User talk:Mkmcconn

Human

Hey, M. Have you seen the human page? Wow! It is funny. Species status: secure ROTFL Any ideas? Tom 23:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like how its written as though it might be read by someone other than a human. Very amusing. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I actually get the idea some of the editors think NPOV means hypothetical AlienPOV rather than AllSignificantPOVs. Maybe I ought to ask them if they have read the NPOV policy and NPOV tutorial lately. Tom 17:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity

So, how do you like the article nowadays? Any remaining aspirations for it? Tom 17:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that I like how things have settled. I'm not sure though; I've been too busy to do much on Wikipedia, lately. A very close look might give me a different perspective. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Take it easy and love your family. The human article is in much worse shape nowadays, IMHO. Tom

Van Til.

Just so you know, I filled in the Cornelius Van Til stub. I'm letting you know because you mentioned you wanted some progress on it. Please feel free to expand or correct anything that is wrong!

Human

M, if you get a minute, I would really appreciate your opining at human on my efforts to resolve NPOV problems. The guys there have the understandable misconception that NPOV means Scientific POV, and they are digging in their heels a bit to changes. I asked them to please read the NPOV doc and the NPOV tutorial. We will see how it goes. I'd appreciate your help. I am a bit alone. Tom 21:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a short favor to ask of you. The Human discussion is getting strong, and I think it would help to lay our cards on the talbe so the "secularists" can see just how different is our point of view on just what is a human. But at the same time, I want to be able to get a "generic" (ha ha) religious view. In any case, would you take some time to drop by my user talk and add your personally believed factual definition of what is a human. I appreciate it. Tom - Talk 22:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Local meeting

I don't know if you're around much these days, but we're having a meeting of local Wikipedians on Saturday afternoon, November 6th -- almost certainly at the downtown Seattle library. I know it'd be a bit of a drive for you, but I thought you might want to come. Michael Snow and I are planning the event, and details about it can be found on our talk pages, if you're interested. I hope you'll consider it -- best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 22:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been extraordinarily busy, lately, and haven't felt that I have very much to offer. I am grateful for the invitation, though. I don't know right now what I'll be doing on November 6th. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that life is getting a bit hectic. I hope you know that you have a lot to offer -- not only are you in possession of a lot of knowledge worth sharing, but your calm and considerate way of resolving disputes is much admired by me. I hope you'll keep looking in to share a thought now and then when disputes arise on pages that interest you, even if you feel you have less time for editing. And regarding the 6th, I know it's hard to plan, but I hope you have the chance to come -- it would be great to meet you. Have a good autumn, Jwrosenzweig 21:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The truth is that things have been more "normal" lately, so that I don't have the blocks of free time that I enjoyed previously. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Image copyrights

Thanks for uploading Image:PantocratorSinai.jpeg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, — Edwin Stearns | Talk 20:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you know how old Image:PantocratorSinai.jpeg is. If it is more than 100 years old, it's in the public domain and can be tagged {{PD-art}}, otherwise I am going to leave it tagged {{unverified}} and leave the decision about what to do with it to others. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 19:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Is there such a thing as a JPEG that's more than 100 years old?) The icon is very ancient; the electronic image is an original work of art. Mkmcconn (Talk) 13:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

January 15 Seattle meetup

Just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. We're trying to get a sense of who will attend, so please drop by that page & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

WP:LDS

I wonder if you might be willing to add WP:LDS project page to your Watchlist. There is no hot talk or burning issues at this time, but the project has become quite a reality, with a dozen or so participants, and your occasional presence and a comment on a poll now and then could round out the mix even more toward quality and non-bias. Your help in the past was immensely valuable, and your mere presence now would be greatly appreciated. As long as we are at it, if you really want a project, perhaps you would add WP:JW the new and tentative Jehovah's Witness project to your watchlist and help it get off the ground. Tom Haws 19:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Christian ecumenism

Wikipedia is NOT your freaking soapbox. You should know better than to put something that I'd expect from an anti-protestant hate site on an online encyclopedia. Kade 06:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Touched a nerve? Anyway, I don't perceive anything particularly anti-protestant about the article. The contrary, in fact. It depends on the "eyes" you look at it with, I suppose. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You asserted that Protestantism is "absurd", and don't have any sources to back up your statements. It's garbage. Kade 01:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kade, did you notice on his user page that Mkmcconn is an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? He's a conservative Protestant. If you see anti-protestantism in his writing, it's probably because he tries so hard to be neutral. (Nice to see you around again, Mkmcconn. I missed you.) Wesley 04:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's nice to be missed, Wesley Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

I'm contacting you in your capacity as an adminstrator. There's a lot of talk going on at the Historicity of Jesus discussion page concerning the writer Will Durant, NPOV issues, and users named The Rev of Bru and Slrubenstein...and things seem to be getting a bit heated. At the least, the page may need a "disputed" tag of some sort. I'm asking if you could just look into it and pipe in if you feel that's appropriate at this point. Thanks. KHM03 21:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protestantism

These are not "tedious distinctions". There is a great deal of difference between the various positions, and I am afraid that, as it currently stands, the article does very little to make it clear that while they fall under the "Protestant" umbrella, Lutherans are not Calvinists are not Arminians. --Rekleov 20:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The distinctions need to be made, and not minimized. However, because the article is about "Protestantism", it will be hurt by extensive explanations of particular views in dialog style - "Lutherans think x" "Reformed also think x, but explain it differently." "Lutherans deny that this understanding of x is adequately described as 'x', and rather describe their view as 'y'". "Reformed themselves do not use the term 'y'". ad ho hum.

In the context of the paragraph we've been working on, Lutheranism is clearly distinguished. If you don't think that Lutherans believe, as all other Christians do, that the controversy concerning the sense in which the Bread is the Body of the Lord, is ultimately a controversy concerning the nature of salvation and of the Church, then by all means explain yourself. But it is tedious to use every opportunity to try to make Lutheranism stand out from the rest of Protestantism, when the distinction you want to make has already been made. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my rambling yesterday. It seems I am myself the best example that Catholics are not people of the book and that’s why my Lutheran friend says that it’s difficult for her to have a conversation with a Catholic. We refer to our general feelings while Protestants give exact quotes. Also Protestants like asking “How do you know?” and Catholics reply “We just know”, lol. I left some much better cited opinions on Tradition and Priesthood. Please, see also my question about Bonhoeffer. --SylwiaS 16:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the interaction, SylwiaS. I'm not sure that the respective characterizations of Catholics and Protestants usually hold up, in my experience; but, it is of value to know that this is your experience and perception. I'll try to help with the Bonhoeffer question. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calvinism

Hi, Mkmcconn. I saw your changes in Calvinism (you might still be making some right now). I was going to suggest that we restore at least some of the points under "Hyper-Calvinism" because the term is used by Calvinists for more than just the original Particular Baptist issue. We could put them in the form of a paragraph instead of a list if that would flow better.

Also, I noticed you added a subheading "Modern Calvinist movements" and split out Amuraldianism and Neo-Orthodoxy from Neo-Calvinism and Reconstructionism. Neo-Calvinism and Neo-Orthodoxy are about the same age, so I don't know that the term "modern" fits one and not the other (besides, it can get confusing to use "modern" and "modernism" in the same article with different meanings). Cheers! --Flex 18:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I'll work with you when the dust settles, to implement what you are talking about here. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Bibleverse

Being new to talk pages, I replied to your comment in mine! Am I meant to respond in yours, or are you expected to watch mine??!! Sorry for being a newbie! =) --jnothman 12:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

see your talk :-) Mkmcconn (Talk) 13:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Total Depravity and Methodism

Please join us in discussion at Talk:Total depravity. --Flex June 29, 2005 11:55 (UTC)

Your responses in that talk page are confusing because they are interspersed with ours (and, in one case, unsigned so that it looks like I wrote your response!). Since we didn't follow your convention of signing and attaching a \ to the end of our paragraphs, you might consider reworking your responses there so things are easier to follow for others and in the future if we come back to the discussion for some reason. (KHM03's response to me should also be doubly indented for consistency.) --Flex June 29, 2005 14:56 (UTC)

I'll work on that, thanks. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 15:02 (UTC)

Talk:History_of_Christianity#The_Zoroastrian_background

You may find this interesting and may want to chime in (if you wish). KHM03 2 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)

Wow. What a lot of silliness. I admire your efforts, there. Mkmcconn (Talk) 2 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

Bible verse articles

You might be interested in this vote for deletion. I wonder what you think about having wikipedia articles on particular chapters and verses in the Bible? Wesley 3 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

I think that it's not a good idea to have articles on particular chapters and verses. I think it's almost impossible to do it in a way that doesn't violate just about every rule of "neutrality" that governs this site. I would, though, like to see more use made of the Bibleverse template. John 3:16. I guess that, actually, this makes me a bit inconsistent. Thanks for the pointer to the VFD page. I'll watch it. Mkmcconn (Talk) 3 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

My big objection to linking to articles about verses, instead of to the verses themselves is that, doing so links to a lot of nonsense. With its commitment to the divine principle, Neutrality, Wikipedia has the potential of becoming without rival the very worst theological encyclopedia ever written in the history of the world, propagating more lies and insinuated equivalencies between opposite things, than has ever been attempted before. So, I'm not very excited about short-circuiting actual references to the Bible, by redirecting people to atheistic dissections and speculations, instead. On the other hand, it is relevant material encyclopedaeically speaking. Mkmcconn (Talk) 3 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)

1 Christianity

Please see Talk:Christianity#Pointless.2C_POV_paragraph_under_.22Early_Church.22 for the latest goings on. Thanks. KHM03 5 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Eucharist template

Here is a proposed starting place. KHM03 5 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Nice! Let's start using it. Mkmcconn (Talk) 5 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

Good, I was wondering if WCC BEM needed its wn article Paul foord 6 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

Neo-evangelicalism

Did I remove the guts of the article. Apart from creating lists and using the main article template to refer to the new lists I merged but left it as it was. Maybe you misread the history? Paul foord 6 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

I regret putting it that way, Paul. Some time ago, there was a series of edits attributed to you, in which the article was re-organized into its present form (roughly). The people and institutions by which this movement is identified in its origins were removed from a paragraphed description, into a bulleted list at the bottom of the page. Consequently, the guts, the reason for a separate article, was no longer obvious. The article has since then undergone more edits (not by you) that continued to move it in the same direction of a broader description of neo-evangelicalism, until it ceased to be about "neo-evangelicalism" per se, and became instead a description of American Evangelicalism. Mkmcconn (Talk)

Anyway, I am sorry that I expressed myself in such an accusatory fashion. I didn't really mean it that way; and in fact, after the merge it seems to me to have worked out well for aggressively addressing some of the most prominent weaknesses of the article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 6 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

Calvinist Church, USA

This isn't "patent nonsense", and certaibly isn't a candidate for speedy delettion. If, as you say, the organisation doesn't exist, then take the article to VfD. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

The same goes for Calvinist Theological Seminary. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

The article was created as a satire. The topics treated do not refer to real entities. Fictional (invented) entities, created to lampoon their subject, listed as though they exist, are nonsense. Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)

The articles don't count as nonsense for the purposes of speedy deletion; they need to be VfDed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

For the record, I liked the Calvinst Church, USA stuff. Nothing wrong with poking fun at the Calvinists! :P KHM03 7 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, suppose that an article says that a Bluenecked bumblefy is "An ant-eating insect related to the Alligator-skink midge, discovered in 1864 by Greek etymologist Blatherfetis Hogtestes." Mkmcconn \

Such an article is nonsense. It should be speedily deleted. The troll who posted it should not be given the satisfaction of watching people debate whether such an article should remain in the encyclopedia. Mkmcconn \

But you want to "Clean it up", to "Conform to a higher standard"? Very amusing, sir. Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

KHM03, I never said it wasn't funny. :-) Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

The difference between "Calvinist Church, USA" and "Calvinist Theological Seminary" on the one hand and your example on the other is that the former are not obviously false. That they're in fact false, made up, meant to be amusing, doesn't make them nonsensical (in the required sense). Your example, on the other hand, is obviously false and silly, which is why it would be appropriate for speedy deletion.

Thanks, by the way, for your comment on my Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

It might require being a Calvinist, to perceive how obviously false and silly it was. Did you notice that in the place of the acronym TULIP, the denomination page had STUPID ? Pretty funny stuff. Anyway, I'm not incapable of waiting through the process. I am defending my initial opinion that none of us should have to bother, but I'm resigned to letting it go through the gauntlet of review. Mkmcconn (Talk) 8 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)

Pew Forum: Myths of the Modern Mega-Church

Monday, May 23, 2005, Key West, Florida

This prob of interest [8]

Speaker: Rick Warren, Senior Pastor and Founder, Saddleback Church, Orange County, California

Respondent: David Brooks, Columnist, The New York Times Paul foord 13:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Paul. That is interesting. There is a paragraph in the Christianity article that could be improved in light of what this article says. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I very much appreciate your kind words, both when you noticed my departure and upon my return. You're one of the first people I worked with when I arrived here, and are still one of my favorite Wikipedians -- I'm glad you hold me in some regard also. :-) The flurry of edits, by the way, is a result of the fact that I'm a teacher...I resisted the site for a couple weeks of my vacation, but now that I'm back, I have little to distract me from surfing the 'pedia and making trifling edits all over the place. I promise not to burn myself out. :-) Best wishes (and I hope to be at the same PNW meetup as you someday so we can shake hands), Jwrosenzweig 14:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinism template

Good work on the Calvinism template. The hardest part is deciding what to leave out. One thing perhaps worth adding is presuppositional apologetics, though I guess that's not universal like the five points and solas. Some people probably worth adding are Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge (instead of Warfield?), and maybe John Owen? Just trying to cover the (temporal) spectrum a bit. --Flex 16:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Let's talk about it there; but as you say, it's hard. I chose Warfield instead of Hodge, because he is often represented as the "Last of the great Princeton theologians" (and besides, I like him more :-) I chose Edwards instead of Owen, as representing the more abiding line of Congregationalist influence. Kuyper rather than Schilder, to represent the Continentals because he's better known (although I favor Schilder). Spurgeon would be a nice addition; and we need a few representative graduate schools (like Princeton, perhaps). Copying most of this to that talk. Thanks for the comment! and, I'm looking forward to your help. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restorationism

Many thanks for your hard work on the Restorationism article!! It is greatly improved in clarity and (I believe) accuracy. It was no easy task, I'm sure, to address the many facets of the subject and end up with a coherent read. Regards, Jim Ellis 02:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and encouraging remark. Mkmcconn (Talk) 02:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Zionism

What is the origin of this flag? Who uses it? Adam 06:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one uses it, but it is not unlike numerous similar symbols. It was intended to represent the position of Christian Zionism that New Testament prophecy is being fulfilled in the modern state of Israel, making it a focus of their Christian hopes; and it was intended to symbolize the unintentional offense on the part of Christian Zionists, which stirs up the (in my opinion, unfair) accusation of anti-semitism. But, as Cberlet pointed out, the symbol itself was offensive. I'm inclined to remove it from Wikipedia, after our discussion. Mkmcconn (Talk) 06:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Christianity

You have been involved with User:Noitall on the issue of his/her editing. You might therefore have something to contribute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noitall. ~~~~ 10:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mkmcconn, I could use a little help getting a supporting opinion on Talk:Christianity issue versus GordonWattsDotCom, if in fact you were to agree. :-) Jim Ellis 15:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Apostles Creed

I can think of no reason to have a special "Methodism" section in this article; the material that's there (such as the non-use of "He descended...") can easily be mentioned elsewhere. KHM03 00:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All perspectives are equal; some more than others

An observation, gleaned from History of South Africa. An edit was recently reverted, because an anonymous editor objected to pre-history being described in the intro as though it were a matter of eye-witness record (followed by a disclaiming sentence, that whatever we know of the last six million years is only our best interpretation of the archeological record). The editor inserted into the lead paragraph, the objection, "evolution is a theory, not a fact".

The edit was reverted, not because it inserted extraneous and non-wiki material, but according to the reverter's edit note: "rv creationist ".

I won't go into how distorting it is, in this day, to identify all "creationism" with "young earth" creationism, or even with anti-evolutionism. The reverter did not say "minority view - young earth POV", or even "anti-evolution POV". What struck me is that the reason for the revert seems to to the reverter to be enough of a reason. "Creationist".

This one word explanation means this: any edits that even hint at belief in (a) personalit(y|ies) who made things to be as they are in the cosmos, rather than asserting as fact that the universe makes itself, are "creationist" and can be excluded prejudicially, without further explanation. The realm of true fact is untainted by God.

You see that a lot, on WP, and I think that it accurately reflects the Western mindset today. That is an astonishing thing, when you take a step back to look at it, if you have even the smallest grain of a sense of history, or if you have any idea of how many other perspectives there are still alive in the world today, besides the modern, western, urban atheist. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

toledot

Hey, I don't mind your considering RK before me. Frankly, I think Danny is more qualified than I am, and there are others at least as qualified as me around here: Jfdwolff, Kuratowski's Ghost, maybe Jayjg too. Anyway, first of all I don't see anything wrong with this idea, except I do not know wnough of the literature on this. My main concern would be to comply with NOR policy and not put in my own ideas/interpretations. Speaking of my own ideas, as I understood it some people propose an analysis of the Torah by toledot markers as a radical alternative to the documentary hypothesis. I do not see the two approaches as incompatible in any way. First, it is conceivable that various ources of the Torah used "toledot," if it was a literary convention. Second, all documentary hypothesis proponents argue that at some point someone (R) redacted the various sources into one document — that person or group of people would obviously have had to seek out and take advantage of rhetorical or literary devices to create a new, overarching structure for the new text (namely, the Torah). Be that as it may, I do not think I can help you now, and only for two reasons: (1) I am overwhelmed at work right now and (2) do not have an adequate library nearby where I could do the necessary research. Off hand I think that the article would have to have one section summarizing the medieval commentaries on the Torah that discuss toledot passages, and a second section drawing on modern, critical scholarship — and honestly, I have practically no access to either. So, it's nothing personal, and it doesn't reflect any negative thoughts aboutyour idea, I just don't think I can helkp right now, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prevenient grace

More on talk page...Keith 23:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrianism

You may be interested in participating in this vote. KHM03 15:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Epistemology Talk

Thanks for your input, sincerely. It helps to have people who are not philosophers agree that the anonymous user's behavior needs more detailed explanation. WhiteC 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assurance that maybe I didn't just added to the difficulty of reaching a good resolution to the disagreement. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthur

Mark, Could you give your two cents on the discussion at Talk:John F. MacArthur? Thanks! (BTW, good work on making the Fundy#Other beliefs section better.) --Flex 13:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I hadn't had this article on watch. It's an interesting discussion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the perfect win-win solution!

I just want to thank you for stepping in here with correct answer, and of course the only common-sense solution; now everybody should be happy. Nobody can argue with your logic! (I'm just going over all of his contris at the moment; ooer...! ) Codex Sinaiticus 16:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I want to say for the benefit of anyone eavesdropping, that it is very important, especially at the outset of this experiment, to make sure that we "write for the enemy" and make it the first-order aim (wikily speaking) to avoid destructive edit wars. My plan is not conceived as a scheme to shut out any legitimate point of view; rather, the opposite. There is every bit as much potential for time-wasting revert wars under this scheme, as under the other. I'm only trying to position the controversy at the appropriate place (rather than fighting to see whose is the last word, I want to try to get both sides to speak the same thing at the same time - to agree). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Talk Page

Mark, I am confused by your last comment. Did you disagree with what I was saying or what is your position? Storm Rider 21:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph that is "proposed" is horrible. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't disagree with you. Storm Rider 02:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Well, if I offended you I hope that whenever you have time/desire we can work it out through our talk pages, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have not offended. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your reassurance. I also understand your frustration, and sympathize. I think this is one of those occasions where all we can — and should — do is insist that people comply with our NPOV and NOR policies. They are our best protection against ignorance. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New User

Mark, it's been awhile since I've been active here, but I thought I'd let you know that Peter Kirby has just gotten interested in Wikipedia. He really knows his stuff in a lot of the areas you contribute to. Stephen C. Carlson 03:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, Stephen! I look forward to seeing you at the SBL. Oh, and, hi Mark! --Peter Kirby 03:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mark, what do you think is in most need of attention at Wikipedia re: Christianity and biblical studies? --Peter Kirby 22:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On your page :-) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, you're brilliant! Keep on trucking! I have a reply on my page. --Peter Kirby 06:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply on my page. --Peter Kirby 08:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted the Jesus article question about editing methods

Mark, that would be fine with me. Thanks. I erased the question about editing techniques. Sorry about that.

Scott

Thank you; I'm sorry to have gone so far side-ways from my original intent. I only meant to alert you to how your edits might be perceived if you seemed to be working to give more air-time to a favorite "lost" perspective. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Common Grace

Please see new article on Common grace and Talk:Common_grace. It is a stub that is probably inadequate as it stands. Regards, Jim Ellis 16:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the start! — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Christian mythology

Mark, I put up a bit there, but you may not like what I wrote. Thanks, and sorry...SHALOM! Keith 20:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I knew what your views might be, before I asked for them. No apology necessary. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally...doing my nightly devotions last evening prior to retiring (I've been using the Renovare Spiritual Formation Bible for these, which I recommend to you), guess what the Scripture reading was? 2 Peter 2:16! The Holy Spirit is doing something! Also, FYI, in both the NRSV and the ESV, the verse uses the word "myths" rather than "stories" or "fables". Interesting. Keith 17:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fo inviting my input into this debacle, but I think you gents are doing fine without me. Jim Ellis 02:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Yes, blockquotes are superior for that particular purpose, because the html code indents both left and right margins instead of left only. Because of that difference, a few months back I added the info on blockquote notation to the markup|How to Edit page. --Blainster 22:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

L'Abri

I know what you mean – it's been sitting on my to-do list for months, but I hadn't gotten around to actually writing the article. World magazine's write up in March was really helpful, because I don't know too much about the place. Also, in looking over your talk page, I'm impressed -- it looks like you've made some high quality edits on articles I wouldn't touch =). Pretty funny... sounds like we agree on quite a bit (my church at college is OP), and I feel like I've been on Wikipedia for a while, and still, I don't remember ever running into you previously. Anyway, keep up the good work! --Spangineer (háblame) 16:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is, I'm no baseball fan either. My recent edits to that baseball list are the first I've made to a baseball article while here, except for helping Sandy Koufax hit featured status. I'm into the whole featured list idea, and I saw that list and thought, hey, this looks good; I should be able to get this featured in no time with out doing any work. Well, it didn't exactly turn out that way (converting a list to a table and adding data on 260 players/managers is rather time consuming), but I didn't want to just let the nomination die. Normally I spend my time writing about welding and as you noted, doing cleanup. I'm hoping to shift my focus to increase my writing output, but I've been saying that for months and I haven't shifted much =). --Spangineer (háblame) 17:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Historical Jesus article

Hi Mark, I would like to update the Historical Jesus article. Please go to my User:Peter Kirby/Historical Jesus page and look at what I have so far. Please comment on it concerning accuracy and NPOV, and provide other suggestions for improvement. Thanks for your help. --Peter Kirby 16:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's so much cleaner than what you are proposing to replace! For further comment, I'm going to need more time. I'm off to a picnic with the family and my dog, and won't be back until late. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to any comments you may have on the Historical Jesus draft. I would also welcome your comments concerning Gospel of the Hebrews. Thanks. --Peter Kirby 20:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are dense with information. Very impressive. Otherwise, I've replied on your talk-page. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"...we're all Wesleyans now."

from Christianity Today Keith 19:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time off

A sure sign that you are wiki-addicted is the feeling that you need to announce it on your talk page, when you are taking a trip with family. I'll be around for a few more hours, and then I'll be gone until probably Monday (8-22) (Saturday (8-20) at the earliest). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judeo-Christian Churches

MK, I was curious about your recent edit to Lists of Religions. You stated there are no Judeo-Christian churches. When speaking about the LDS Chruch, I find it to be an excellent label. The LDS Church describes itself as the "restored" church of Jesus Christ. Further, it has deep abiding links to Judiasm. I am going to revert your edit, but really would be interested in your thoughts. Storm Rider 06:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and looked; the LDS Church wasn't even listed under Judeo-Christian churches. I did not revert your edit given that I have a limited understanding of both the Adventists and the JW's; my limited understanding does not lead me to believe they have a strong affiliation with ancient Isreal, certainly not compared to the LDS church. Storm Rider 06:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably all Christian churches could describe themselves as judeo-christian, but they really should not do so, for clarity's sake. If any Christian church deserves the label, it should be those that actually practice judaism under the name of Christianity (as the Messianic congregations do). The way that you were using the phrase, it is roughly equivalent to saying "genuine Christianity" - a claim that Wikipedia cannot make. To label any Christian church "judeo-christian" is a point of view, not a neutral description. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly not be my intent. Though the term was used often to describe the early church, including Roman Catholic and I suspect Eastern Orthodox, I have never equated the term to define a church's "genuineness" and possessor of "the" truth. In the case of the LDS church, it more aptly labels their affinity and regard for Israel, the twelve tribes, the priesthood, and temple worship. Further, the label christian explains the foundation upon which the religion is built, Jesus Christ.

However, I would agree with you that it becomes a qualifier without value in the vast majority of discussions with the understanding that all christian religions have been called and can justifiably be called J-C. I have never attached the qualifing value you have, but I guess I will have to find out if that is a common evaluation of the term. Storm Rider 03:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches labelled themselves as "Judeo-christian" churches? That is very unlikely. And I would say that it's just about impossible that they ever called themselves branches of the Judeo-christian churches, as the list had labelled Seventh-day adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.

I won't argue the LDS position. That church seems to make it a virtual policy to use terms in a way that makes no sense to anyone but themselves. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the LDS use of terminology is different from other sects, but exaggeration is seldom helpful in conversation centered on religion. Making no sense seems to be a hallmark of many creeds used by traditional Christianity; however, it is not difficult for a LDS to understand to the positions of other Christian religions and is large part agree with them. There appears to be a stronger affinity to Catholic doctrine than to Protestanism, but that is another subject.

I have never heard/read any use of the term branch of Judeo-Christian church, but rather the evolution of Christianity was Judeo-Christian. I would agree that it is not used commonly today. Further, I would agree with you that JW's and 7's don't use the term commonly...at least I have never run across that terminology. For that matter, the LDS people don't use the term, but I also don't think they would find it inappropriate. I appreciate your thoughts, Michael Storm Rider 07:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suppose that the only Christian groups that would have problems identifying strongly with Jews, Jewishness and Judaism as part of our history would be anti-semitic groups. Anyway, "judeo-christian" is very recently minted terminology. It is not the way that early Christians spoke of their church; rather, it is the way that some moderns speak of the early church - a very different thing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

For the issue of who makes more, or less, sense: there is a many centuries-old context in which to understand "traditional Christianity". Although Protestants do not hold that tradition alongside scripture, we do hold history and historical faith to be the medium through which scripture's meaning is transmitted, defended and preserved. You, on the other hand, want to have it both ways. You find "traditional Christianity" unintelligible, you say that "making no sense seems to be a hallmark of many creeds"; and yet at the same time you make the very strange claim that you have a "stronger affinity to Catholic doctrine" (that is "traditional Christianity" by definition) "than to Protestantism". I'm sure that you know what you mean, Storm Rider; and I suppose that I follow your intention, too; but I cannot say that the distinctive way that you apparently have been taught to use words makes sense. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly to be more direct to ensure mutual comprehension; the Nician Creed is anything but understandable. It is often freely admitted that it is a mystery beyond comprehension, but one that may be apprehended. These are not my words, but I would agree with them. I would also agree that man is not able to comprehend God and so I find it acceptable for Christians to have creeds that are not understandable. However, having said that I would also find it unacceptable for Christian groups to accuse LDS theology as being incomprehensible.

I have heard many times of other ministers couseling their flocks that one must be careful when speaking with Mormons, they too easily speak of Christ, but it is a different Christ. This is utter balderdash. Mormons believe that Jesus is the Son of God and through His grace we are saved. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father. Although when traditional Christians want to start sounding the Trinity as three in one, we can agree, but we will clarify they are one in purpose, but three individuals and thus inherently disagree with the creed.

There are doctrines within Catholicism that the LDS people find great truth. Protestanism has one focus...grace. They succeed in preaching Christ, but I personally find they do little more. It is like dring milk and never getting any meat. That is my PERSONAL feeling; it is not meant to be offensive and I am not interested in any debate. The quality of conversation we enjoy currently is as far as I will go. As a student of religion for most of my life, I strive to understand religion from many perspectives. Although I am LDS, I find comfort and great knowledge in many other religions. When we strive so hard to split hairs on exact definitions without attempting to understand/identify common concepts, principals, and truths we revert to being pharisees...doctors of the law, but without any understanding of the Spirit. Thanks for your time Mark, Storm Rider 03:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You pick on things that you don't like about "traditional Christianity", but in the end you believe nothing worth keeping that hasn't been stolen from those you criticize. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Always good to talk, but based upon this very limited conversation I would say you have no idea what I believe or what I critize. In truth, you are in a very poor position to judge, but if you feel empowered by taking a position capable of condemning others, may the Spirit of Christ accompany you on your journey. Storm Rider 13:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what Mormonism is. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

User:LucaviX vandalized my user page...I asked him to cease and desist but thought it best to also let some administrators know about it. Just FYI. Thanks. KHM03 09:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be trying to get under your skin. Hang on. Meanwhile, I'll watch, and help to keep the peace if I can. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe him that no offense was intended. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but have had some issues with him lately and just think I'd better keep my eyes wide. Thanks....Keith 21:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of your Talk:Christian Reconstructionism edits deleted one of my comments

You might want to make sure, none of your edits were also lost. It appears the software may be acting up. --regards, --Silverback 08:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that I lost some edits, and I'm sorry that I stepped on some of yours, Silverback. Thank you for your concern. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mohler and Justice Sunday

In response to your comment, I annotated the word "ties" to link to the relevant section of the Tony Perkins Article (1996 Jenkins Campaign Finance Scandal), which reads in part: Perkins was the 1996 campaign manager for Republican U. S. Senate hopeful Louis E. "Woody" Jenkins of Louisiana, then a Democratic colleague of Perkins' delegation to the Louisiana House of Representatives, who was running against Mary Landrieu. The campaign was fined $3,000 by the Federal Election Commission for hiding $82,500 in payments to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in return for Duke's mailing list.

See if you think that helps. Alan Canon 14:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What I see is that the Tony Perkins article is one of the most irresponsible articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed or re-wrote the parts that bothered me, which left most of the content. I overstated my opinion, earlier, and I regret that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to: mark, from the anonymous writer

Dear Mark,

I am kdbuffalo. I was getting a little hassled by some Wikipedia members who I wish not to discuss. Nothing major and we are on pretty good terms considering they are atheists and oppose what I compose. I just found I had less problems going anonymous. Please do not mention this to anyone else.

I realize I have been complaining about lack of response to Christian critics. I found however that the liberal christians and skeptics are far more active. For example, there was not a conservative Christianity category until I created it today. I am not "complaining" because I am miffed, angry, etc. I just wanted to rouse the sleeping dragon! LOL I thought the Lord of flies in some ways had busier bees.

By the way, if you want to add Orthodox Presbyterian people to the list of people at conservative Christianity feel free. I am very unknowledgeable in this area.

My page is watched by a spectrum of contributors. The secret is out. Wikipedia is for all practical purposes anonymous anyway. Do you mean that you were being hassled in the real world, beyond Wikipedia? That would be a serious concern that should be immediately brought to the attention of the appropriate people. But if you mean that you were being hassled over your edits, as all of us are, I can assure you that in the long run it will not be better for you to remain anonymous. You may end up having both accounts blocked in the end, which I would very much regret to see.

Anyway, I hate it that I seem to keep contradicting you; you are clearly well-intentioned. But, for example, the category, "Conservative Christianity" is far too ambiguous to be serviceable. I think that it's doubtful that you'll be able to get agreement to the same idea of what is "conservative" across the entire spectrum of "Christianity". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A response to Mark:

I am glad you think I am well intentioned!!! I can say the same about you!! I purposely made "conservative Christianity" ambiguous using words like "many" etc. Perhaps I will change some "manys" to "somes" though! LOL When I sign in as kdbuffalo some atheists admins send me private email in Wikipedia. They are watching me. LOL I am public enemy number #1 but I am not in danger of being burned at the stake yet! LOL It is just mini-hassles I now avoid by going anonymous. Please do not say anything to anyone. I get less edited too.

signed, "the shadow" LOL

from the shadow

I looked at your link.

It said:

Jimbo Wales has said, "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason."

The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are all behaving acceptably.

I do have a good reason. I had a few atheist admins slightly hassle me but we are on pretty good terms. I have no wish to be hassled though nor do I like to see my userpage damaged like KMH03 by the likes of Lucavix. Again, please respect my wishes. I know that Christians are sometimes hassled. I wish not to be. I also behave acceptably and I personally feel I am fairly harmless. LOL

signed, the shadow. LOL

It was not appropriate to refer to KMH03's note on my user page, in your note on Talk:Jesus, in my opinion.

I do not think that you are behaving appropriately when you argue a point on the Jesus page under an anonymous IP, and make an RFC under your legitimate name. If you wish to discuss as a Wikipedian, then adopt your Wikipedian identity to do so. Sock puppets are not Wikipedians. Only your legitimate registered username is a member of the community.

At the very least, please start signing your notes with a link to your anonymous IP's user page, using four tildes. This has the advantage of dating your notes - which especially in controversy is very helpful - and secondly, it makes it more convenient to contact you. You wish to edit articles and debate under an anonymous IP; very well. But please do not frustrate the community by hiding from discussion. Sign with a link to your IP's userpage, please.

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

addendum

Dear mark,

I use many different computer addresses/locations as I use different university computer facilities. It will be impossible to contact me via IP addresses.

I wanted you to know that I do challenge skeptic type remarks via counter evidence. I do this in subject categories that have to do with Bible history. I do occasionaly get flack from this but on the whole my stuff sticks like glue because I cite respectable scholars. I even got some stuff to stick on the atheism subject category. However, I did make the mistake of challenging the evolution hypothesis which is a golden atheist cow at wikipedia and trying to fight it is presently ineffective. That is how I picked up the stalkers. The stalkers disliked my Biblical scientific foreknowledge category and voted for its deletion. I prevailed though because I cited good sources. But this is why I prefer to remain anonymous. I dislike admin stalkers who slightly hassle via several emails to me when I sign on. I also do not appreciate my new subject areas to be arbitrarily challenged when I use my userid by this certain admin.

signed, the shadow. LOL

I would prefer that you would not create new sections for every comment.

You edit and make comments under various IPs. Your edits are linked in the Recent changes to that IP's User|Talk|Contribs. When you make remarks on a talk page, even from an anonymous IP, people may prefer to respond directly. At the very, very least, use five tildes, to time-stamp your comments.

The real irony here is that there is nothing really anonymous about this masquerade. Who doesn't know who you are? You've made it very plain. I'm finding myself becoming annoyed by this silliness. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to: Mark

I thought about it and I am guessing people know who I am because I often do the same things: use footnotes, often cite the same scholars, and I did a wholesale revision to many Christian categories. I am polite and cordial to people but not necessarily to viewpoints (ala Dawkins). I often use humor to deflect anger. I likely have a reputation. However, I still dislike being hassled by those admins. When I sign on anonymously I am hassled 90% less. I will continue to be anonymous. I may create a new username in several months when the atheists admin stalkers forget about me.

Lastly, I do not want to talk about this anonymous thing anymore.

signed the shadow.

They know, because of the way Wikipedia works. They see you signing anonymously to comments you make under your username. They follow the history of edits, and they notice that your username is the original "gentleman". They see your username answering questions asked of the Anon, and vice versa. If you are being harrassed by an admin, have you asked for arbitration? If he is abusive, attempting to use his admin powers to intimidate or bully you into conforming to his bias, have you brought this up for attention? If he has used your email address to intimidate or threaten you, have you let anyone know of this abuse? You have the right to do this. I'm not one of the most active admins here, but I would be glad to try to help you to feel more free to participate fully in the community. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mkmcconn,

I just wanted to thank you for the offer of help. I think I helped Wikipedia become a better place. However, I think God wants me to move on at least at this time. I may take you up on your offer in the future but I don't think it will be necessary. I think getting a huge amount of things stick at Charles Darwin's illness, getting some things to stick at atheism and getting some things to stick at creationism and young earth creationism is what got them riled. When I come back much later under a new name I think if I don't touch those categories (at least under my major ISP adress) I will be fine. I know now that the hard part is not doing all the research to "beef up" the "resurrection of Christ" and other areas but to beat back all the stupid comments and vandalism at the Christianity area. Only God knows if it is worth it and how many people are reached. I wonder if personal evangelism face to face is time better spent. Do you know how many "views" the "Jesus" and "Christianity" sections get a day?

If you want to keep an eye on the sections I think I made some fairly large improvements on or created I would be grateful.

Here are the main ones:

sincerely, kdbuffalo

Talk Page First

Please do not include the "Criticisms of Christianity" segment again without first discussing it on the talk page.

More Christian mythology

Your comments on the current discussion in Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises#A_new_suggestion would be much appreciated. Thanks. JHCC (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You dog. Keith 17:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Human

Mormonism and Christianity

Van Til.

Human

Local meeting

Article Licensing

Image copyrights

January 15 Seattle meetup

Christian ecumenism

Calvinism

Total Depravity and Methodism

Bible verse articles

1 Christianity

Eucharist template

Neo-evangelicalism

Archive

Pew Forum: Myths of the Modern Mega-Church

Thanks

Calvinism template

Restorationism

Christian Zionism

2 Christianity

Apostles Creed

All perspectives are equal; some more than others

toledot

Zoroastrianism

regarding Epistemology Talk

MacArthur

Thanks for finding the perfect win-win solution!

Jesus Talk Page

Jesus

New User

category

Retracted the Jesus article question about editing methods

Common Grace

Blockquotes

L'Abri

Historical Jesus article

"...we're all Wesleyans now."

Time off

Judeo-Christian Churches

Vandalism

One of your Talk:Christian Reconstructionism edits deleted one of my comments

to: mark, from the anonymous writer

from the shadow

addendum

Talk Page First

More Christian mythology