It doesn't look like you ever got a proper welcome to Wikipedia, so I'm taking the liberty of posting one here, right on top. I think you already know a lot of this stuff, but I appreciated getting welcomed, so I'm passing on the welcome letter I received:
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Sorry if some of that is too elementary for you by now. Btw, I really liked your proposal for the Happiness article. Be bold in editing! Also, you might want to add something ( here's one possibility) to your userpage; it may give your edits more weight. (For some people, a redlinked userpage says "Newbie! Don't take his comments as seriously as you would otherwise!") - Do c t orW 04:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to say thank you for your many excellent contributions to health care articles, and for being the voice of reason in discussions that can be somewhat contentious. Too many people on Wikipedia only use talk pages to criticize, warn, or complain about something, so I just wanted you to know that your good work is noticed and appreciated. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! (Really, thank you - I've taken you as something of a role model.) EastTN ( talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please have a look at the poll section in Single-payer health care. While it's great that you are adding reliable sources to the cons in the universal health care article, it appears that more recent polls (2007) may show stronger support for tax increases and for single-payer than the 2005 research you pulled from. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"One caveat concerns the impact of taxes on public opinion. A 1994 survey found that fewer than half of respondents would pay more taxes to finance universal health insurance. A 1993 survey found that 64 percent were willing to pay more taxes for that purpose. Many respondents balked at paying even the tiny sum of $100 per year. Lawrence Jacobs and Robert Shapiro contend that when respondents were informed of the benefits the taxes would finance, support for tax increases of $40 per month reached 41 percent. If respondents were told that increased taxes reduce out-of-pocket health care payments, more than half were willing to pay an additional $1,000 a year."
In the twenty-two years the first question has been asked, more than 80 percent of Americans have reported that they are satisfied with their last visit to a physician (Exhibit 7). Also, confidence in ability to pay for a major illness has improved over the years. Despite the increase in the number of uninsured Americans nationally, the proportion reporting such confidence has risen from 50 percent in 1978 to 67 percent in 2000. This improvement in financial confidence may be related to more comprehensive insurance and increased benefit coverage for the insured population, or it may reflect the effects of increased family incomes and assets that could be drawn upon in case of large medical bills.
In 1964, the year before Medicare and Medicaid were enacted, only one-fourth of Americans expressed distrust in the federal government (Exhibit 8). When the Clinton health plan ultimately failed in Congress in 1994, distrust of the federal government had risen fifty-four percentage points. These same years have also seen a decline in public support for government regulation of the private sector. In 1964 only 43 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that the government has gone too far in regulating business and the free enterprise system. This figure rose to 60 percent in 2000. Americans are clearly less willing today to see expanded government regulation in general than they were during the 1960s. Similarly, in 1961 only 46 percent of Americans thought that their federal taxes were too high. This figure rose to 69 percent in 1969 and stood at 63 percent in 2000.
Americans hold many beliefs that are consistent with a general view of what is right or wrong about health care in the United States. However, it is striking to see how many conflicting views the public holds on health policy issues. On the one hand, Americans report substantial dissatisfaction with our mixed private/public health care system and with the private health insurance and managed care industries. A majority of Americans indicate general support for a national health plan financed by taxpayers, as well as increased national health spending. On the other hand, these surveys portray a public that is satisfied with their current medical arrangements, in many years does not see health care as a top priority for government action, does not trust the federal government to do what is right, sees their federal taxes as already too high, and does not favor a single-payer (government) type of national health plan.
Because Americans do hold many conflicting values and beliefs that affect their views on health care policy, it is important to be cautious in interpreting the public mood based on single, isolated public opinion questions. To be a useful guidepost for policymakers, opinion surveys require enough depth in their question wordings so that respondents can work their way through their conflicting values and beliefs to come to judgment on the issue.
Thanks for your delete of the merge template on Criticism of atheism. It had passed its use-by date and it just needed someone to be bold and remove it. -- Jmc ( talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The Christianity Barnstar | ||
For your efforts to properly source contentious doctrinal materials within Churches of Christ and related articles, braving the hornets' nest of potential criticism, and thereby improving the article substantially. Jclemens ( talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC) |
The whole principle of the Restoration Movement was to move away from "secondary sources" written by men and going back to the Bible. While I, too, commend your efforts to move the article in a more scholarly direction, I cannot respect your idea and practice of deleting accurate information simply because it's backed by the Bible and nothing else (2 Tim. 3:16-17). When it comes to church doctrine and beliefs, secondary sources are just that: secondary. Especially when compared to the only true source, the Bible. As a member who studies and knows the Bible well enough to have written material myself, and who is active in teaching others, I didn't feel an overwhelming need to cite secondary sources in order to educate inquirers on what the Lord's church believes and practices (2 Tim. 4:2-5).-- Slim Jim ( talk) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
J/w if you thought that Harris' comments about it being ethical to kill some believers would fit on his article as well.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Muaahahaha... you beat me to doing ALMOST THE EXACT SAME EDIT: move to the bottom of see also, trim verbiage. :-) Great minds think alike and whatnot. I did a double take trying to figure out the edit conflict. Jclemens ( talk) 17:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You may want to comment on Talk:Conservatism#Remove the entire psychological section. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that several editors wish to delete the "Psychological research" section of Conservatism without discussion. As you had been involved in this discussion I would welcome your comments at Talk:Conservatism#Psychological Research? The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I just want to affirm my appreciation for all you have done to improve the Campbell / Stone family of articles. It is an honor to collaborate with you. I respect your work and your gracious spirit. You balance my partisan POV and I hope perhaps that my POV contributes to a collaboration the will give us a balanced NPOV by the time we are finished. I would love to see all 4 of the main articles become Feature Articles of about 30KB each. I really do appreciate that your energy on the CoC article ended the Edit war there. (I'd like to think my challenging some arrogant Wiki purist types help set the tone.) Perhaps it did. I wish I had more time to edit, but professional responsibilities and family responsibilities greatly limit me. John Park ( talk) 12:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Some anons are rearranging the counterarguments as well as adding POV and OR. Maybe you could give it a look if they revert it again and tell me if what they are doing helps or detracts from the article? Thanks.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I had an inquiry on my talk page that might be of interest to you. I am not sure if the editor who raised it will bring it to Talk:Churches of Christ or not. He is not very experienced with wiki environments but seems to love the church. I want to encourage him to be involved. When he edited before, he entered the fray amid a big edit war. John Park ( talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not think that you had cropped that section deliberately. I hope you didn't think that.
I grant that some sections are without reference but these days it is hard to get references for things that are as uncontroversial as taxation paying for health care, as is the case in most European countries. Decisions to use taxation (or earnings related compulsory contributions to non-profit sickness funds) were taken 50-60 years ago in most countries in Europe and though they were no doubt commonly discussed in newspapers of the time, little survives in print and there is very little on the internet these days (and none of that is of course original source material). Britain went thru the arguments that the US is going thru now in the twenties and thirties (i.e. 80-90 years ago) but did not act on the issue until after the war in the late 40s. I can recommend to you the book "In place of fear" by Aneurin Bevan which I borrowed from the library recently (as an example of how the Brits dealt with health care reform after the second world war) and the A J Cronin book about shocking medical practices in the twenties and thirties (not dissimilar to those in the US today) in England and Wales (the name of the book escapes me, but it was very influential and led to a great wave of feeling for reform).-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You have previously contributed to this article United States National Health Insurance Act which was renamed on Wikipedia recently as United States National Health Care Act.
Your watchlist has been automatically updated to point to the new title without your knowledge.
You may not have been aware of the article rename that took place recently because the rename was not discussed in advance.
A discussion is ongoing at the moved talk page as to whether the article should be renamed back as it was. You may wish to make your opinion known.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 12:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware of this CfD to rename Category:Universities and colleges by affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement to either
I am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 09:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I've noticed that you've been a contributor to the Russell's teapot page and its discussion page. I've recently added a criticism section and removed the Dawkins quote but editors keep reverting my changes, essentially giving no reasons except that I'm not credible since I only edit at one article.
If you have time, could you weigh in on the talk page? Thanks. TylerJ71 ( talk) 01:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you by chance an SF fan? If so, do you go to Chattacon? -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw your edit of Restorationism. WP:MOS gives guidelines about doctrines and movements: "Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter unless the name derives from a proper noun (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper noun (lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to one of several specific political parties or ideologies, such as the US Republican Party or Irish Republicanism). Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas (as distinguished from specific events) capitalized by some religious adherents are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin, or transubstantiation." I have noticed that many article on religion use capitalization of many nouns that should be lower case, whereas this practice is discouraged in the manual. Please let me know your judgment, as a look at many articles show inconsistencies. Thanks. R/T-รัก-ไทย ( talk) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You just reverted an edit if mine which reverted a long-established consensus to a version added, without discussion, a few days ago. Please would you undo your own revert. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 15:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for catching this, which missed my attention when dealing with the Shona Holmes issue. ... Kenosis ( talk) 02:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
We've finally got a GA reviewer! Jclemens ( talk) 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to
Churches of Christ, it is recommended that you use the
preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces
edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up
recent changes and the
page history. Thank you. Instead of making 31 small edits, why not consolidate them down, at least by section? After each change, you could use the Preview button to see how it looks rather than spamming my watchlist full of every last one of your many miniscule changes.
-
Garrett W. (
Talk /
Contribs)
01:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your points made at Talk: Global warming. Please feel free to keep me posted. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
We don't, as a matter of fact, report on scientific matters using newspapers as sources. We're never going to do that. No good encyclopedia ever has, or ever will, do so.
Got a few questions for you. Please answer. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 00:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(1) How well do believe the central points of your comment got through?
(2) Is the failure of the discussion due more to the circumstances of the discussion, specific editors, or yourself?
(3) How certain (accurate, true) where you when you wrote your first comment describing what you believed the other editors should do? [1] Later ones? [2]
(4) Do you believe your comments were interpreted erroneously?
(5) How well do you think you expressed yourself?
(6) How well do you believe that other editors listened to you?
We need to contact you privately to discuss a potential issue with your vote in the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, however you do not have email enabled in your preferences. Could you please get in touch, either by email to happy-melonlive.com, or find me on IRC (I'm in #mediawiki most of the time). Many thanks.
For the election officials,
Happy‑ melon 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
he used the terms "conversion disorder" to get published but doesn't agree with the accuracy of it ie more important to get published and advance the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.116.121 ( talk) 19:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I misread you as endorsing the abominable claim that a group has a right to self-identification, and reacred accordingly. I still think you are mistaken, on two grounds:
But I apologize for attacking you on the basis of a position you did not assert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
Lawrence Solomon, is on
article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a
templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --
TS
01:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I made the spurious edit yesterday, switching 'barbarian' to 'tribal' . That was an edit on impulse, but I find the usage not bad at all . In other words, even though I agree in principle on your reverting the edit, I am willing to, and feel somewhat tempted, to take a closer look at the section, to see if this 'barbarian'-to-'tribal' switch can be applied there too . Do you have a take on that ? Sechinsic ( talk) 20:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey EastTN,
I am not the creator of Thomas B. Warren, but I did some extensive wiki work and clean-up back in March 2011. Are you able/willing to review the article (unreviewed template) to include a review of the assessment for WP:TN and WP:Christianity? Given the extent of my edits, I refrained from removing the unreviewed template. Thanks, SBaker43 ( talk) 16:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
why did you remove the ELTO picture? It was quite harmless and added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 ( talk) 01:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear EastTN,
I saw that you changed the restoration movement article back to include reference to the organizational differences between non-instrumental churches of Christ and instrumental churches of Christ (also known as Christian churches). Could you please let me know what these differences are and what sources you are basing this on besides the Encyclopedia of Religion in the South? I agree completely that there are major hermeneutic differences, but I do not understand how there are any organizational differences. They are both brotherhoods of completely autonomous congregations governed by local elders. The Encyclopedia of Religion in the South is simply incorrect. I can provide you with a number of references that contradict it, including the reference that I used as a source, the Directory of the Ministry: A Yearbook of Christian churches and churches of Christ. Saying that the North American Christian Convention is a "loosely organized convention" is misleading as it has never had anything to do with church government. It's just the largest of many non-delegate conferences with lectureships, worship sessions and fellowship and has absolutely nothing to do with church organization. It has no more influence on individual churches then the Pepperdine lectureships or the Freed Hardeman lectures. According to the NACC's own website only about 3% of congregations choosing to be identified with it's branch of the RM even supported their convention last year. Yes, the NACC does have influence, but so do the Southeast Leadership Conference, the Eastern Christian Convention, and the Missionary Convention among others. None of these have anything to do with governing, but are meant simply to encourage and lift up Christians. But don't take my word for it... this is part of what the NACC says about itself. You can read it in its entirety on their website at://2011.gotonacc.org/about-us/...
The NACC office is not a denominational headquarters office. Each of the churches in North America that identify themselves as part of the fellowship of "Christian churches and churches of Christ" is independent and autonomously governed. We have no official denominational organizational structure or polity. The only statement of faith of our 1.6 million members is the New Testament Scripture, and our only creed is Christ.
I will be happy to provide you with a number of other sources that confirm this and can even arrange to have the elders of as many as 25 independent, autonomous congregations contact you to confirm that they answer to no one but Christ and to no book but the Bible.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Ryankasler ( talk) 05:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Harris ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of the Quran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Berger ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syed Ahmad Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaffir ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Restoration Movement may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Point taken -I apologize for creating problems. Apparently I did not go far enough in checking out the disambiguation, as it was certainly not my intention to introduce factual errors, and I thought I was dealing more with style/organization than any substantive changes. Parkwells ( talk) 21:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Churches of Christ in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Campbell ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Churches of Christ may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I just reviewed your edits on Criticism of Islam, I got a few questions right here..
Hope if you have some same thoughts, you will let me know in this regard. :) Bladesmulti ( talk) 17:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is not true in my experience: "More recently, the rise of the International Churches of Christ (who based on the need to fully understand the role baptism plays in salvation, required many to be "re-baptized" " Their objection whenever I encountered them was that they did not "count the cost" (for total commitment and bearing fruit [converts])before their baptism, so they had to be re-baptized. Markewilliams ( talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, EastTN. Editing on the ICOC page has been rather frustrating as of late. It seems that a number of editors are disregarding our arguments that WP policy suggests that criticisms should either 1) be laced throughout the article in their appropriate sections or 2) have a dedicated criticism section. WP policy seems to suggest that while option (1) is in general preferable (2), (2) is permissible for particularly controversial groups, like the ICOC. I'm wondering what you think should be done. A number of editors seem intent on whitewashing the page from verifiable criticisms that are from reliable sources. I've been making a number of edits and justify them on the talk page. But other users just revert my edits without addressing why they're doing so on the talk page. I'm even fine with moving the criticisms to a history section if reliable sources can be found to suggest that the move is appropriate; but simply removing criticism isn't responsible in my mind. - Nietzsche123 ( talk) 15:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your assistance on the ICoC page. I thought I'd ask you a question that I've been struggling to find reliably sourced. Any idea how to get an estimate for the total membership size of the restoration movement? I am aware of the problems in getting such an estimate but do you know if any recognized CoC scholars have taken a stab at it? JamesLappeman ( talk) 08:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Congregations | Members | |
---|---|---|
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) | 3,625 | 785,776 |
Christian Churches and Churches of Christ | 5,293 | 1,453,160 |
Churches of Christ | 12,584 | 1,584,162 |
International Churches of Christ | 126 | 42,106 |
You have reverted my edits in {{
Restoration Movement Timeline graphical timeline}} stating that forcing it to always collapse, whether or not that makes sense for a particular article and you stated that you added option to Allow template to be collapsed where appropriate. But sadly this option is not available in {{
Horizontal timeline}} too. That is adding |collapsible=yes to that template does not automatically collapse the template {{
Horizontal timeline}} because it is not coded that way. I have now modified the template to include a I have modified to add the standard {{
navbox}} template, it should work just like other templates now. If you need anymore changes, please do let me know. Thanks. --
Jayarathina (
talk)
06:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
{{{expand}}}
paramter to specify whether to collapse or not.
{{
Restoration Movement Timeline graphical timeline|state=expanded}}
to expand the template when necessary. --
Jayarathina (
talk)
04:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian denomination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godhead ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that edit. It was a technical error on my part. —This lousy T-shirt ( talk) 18:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, man, thanks for your efforts over at Rubel Shelly, which is an article I started (I think) and promptly turned into a great big mess. Anyway, I appreciate your help. Josh a brewer ( talk) 03:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
JamieBrown2011 posted the following photo in the ICOC main article: /info/en/?search=File:Chicago_Campus_Conference.JPG The photo is listed as JamieBrown2011's own work: Description English: Chicago Campus Conference Date 30 July 2010 Source Own work Author JamieBrown2011
JamieBrown2011 is listed as the owner of this picture: /info/en/?search=File:Singapore_Church.JPG
JamieBrown2011 is also listed as the person who inserted this picture into the main article: /info/en/?search=File:Boston_Garden_church_service.jpg
JamieBrown2011 is also listed s the owner of this picture: /info/en/?search=File:Jakarta_Church.JPG
JamieBrown2011 is also listed s the owner of this picture: /info/en/?search=File:Johannesburg_Church_choir.JPG
Now, if these pictures are taken by JamieBrown2011, then it would appear that JamieBrown2011 is a member of the International Churches of Christ as, usually, only members attend ICOC meetings and conferences. If JamieBrown2011 is a member of the ICOC, then JameBrown2011 is not a neutral editor. In fact, JamieBrown2011 might be trying to skew the article to paint a false and rosy picture of the ICOC.
JamieBrown2011 has criticized me for not having a neutral point of view on many occasions. But these pictures and the fact that JamieBrown2011 took them seems to hint that JamieBrown2011 does not have a neutral point of view. JamieBrown2011 may be a current ICOC member. If JamieBrown2011 is a current ICOC member, then this would explain the fact that JamieBrown2011 tries to delete anything at all negative about the ICOC from the main ICOC article.
In the same way that TransylvanianKarl seemed to be an ICOC member without a neutral view of the ICOC; JamieBrown2011 seems to be the same.
Qewr4231 ( talk) 11:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I can not find the specific post; however, I do remember asking JamieBrown2011 who is a credible source on the ICOC and he did say that he himself is a credible source on the ICOC. Going further he has said that I should not be allowed to edit the ICOC article because my point of view on the ICOC is negative. Well, by that own standard, JamieBrown2011 should not be allowed to edit the ICOC article because he is no neutral. His view of the ICOC is positive and he wants to get rid of all negative facts from the ICOC article. Qewr4231 ( talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi EastTN
Sorry but I really would like to keep my edit of stunning up. I will take it down by the ends of the day but it is compulsory in helping my friend. Is there any chance it could stay up for 12 hours?
PS I tried to do User Talk- I am unsure as to whether this is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizz.snow ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Epistle of Peter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epistles of Clement. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 17:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. You have put in many bare URL footnotes to support them. Would you please convert these to the standard Wikipedia format using the cite templates?. You will find instructions on how to do this at the top of the ISIS Talk page, but you may find it easier to work from them here. They are easy to follow.
Thanks. ~ P-123 ( talk) 12:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:EastTN. :) A contributor noted that some of the content you added to Ma malakat aymanukum (such as this) had been previously published elsewhere, and I just wanted to stop by to explain Wikipedia's copyright situation and make sure that you were aware of what the requirements are for copying or closely paraphrasing text from other articles.
Content on Wikipedia is not public domain; it is liberally licensed to allow us to use it elsewhere, including certainly in other Wikipedia articles. However, there are legal requirements to use that text, including that we must acknowledge the authors and we must use it under the same or compatible license. When copying from one Wikipedia page to another (or translating from one Wikipedia project to another), we don't have much concern with compatible licensing - for the most part, our projects have compatible licenses. (Wikinews is the one exception; their license is more liberal than the other projects. We can copy content from Wikinews but not to it.) The only thing we need to worry about is properly attributing the source.
In Wikipedia, we manage this by placing a link to the original article in the subject line and putting a note on the talk page of at least the destination article explaining that the content is copied. Unless this is done, the content is a violation of our copyright policies and quite possibly an infringement on the copyright of the contributors who originally added it.
Under our current policies, this can be repaired later. With this particular edit, I have done so, as demonstrated here and on the talk pages of the two articles, using the template {{ copied}}. If there is remaining content in that article that you have copied or closely paraphrased from other articles - I think probably there is - please take the necessary steps to identify the source and provide the required attribution.
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia explains in a little more detail how and why this is done.
It is important, as content that violates any copyright may be deleted, and there's no good reason to lose content when the issue can be so simply repaired.
Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions! -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted some parts of the justification for sexual slavery.We need to provide readers a more elaborate understanding of the basis of the groups actions. Hand snoojy ( talk) 15:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Well it's news right, you've got ISIL members justifying their acts and their massacres I just thought it should be included. Hand snoojy ( talk) 15:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Some more lines need to be included in the first paragraphs such as "In late 2014 ISIL released and distributed a pamphlet in Mosul on the treatment of female slaves, that fighters are allowed to have sex with adolescent girls, and that it is also acceptable to beat and trade sex slaves. On the contrary, it says it is permissible to beat a slave so long as it's a form of disciplinary beating, and also that it is forbidden for fighters to hit the female captives in the face. However, the pamphlets says a woman can't be sold if she becomes impregnated by her owner".The English is very good compared to the present one.Can I do it?As I said before many people don't know what sharia is. Hand snoojy ( talk) 16:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
On 28 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kayla Mueller, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that ISIL hostage Kayla Mueller once participated in the International Solidarity Movement in defending the homes of Palestinians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kayla Mueller. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You may be interested in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Islamic_views_on_slavery&action=history
/info/en/?search=Talk:Islamic_views_on_slavery#More_dispute_on_ISIS_and_jihadist_section
Not sure if I'm going to do 3rr or what -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Am planning a formal RfC on dispute on ISIS in Islamic views on slavery and am soliciting opinions
/info/en/?search=Talk:Islamic_views_on_slavery#Update_on_dispute_on_ISIS_and_jihadist_section -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
latest rvt by AsceticRose. Been waiting a week for a reply on the talk page. Best course of action? a RfC? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 21:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, EastTN. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, EastTN. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, EastTN. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I just want to update you. The AfD has been closed by an admin as no consensus, other than a consensus for starting a discussion for a page move. Please see this - and - this. So, the discussion for the page move is here. Hopefully you will voice your preference. Regards --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Greetings,I was looking for some support in following areas.
If any of above topics interest you, then pl. do contribute towards expansion of the same.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 12:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Churches of Christ has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't look like you ever got a proper welcome to Wikipedia, so I'm taking the liberty of posting one here, right on top. I think you already know a lot of this stuff, but I appreciated getting welcomed, so I'm passing on the welcome letter I received:
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Sorry if some of that is too elementary for you by now. Btw, I really liked your proposal for the Happiness article. Be bold in editing! Also, you might want to add something ( here's one possibility) to your userpage; it may give your edits more weight. (For some people, a redlinked userpage says "Newbie! Don't take his comments as seriously as you would otherwise!") - Do c t orW 04:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to say thank you for your many excellent contributions to health care articles, and for being the voice of reason in discussions that can be somewhat contentious. Too many people on Wikipedia only use talk pages to criticize, warn, or complain about something, so I just wanted you to know that your good work is noticed and appreciated. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! (Really, thank you - I've taken you as something of a role model.) EastTN ( talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please have a look at the poll section in Single-payer health care. While it's great that you are adding reliable sources to the cons in the universal health care article, it appears that more recent polls (2007) may show stronger support for tax increases and for single-payer than the 2005 research you pulled from. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"One caveat concerns the impact of taxes on public opinion. A 1994 survey found that fewer than half of respondents would pay more taxes to finance universal health insurance. A 1993 survey found that 64 percent were willing to pay more taxes for that purpose. Many respondents balked at paying even the tiny sum of $100 per year. Lawrence Jacobs and Robert Shapiro contend that when respondents were informed of the benefits the taxes would finance, support for tax increases of $40 per month reached 41 percent. If respondents were told that increased taxes reduce out-of-pocket health care payments, more than half were willing to pay an additional $1,000 a year."
In the twenty-two years the first question has been asked, more than 80 percent of Americans have reported that they are satisfied with their last visit to a physician (Exhibit 7). Also, confidence in ability to pay for a major illness has improved over the years. Despite the increase in the number of uninsured Americans nationally, the proportion reporting such confidence has risen from 50 percent in 1978 to 67 percent in 2000. This improvement in financial confidence may be related to more comprehensive insurance and increased benefit coverage for the insured population, or it may reflect the effects of increased family incomes and assets that could be drawn upon in case of large medical bills.
In 1964, the year before Medicare and Medicaid were enacted, only one-fourth of Americans expressed distrust in the federal government (Exhibit 8). When the Clinton health plan ultimately failed in Congress in 1994, distrust of the federal government had risen fifty-four percentage points. These same years have also seen a decline in public support for government regulation of the private sector. In 1964 only 43 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that the government has gone too far in regulating business and the free enterprise system. This figure rose to 60 percent in 2000. Americans are clearly less willing today to see expanded government regulation in general than they were during the 1960s. Similarly, in 1961 only 46 percent of Americans thought that their federal taxes were too high. This figure rose to 69 percent in 1969 and stood at 63 percent in 2000.
Americans hold many beliefs that are consistent with a general view of what is right or wrong about health care in the United States. However, it is striking to see how many conflicting views the public holds on health policy issues. On the one hand, Americans report substantial dissatisfaction with our mixed private/public health care system and with the private health insurance and managed care industries. A majority of Americans indicate general support for a national health plan financed by taxpayers, as well as increased national health spending. On the other hand, these surveys portray a public that is satisfied with their current medical arrangements, in many years does not see health care as a top priority for government action, does not trust the federal government to do what is right, sees their federal taxes as already too high, and does not favor a single-payer (government) type of national health plan.
Because Americans do hold many conflicting values and beliefs that affect their views on health care policy, it is important to be cautious in interpreting the public mood based on single, isolated public opinion questions. To be a useful guidepost for policymakers, opinion surveys require enough depth in their question wordings so that respondents can work their way through their conflicting values and beliefs to come to judgment on the issue.
Thanks for your delete of the merge template on Criticism of atheism. It had passed its use-by date and it just needed someone to be bold and remove it. -- Jmc ( talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The Christianity Barnstar | ||
For your efforts to properly source contentious doctrinal materials within Churches of Christ and related articles, braving the hornets' nest of potential criticism, and thereby improving the article substantially. Jclemens ( talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC) |
The whole principle of the Restoration Movement was to move away from "secondary sources" written by men and going back to the Bible. While I, too, commend your efforts to move the article in a more scholarly direction, I cannot respect your idea and practice of deleting accurate information simply because it's backed by the Bible and nothing else (2 Tim. 3:16-17). When it comes to church doctrine and beliefs, secondary sources are just that: secondary. Especially when compared to the only true source, the Bible. As a member who studies and knows the Bible well enough to have written material myself, and who is active in teaching others, I didn't feel an overwhelming need to cite secondary sources in order to educate inquirers on what the Lord's church believes and practices (2 Tim. 4:2-5).-- Slim Jim ( talk) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
J/w if you thought that Harris' comments about it being ethical to kill some believers would fit on his article as well.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Muaahahaha... you beat me to doing ALMOST THE EXACT SAME EDIT: move to the bottom of see also, trim verbiage. :-) Great minds think alike and whatnot. I did a double take trying to figure out the edit conflict. Jclemens ( talk) 17:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You may want to comment on Talk:Conservatism#Remove the entire psychological section. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that several editors wish to delete the "Psychological research" section of Conservatism without discussion. As you had been involved in this discussion I would welcome your comments at Talk:Conservatism#Psychological Research? The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I just want to affirm my appreciation for all you have done to improve the Campbell / Stone family of articles. It is an honor to collaborate with you. I respect your work and your gracious spirit. You balance my partisan POV and I hope perhaps that my POV contributes to a collaboration the will give us a balanced NPOV by the time we are finished. I would love to see all 4 of the main articles become Feature Articles of about 30KB each. I really do appreciate that your energy on the CoC article ended the Edit war there. (I'd like to think my challenging some arrogant Wiki purist types help set the tone.) Perhaps it did. I wish I had more time to edit, but professional responsibilities and family responsibilities greatly limit me. John Park ( talk) 12:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Some anons are rearranging the counterarguments as well as adding POV and OR. Maybe you could give it a look if they revert it again and tell me if what they are doing helps or detracts from the article? Thanks.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I had an inquiry on my talk page that might be of interest to you. I am not sure if the editor who raised it will bring it to Talk:Churches of Christ or not. He is not very experienced with wiki environments but seems to love the church. I want to encourage him to be involved. When he edited before, he entered the fray amid a big edit war. John Park ( talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not think that you had cropped that section deliberately. I hope you didn't think that.
I grant that some sections are without reference but these days it is hard to get references for things that are as uncontroversial as taxation paying for health care, as is the case in most European countries. Decisions to use taxation (or earnings related compulsory contributions to non-profit sickness funds) were taken 50-60 years ago in most countries in Europe and though they were no doubt commonly discussed in newspapers of the time, little survives in print and there is very little on the internet these days (and none of that is of course original source material). Britain went thru the arguments that the US is going thru now in the twenties and thirties (i.e. 80-90 years ago) but did not act on the issue until after the war in the late 40s. I can recommend to you the book "In place of fear" by Aneurin Bevan which I borrowed from the library recently (as an example of how the Brits dealt with health care reform after the second world war) and the A J Cronin book about shocking medical practices in the twenties and thirties (not dissimilar to those in the US today) in England and Wales (the name of the book escapes me, but it was very influential and led to a great wave of feeling for reform).-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You have previously contributed to this article United States National Health Insurance Act which was renamed on Wikipedia recently as United States National Health Care Act.
Your watchlist has been automatically updated to point to the new title without your knowledge.
You may not have been aware of the article rename that took place recently because the rename was not discussed in advance.
A discussion is ongoing at the moved talk page as to whether the article should be renamed back as it was. You may wish to make your opinion known.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 12:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware of this CfD to rename Category:Universities and colleges by affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement to either
I am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 09:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I've noticed that you've been a contributor to the Russell's teapot page and its discussion page. I've recently added a criticism section and removed the Dawkins quote but editors keep reverting my changes, essentially giving no reasons except that I'm not credible since I only edit at one article.
If you have time, could you weigh in on the talk page? Thanks. TylerJ71 ( talk) 01:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you by chance an SF fan? If so, do you go to Chattacon? -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw your edit of Restorationism. WP:MOS gives guidelines about doctrines and movements: "Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter unless the name derives from a proper noun (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper noun (lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to one of several specific political parties or ideologies, such as the US Republican Party or Irish Republicanism). Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas (as distinguished from specific events) capitalized by some religious adherents are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin, or transubstantiation." I have noticed that many article on religion use capitalization of many nouns that should be lower case, whereas this practice is discouraged in the manual. Please let me know your judgment, as a look at many articles show inconsistencies. Thanks. R/T-รัก-ไทย ( talk) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You just reverted an edit if mine which reverted a long-established consensus to a version added, without discussion, a few days ago. Please would you undo your own revert. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 15:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for catching this, which missed my attention when dealing with the Shona Holmes issue. ... Kenosis ( talk) 02:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
We've finally got a GA reviewer! Jclemens ( talk) 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to
Churches of Christ, it is recommended that you use the
preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces
edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up
recent changes and the
page history. Thank you. Instead of making 31 small edits, why not consolidate them down, at least by section? After each change, you could use the Preview button to see how it looks rather than spamming my watchlist full of every last one of your many miniscule changes.
-
Garrett W. (
Talk /
Contribs)
01:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your points made at Talk: Global warming. Please feel free to keep me posted. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
We don't, as a matter of fact, report on scientific matters using newspapers as sources. We're never going to do that. No good encyclopedia ever has, or ever will, do so.
Got a few questions for you. Please answer. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 00:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(1) How well do believe the central points of your comment got through?
(2) Is the failure of the discussion due more to the circumstances of the discussion, specific editors, or yourself?
(3) How certain (accurate, true) where you when you wrote your first comment describing what you believed the other editors should do? [1] Later ones? [2]
(4) Do you believe your comments were interpreted erroneously?
(5) How well do you think you expressed yourself?
(6) How well do you believe that other editors listened to you?
We need to contact you privately to discuss a potential issue with your vote in the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, however you do not have email enabled in your preferences. Could you please get in touch, either by email to happy-melonlive.com, or find me on IRC (I'm in #mediawiki most of the time). Many thanks.
For the election officials,
Happy‑ melon 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
he used the terms "conversion disorder" to get published but doesn't agree with the accuracy of it ie more important to get published and advance the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.116.121 ( talk) 19:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I misread you as endorsing the abominable claim that a group has a right to self-identification, and reacred accordingly. I still think you are mistaken, on two grounds:
But I apologize for attacking you on the basis of a position you did not assert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
Lawrence Solomon, is on
article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a
templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --
TS
01:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I made the spurious edit yesterday, switching 'barbarian' to 'tribal' . That was an edit on impulse, but I find the usage not bad at all . In other words, even though I agree in principle on your reverting the edit, I am willing to, and feel somewhat tempted, to take a closer look at the section, to see if this 'barbarian'-to-'tribal' switch can be applied there too . Do you have a take on that ? Sechinsic ( talk) 20:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey EastTN,
I am not the creator of Thomas B. Warren, but I did some extensive wiki work and clean-up back in March 2011. Are you able/willing to review the article (unreviewed template) to include a review of the assessment for WP:TN and WP:Christianity? Given the extent of my edits, I refrained from removing the unreviewed template. Thanks, SBaker43 ( talk) 16:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
why did you remove the ELTO picture? It was quite harmless and added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 ( talk) 01:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear EastTN,
I saw that you changed the restoration movement article back to include reference to the organizational differences between non-instrumental churches of Christ and instrumental churches of Christ (also known as Christian churches). Could you please let me know what these differences are and what sources you are basing this on besides the Encyclopedia of Religion in the South? I agree completely that there are major hermeneutic differences, but I do not understand how there are any organizational differences. They are both brotherhoods of completely autonomous congregations governed by local elders. The Encyclopedia of Religion in the South is simply incorrect. I can provide you with a number of references that contradict it, including the reference that I used as a source, the Directory of the Ministry: A Yearbook of Christian churches and churches of Christ. Saying that the North American Christian Convention is a "loosely organized convention" is misleading as it has never had anything to do with church government. It's just the largest of many non-delegate conferences with lectureships, worship sessions and fellowship and has absolutely nothing to do with church organization. It has no more influence on individual churches then the Pepperdine lectureships or the Freed Hardeman lectures. According to the NACC's own website only about 3% of congregations choosing to be identified with it's branch of the RM even supported their convention last year. Yes, the NACC does have influence, but so do the Southeast Leadership Conference, the Eastern Christian Convention, and the Missionary Convention among others. None of these have anything to do with governing, but are meant simply to encourage and lift up Christians. But don't take my word for it... this is part of what the NACC says about itself. You can read it in its entirety on their website at://2011.gotonacc.org/about-us/...
The NACC office is not a denominational headquarters office. Each of the churches in North America that identify themselves as part of the fellowship of "Christian churches and churches of Christ" is independent and autonomously governed. We have no official denominational organizational structure or polity. The only statement of faith of our 1.6 million members is the New Testament Scripture, and our only creed is Christ.
I will be happy to provide you with a number of other sources that confirm this and can even arrange to have the elders of as many as 25 independent, autonomous congregations contact you to confirm that they answer to no one but Christ and to no book but the Bible.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Ryankasler ( talk) 05:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Harris ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of the Quran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Berger ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syed Ahmad Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaffir ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Restoration Movement may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Point taken -I apologize for creating problems. Apparently I did not go far enough in checking out the disambiguation, as it was certainly not my intention to introduce factual errors, and I thought I was dealing more with style/organization than any substantive changes. Parkwells ( talk) 21:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Churches of Christ in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Campbell ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Churches of Christ may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I just reviewed your edits on Criticism of Islam, I got a few questions right here..
Hope if you have some same thoughts, you will let me know in this regard. :) Bladesmulti ( talk) 17:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is not true in my experience: "More recently, the rise of the International Churches of Christ (who based on the need to fully understand the role baptism plays in salvation, required many to be "re-baptized" " Their objection whenever I encountered them was that they did not "count the cost" (for total commitment and bearing fruit [converts])before their baptism, so they had to be re-baptized. Markewilliams ( talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, EastTN. Editing on the ICOC page has been rather frustrating as of late. It seems that a number of editors are disregarding our arguments that WP policy suggests that criticisms should either 1) be laced throughout the article in their appropriate sections or 2) have a dedicated criticism section. WP policy seems to suggest that while option (1) is in general preferable (2), (2) is permissible for particularly controversial groups, like the ICOC. I'm wondering what you think should be done. A number of editors seem intent on whitewashing the page from verifiable criticisms that are from reliable sources. I've been making a number of edits and justify them on the talk page. But other users just revert my edits without addressing why they're doing so on the talk page. I'm even fine with moving the criticisms to a history section if reliable sources can be found to suggest that the move is appropriate; but simply removing criticism isn't responsible in my mind. - Nietzsche123 ( talk) 15:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your assistance on the ICoC page. I thought I'd ask you a question that I've been struggling to find reliably sourced. Any idea how to get an estimate for the total membership size of the restoration movement? I am aware of the problems in getting such an estimate but do you know if any recognized CoC scholars have taken a stab at it? JamesLappeman ( talk) 08:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Congregations | Members | |
---|---|---|
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) | 3,625 | 785,776 |
Christian Churches and Churches of Christ | 5,293 | 1,453,160 |
Churches of Christ | 12,584 | 1,584,162 |
International Churches of Christ | 126 | 42,106 |
You have reverted my edits in {{
Restoration Movement Timeline graphical timeline}} stating that forcing it to always collapse, whether or not that makes sense for a particular article and you stated that you added option to Allow template to be collapsed where appropriate. But sadly this option is not available in {{
Horizontal timeline}} too. That is adding |collapsible=yes to that template does not automatically collapse the template {{
Horizontal timeline}} because it is not coded that way. I have now modified the template to include a I have modified to add the standard {{
navbox}} template, it should work just like other templates now. If you need anymore changes, please do let me know. Thanks. --
Jayarathina (
talk)
06:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
{{{expand}}}
paramter to specify whether to collapse or not.
{{
Restoration Movement Timeline graphical timeline|state=expanded}}
to expand the template when necessary. --
Jayarathina (
talk)
04:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian denomination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godhead ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that edit. It was a technical error on my part. —This lousy T-shirt ( talk) 18:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, man, thanks for your efforts over at Rubel Shelly, which is an article I started (I think) and promptly turned into a great big mess. Anyway, I appreciate your help. Josh a brewer ( talk) 03:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
JamieBrown2011 posted the following photo in the ICOC main article: /info/en/?search=File:Chicago_Campus_Conference.JPG The photo is listed as JamieBrown2011's own work: Description English: Chicago Campus Conference Date 30 July 2010 Source Own work Author JamieBrown2011
JamieBrown2011 is listed as the owner of this picture: /info/en/?search=File:Singapore_Church.JPG
JamieBrown2011 is also listed as the person who inserted this picture into the main article: /info/en/?search=File:Boston_Garden_church_service.jpg
JamieBrown2011 is also listed s the owner of this picture: /info/en/?search=File:Jakarta_Church.JPG
JamieBrown2011 is also listed s the owner of this picture: /info/en/?search=File:Johannesburg_Church_choir.JPG
Now, if these pictures are taken by JamieBrown2011, then it would appear that JamieBrown2011 is a member of the International Churches of Christ as, usually, only members attend ICOC meetings and conferences. If JamieBrown2011 is a member of the ICOC, then JameBrown2011 is not a neutral editor. In fact, JamieBrown2011 might be trying to skew the article to paint a false and rosy picture of the ICOC.
JamieBrown2011 has criticized me for not having a neutral point of view on many occasions. But these pictures and the fact that JamieBrown2011 took them seems to hint that JamieBrown2011 does not have a neutral point of view. JamieBrown2011 may be a current ICOC member. If JamieBrown2011 is a current ICOC member, then this would explain the fact that JamieBrown2011 tries to delete anything at all negative about the ICOC from the main ICOC article.
In the same way that TransylvanianKarl seemed to be an ICOC member without a neutral view of the ICOC; JamieBrown2011 seems to be the same.
Qewr4231 ( talk) 11:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I can not find the specific post; however, I do remember asking JamieBrown2011 who is a credible source on the ICOC and he did say that he himself is a credible source on the ICOC. Going further he has said that I should not be allowed to edit the ICOC article because my point of view on the ICOC is negative. Well, by that own standard, JamieBrown2011 should not be allowed to edit the ICOC article because he is no neutral. His view of the ICOC is positive and he wants to get rid of all negative facts from the ICOC article. Qewr4231 ( talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi EastTN
Sorry but I really would like to keep my edit of stunning up. I will take it down by the ends of the day but it is compulsory in helping my friend. Is there any chance it could stay up for 12 hours?
PS I tried to do User Talk- I am unsure as to whether this is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizz.snow ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Epistle of Peter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epistles of Clement. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 17:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. You have put in many bare URL footnotes to support them. Would you please convert these to the standard Wikipedia format using the cite templates?. You will find instructions on how to do this at the top of the ISIS Talk page, but you may find it easier to work from them here. They are easy to follow.
Thanks. ~ P-123 ( talk) 12:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:EastTN. :) A contributor noted that some of the content you added to Ma malakat aymanukum (such as this) had been previously published elsewhere, and I just wanted to stop by to explain Wikipedia's copyright situation and make sure that you were aware of what the requirements are for copying or closely paraphrasing text from other articles.
Content on Wikipedia is not public domain; it is liberally licensed to allow us to use it elsewhere, including certainly in other Wikipedia articles. However, there are legal requirements to use that text, including that we must acknowledge the authors and we must use it under the same or compatible license. When copying from one Wikipedia page to another (or translating from one Wikipedia project to another), we don't have much concern with compatible licensing - for the most part, our projects have compatible licenses. (Wikinews is the one exception; their license is more liberal than the other projects. We can copy content from Wikinews but not to it.) The only thing we need to worry about is properly attributing the source.
In Wikipedia, we manage this by placing a link to the original article in the subject line and putting a note on the talk page of at least the destination article explaining that the content is copied. Unless this is done, the content is a violation of our copyright policies and quite possibly an infringement on the copyright of the contributors who originally added it.
Under our current policies, this can be repaired later. With this particular edit, I have done so, as demonstrated here and on the talk pages of the two articles, using the template {{ copied}}. If there is remaining content in that article that you have copied or closely paraphrased from other articles - I think probably there is - please take the necessary steps to identify the source and provide the required attribution.
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia explains in a little more detail how and why this is done.
It is important, as content that violates any copyright may be deleted, and there's no good reason to lose content when the issue can be so simply repaired.
Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions! -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted some parts of the justification for sexual slavery.We need to provide readers a more elaborate understanding of the basis of the groups actions. Hand snoojy ( talk) 15:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Well it's news right, you've got ISIL members justifying their acts and their massacres I just thought it should be included. Hand snoojy ( talk) 15:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Some more lines need to be included in the first paragraphs such as "In late 2014 ISIL released and distributed a pamphlet in Mosul on the treatment of female slaves, that fighters are allowed to have sex with adolescent girls, and that it is also acceptable to beat and trade sex slaves. On the contrary, it says it is permissible to beat a slave so long as it's a form of disciplinary beating, and also that it is forbidden for fighters to hit the female captives in the face. However, the pamphlets says a woman can't be sold if she becomes impregnated by her owner".The English is very good compared to the present one.Can I do it?As I said before many people don't know what sharia is. Hand snoojy ( talk) 16:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
On 28 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kayla Mueller, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that ISIL hostage Kayla Mueller once participated in the International Solidarity Movement in defending the homes of Palestinians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kayla Mueller. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You may be interested in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Islamic_views_on_slavery&action=history
/info/en/?search=Talk:Islamic_views_on_slavery#More_dispute_on_ISIS_and_jihadist_section
Not sure if I'm going to do 3rr or what -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Am planning a formal RfC on dispute on ISIS in Islamic views on slavery and am soliciting opinions
/info/en/?search=Talk:Islamic_views_on_slavery#Update_on_dispute_on_ISIS_and_jihadist_section -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
latest rvt by AsceticRose. Been waiting a week for a reply on the talk page. Best course of action? a RfC? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 21:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, EastTN. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, EastTN. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, EastTN. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I just want to update you. The AfD has been closed by an admin as no consensus, other than a consensus for starting a discussion for a page move. Please see this - and - this. So, the discussion for the page move is here. Hopefully you will voice your preference. Regards --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Greetings,I was looking for some support in following areas.
If any of above topics interest you, then pl. do contribute towards expansion of the same.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 12:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Churches of Christ has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)