Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:25, 28 March 2007

User:Flex/Archive 1
User:Flex/Archive 2
User:Flex/Archive 3
User:Flex/Archive 4

Feel free to leave me a note at the bottom of this page. --Flex

Bruce Metzger

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

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

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

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

Colin Tilsley

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

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

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

I responded at User_talk:Atilsley#Colin_Tilsley. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: my talk page.

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

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

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

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

Ex Cathedra statements are not new revelations

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

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

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

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

See Talk:Sola scriptura#Ex_cathedra. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bruce Metzger, LIST OF WORDS OCCURING FREQUENTLY...

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

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

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

Regards, Ambrose.

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

New, Calvinism, etc.

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

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

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

Please see Talk:Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_Ministry#Criticism_regarding_Calvinism_re-added. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian views of alcohol

Hi Flex,

Exceptional job!!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Awarded for an exceptional job of mitigating a seriously overwritten section of Christianity and alcohol. Such bold and tight editing should not go without notice! Lmcelhiney 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work.

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Flex,

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

Continue the great work...

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Metzger redux

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

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

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

Let's talk about this at Talk:Bruce_Metzger#Original_research. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

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

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

Metzger

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

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

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

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

Tim 14:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Tim 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:Prevenient grace

Thanks for the info/guideline Flex. :-) — James.S  19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maision Jansen article

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

:-) --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons User

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

Cite

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

Proverbs Program

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

Please see User_talk:Jbass#Link_to_your_Proverbs_program. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

AIV

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

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

Thank You

Thank you for your welcome personal message.

What a nice gesture of welcome!

I love the Wiki philosophy and the freedom of it.

Good thing about this "freedom" is very educational in many ways.

It provides us with an opportunity to contemplate on what comes with a package of freedom, how to use and control such powerful tool as freedom.

By participating in Wiki, I believe there are lots of things for us to learn about real life freedom as well.

Freedom isn't easy. Freedom doesn't come free.

To be truely free, each of us has to contribute our time and effort, and to become part of active creation just like each citizen has its own responsiblity in the real free world.

I chose MediaWiki program for my new site as I love the freedom of it.

But, of course, I as an adminstrator, have to work harder to present free and fairly comfortable environment while requesting new members to participate in its creation from the scratch.

There are packages that are readily usable and easy to manipulate. You pay the money for those packages.

They are easier to use but confines our creativity within a set frame.

It may be comfortable, but allows us no diversions, and provides participants with no sense of involvement.

The freedom that Wiki presents online reflects our real life.

The choice between a coumfortable couch with TV set, or a open air and soil with lots of imagination.

With Wiki, we create tools along as we create our free world.

It also teaches us that we must learn the system and actively participate in it to move the system -- isn't this very true for our life experience (i.e., organization, government, and corporation, science, technoologies, languages, etc.)?!

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

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

Hi Flex,

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

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

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

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

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

Town names

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

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

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

Deprod comment

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

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:NGC602.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 08:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the welcome

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

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Helix Nebula

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

User from 68.115.227.253 actively vandalizing

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

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

Christianity and alcohol

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation

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

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

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

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

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

Tupac RfC

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

Ok. I'm stepping back, then. Cheers! --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's not as cut-and-dry as that, but I certainly appreciate your help in this dispute. Happy editing, Mysekurity 03:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Calvanism Project Invite

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

Your welcome script

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

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

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

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

Hello!

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

Regards,

ty 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dream

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

Biographies?

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

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

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

Barth & RBs

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

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

Hi

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

See User_talk:Martha p --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

quick note

Dear Flex,

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

WikiProject Calvinism news

Hi. I'm recommending to all participants in WikiProject Calvinism that they keep up with at least the News page ({{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Calvinism/News}}) for this project. The methods I'd recommend for doing this are any or all of:

• Add the abovementioned page to your watchlist
• Include the page on another page you look at regularly; in my case, this is my user page, since I keep my personal "todo" list there. That would look something like:

Last change: 2007/03/28

All the Reformed Christianity–related news that is news from across the encyclopedia

Update

We have updated the look of the project and corrected some things like the collaboration to reflect the reality on the ground. Check it out and get involved!

Collaboration

• The current collaboration is Reformed Christianity
• Nominate or vote for your favourite articles so that they can be the next collaboration; see Collaboration page for details.

Most important tasks

• Collaborate on this month's Collaboration article.

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