2 4 9 21,137 1,321 22,473 Disambig 12 301 17 330 File 864 30 894 Portal 1 373 1 375 Project 175 14 189 Redirect 6 34 86 687 1,513 527 2 2,855 Template 2 6 11 2,013 109 2,141 NA 2 2 Other 2 125 127 Assessed 832 1,371 5,687 43,883 26,704 23,328 1,763 103,568 Unassessed 9 122 240 371 Total 832 1,371 5,687 43,892 26,704 23,450 2,003 103,939 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 361,137 Ω = 5.01 Project News WikiProject Christianity Coordinators : The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention. The nomination period for coordinators is currently ongoing at Election 2008 Nominations for open positions will be open through 23:59 (UTC) on April 30 and project members should vote for any candidates they support by April 11 2008. The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the Lead Coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the next four candidates will become Coordinators. Two new Indian Christianity and Methodism Portal:Indian Christianity launched. Member News Our membership continues to expand. It is currently at 184 users. 86 new users have joined the WikiProject since last issue. Please make them feel welcomed! Archives of previous newsletters can be found here. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, add your name here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, let ~ Tinucherian know. This newsletter is automatically delivered by BetacommandBot.

- Tinucherian (talk) 11:26, 10 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 "{{ad}}" 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 "{{ad}}, 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 {{

ad}} 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. --Flex (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. --Flex (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)