User talk:StAnselm/2007
This is an archive of past discussions with StAnselm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2007 |
All Pages: | 24 - ... (up to 100)
|
Hello, StAnselm/2007, and
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
{{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Thanks for your edits relating to the
Again, welcome! Blarneytherinosaur talk 05:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sinaiticism
Level-headedness on the internet? On Wikipedia!? On AfD, at that?! Sir, I'll have you know that
Invite
--Flex (talk|contribs) 12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Usage of Template:Main
Hi! I deleted the {{main}}s that you put in John Calvin's view of Scripture and Institutes of the Christian Religion and thought I had better explain my actions to you. According to that template's documentation, it should not be used at the top of articles. It is intended for linking sub-articles from a central article, not back to that central article. So for instance, John Calvin might include a section on the Institutes, which summarizes the full article covering Calvin's magnum opus, with a {{main|Institutes of the Christian Religion}} at the top of the section. A sub-article, on the other hand, needn't have a tag referring back to the central article, though certainly the connections-cum-wikilinks should be apparent in the sub-article lede. Anyway, thanks for your many contributions! --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Dealing with vandalism
Hi StAnselm,
I see that you reverted some vandalism at
Mark
I don't know why is wrong with them either, and that's because no one has bothered to say. All that has been said is that I am forcing an as yet unidentified pov into the article, which just seems like an immature way to "argue" against the edits without being useful or helpful. That's for being a nice source of rationality in the process. I restored the edits just before you made the initiative in talk, mostly so people would get talking about it (I mean the actualy points, you see). Lostcaesar 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Denomination editing
I notice that you've got some denominations down on your list of pages to expand. I thought you might find the following useful:
-- TimNelson 13:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Category renaming vote
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_4#Changing_nomination. --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, your article says a fair bit about Geoffrey but it doesn't really assert notability - all the links do document facts, but none of them point back to material written about Blackburn - they are about the various organisations he is/was a part of.
Has anyone written about him? If not, I really think he may not be sufficiently
]I have added a "{{
(this follows over a week with no reply on this matter)Garrie 00:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:GAC
I'm an occasional contributor to the Good Article Candidates page, and I got a heckuva laugh out of seeing StAnselm fail
- Ah ha! rofl My, that's good. Alastair Haines 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Put me down as someone who knows Dr Geoffrey Blackburn personally and am surprised - even from the material St Anselm has included in the article about him - that anyone would doubt his notability. As St Anselm wrote, he's one of the half dozen best-known people in his denomination. And is known, I think, worldwide because ot his status in the Baptist World Alliance (if I recall I read somewhere he was a world vice-president). There's a joke around Presbyterian and Baptist circles among clergy that they want 'Geoff' as they call him affectionately to conduct their funerals (he's 90-something and still in active ministry with Scots' Church, Melbourne!). I'll revisit the article and see if I can do a little bit of extra work on it. Ron Cameron 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Poythress
I saw that you wanted to create an article on
Unfulfilled predictions
Hi Anselm, I would really appreciate it if you read some of my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians regarding the potential future of the article, including the criteria I have set up. --One Salient Oversight 11:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Vern Poythress
--
Unfulfilled predictions
The first thing I've done is removed every uncited prediction. I'll look at the individual merits of those remaining next.
Shalom!
Hi, my supervisor is a graduate of Westminster -- John Davies. He's the principal of the
Feel free to build up that page. My project is to make a good list of theological journals, including internal links and web-links. To place links on all references to those journals, and to create stubs for journals cited in existing articles.
What is your area of Old Testament study? What area in mathematics? :) Alastair Haines 08:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- PS, I linked to your Vern Poythress article a week ago. ;) Alastair Haines 08:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow! Sister colleges then. I had the great good fortune of having Greg Goswell as a lecturer for one semester. He's one super-smart, super-knowledgeable cookie. :D Alastair Haines 13:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Quick work mate! Like that template. Avagoodweekend. :) Alastair Haines 17:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Calvin and his view
Please see Talk:John_Calvin#RfC. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please see about the page on Reprobation? i dont believe that Wesley's views on reprobation are appropriate there. It would be rather like putting why cristians reject Islam's opinion on the the Christ's divinity on the Islam page.Die4Dixie 09:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use disputed for Image:JETS.jpg
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our
Fair use disputed for Image:JBL.gif
Thanks for uploading
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
Two points
- Just dropped by to ask if you could send me a copy of your honours thesis, when it's all done.
- Saw the bot comments above. That bot needs reprogramming (or speedy deletion, lol). It's good Wiki takes copyright seriously, but I find it a real drag rephrasing and rereferencing copyright rationales for images. I emailed an academic for a personal photo. He kindly provided one. Then someone removed it, saying he hadn't explicitly given Gnu license permission. Now I have to hassle him again. Alastair Haines 06:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NTS.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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 04:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bib Sac.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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 04:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CBQ.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge from Five points pf Calvinism
Please lend your latest comments to Talk:Calvinism#RfC:_Merge_from_Five_points_of_Calvinism. We've requested outside comment. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What would you like balanced?? Bridesmill 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
IF YOU COLD HELP ME IN ANY WAY
Hi! First I would really thank wikipedia and, foremost, the people that make it going - people like you. I come from a village in Herzegovina, and throughout this century it has vittnesed many atrosities. So I desided to make a page about it, on wikipedia. Among the thing that I wrote is the genocide aginst the serbs in 1941, in Prebilovci. And on the title I used genocide - a user named rijeka, from croatia, has just removed that bit.
600 women and children from my village, were in 1941 slaughtered and thrown into pits near surmanci, the place were virgin mary is said to have apeared. I wrote abut this -- and rijeca removed that bit. Maby he just doesn't want people nowing about it -- that virgin maty apears to some vroats near were they cilled serbs during a genocide.
I've also created a page valled Prebilovci Massacre, and because of that, he claims, has removed a great bit of my article on Prebilovci. Among that article, he has removed of what happended in 1991, the bodies of thoose who were massacred in 1941 were blown up by a bomb.
I just think this is unfair. I see it this way: that's he's missusing his power on wikipedia. Chek it put yourself, then contact me and say what do you think.
Yours Very Thruly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebsterMasters (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JSNT.gif
Thanks for uploading
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 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JSOT.gif
Thanks for uploading
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 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The Edwardses
Could you cast your two cents into the ring over at Talk:Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)#Requested_move? I think your input might be particularly valuable since you may be familiar with both the JEs under discussion and can provide insight to those of us who are much more familiar with one than the other. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Your content removal explanation referred to OR but hadn't mentioned quite why (that it isn't a recognised term, for example) so I was looking for the real reasoning. Thanks for your contributions! Aepoutre 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Under the Southern Cross I Stand
A
lol -- you maybe didn't find the history of the FRCNA interesting, but I sure did! Is one opinion more valid than another? :) But fair enough, I will keep your edit. I wonder, what is the history of the Presbyterian Church in Australia? Is it interesting? God Bless. Swisher6 —Preceding comment was added at 03:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PTC logo.JPG
Thanks for uploading
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