User talk:Ancos

Local Church controversies

Hi Ancos, Thanks for adding the information about the 1980 lawsuit. While I certainly appreciate the new information, I wanted to ask if you know where it came from (A news article? A book?) Ideally, everything in the article should be verified and have a source (I know it doesn't live up to that ideal, but we're working on it). So, would you mind providing a reference for the 1980 lawsuit? You can read a quick example of how to cite things here: Footnotes - How to write them. Thank you, -- Joren (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work. The info is from Local Church itself: contendingforthefaith.com/libel-litigations/god-men/index.html Ancos (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the URL, I have made it into a proper citation. However, I must ask you in the future to please never again copy and paste sentences into Wikipedia. It creates legal problems for us, since we will be accused of violating copyright. I have fixed the problem for now, and have added a reference; you may view my edit and the reference here. Thank you again for your contribution and I hope you continue to improve our coverage of these topics.

-- Joren (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The reason I maintained the sentence from the source was I had seen people (presumably closely related the organization discussed) accusing other people of altering the sentence from their organization. According to the rule, the sentence can be copied if the source is cited. Ancos (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the sentence would need to be in quotes.

In any case, thanks for your efforts :)

-- Joren (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, me again. I saw your edit here: [1]. Unfortunately, just saying "SCP" doesn't show the reader how to find the information; what publication is it in? Is this a URL? A book? A newsletter? What issue? When was it written? Again, I'd encourage you to read WP:Citing sources. If you have any questions you can always ask. Thanks,

-- Joren (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention. I did not write SCP, but I wrote Spiritual Counterfeits Projects. The internal Wikipedia link to the Spiritual Counterfeits Project Wikipedia article was provided by you in "Local Church Controversies" Wikipedia article just yesterday and I just used it.

I was abbreviating, but either way, you can't just write an organization name as a source, nor can you use a Wikipedia article as a reference. A source needs to be a link to something other than Wikipedia; cotherwise Wikipedia would just be referencing itself, which isn't allowed because it could easily lead to the citational equivalent of begging the question. I have fixed it for now; in the future, please cite sources yourself. Thanks,

-- Joren (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the "Citing sources" guidelines, Wikipedia article can be used as reference as quoted: any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context.

Your contributed article, Kingmaker (computer game)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Kingmaker (computer game). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Kingmaker (board game)#Computer Game. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Kingmaker (board game)#Computer Game - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. NtheP (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hi, saw your edit at Local Church controversies. I agree the article needs better coverage of the doctrinal issues that have given rise to controversy (even though the "Orthodoxy" section kind of addresses it, it does not get to the root of the controversies, but rather seems to mostly talk about the *people* involved rather than the issues.

However, we have to be careful to use verifiable and reliable sources. I wish we had more! I've tried to find more sources that address their specific doctrine, but it's hard to find sources that aren't skewed either anti- or pro- local churches. If we DO use pro- and anti- sources (which we already do, especially with the Open Letter stuff), we have to be careful to include both sides and avoid taking a position as Wikipedia. (i.e. instead of saying "they are unorthodox" we have to let the reader decide for themselves; e.g. "so-and-so says they are unorthodox, for these reasons: _____" and "the local churches respond by saying that ____" would be a possible way of doing this)

Anyway, do you have sources? (Specific articles? Books? Journal publications?) We really need to cover the Trinitarian issues in more depth, but we can't do that without sources :/ - thanks for your efforts to improve the article, and I hope we will be able to work on this!

-- Joren (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

On monarchianism:

"The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism. When the Spirit of God is joined with us, God is not left behind, nor does Christ remain on the throne. This is the impression Christianity gives. They think of the Father as one Person, sending the Son, another Person, to accomplish redemption, after which the Son sends the Spirit, yet another Person. The Spirit, in traditional thinking, comes into the believers, while the Father and Son are left on the throne. When believers pray, they are taught to bow before the Father and pray in the name of the Son. To split Godhead into these separate Persons is not the revelation of the Bible."

Source: Life Messages, p. 165, 1979 (Local Church publication)

"the entire Godhead, the Triune God, became flesh."

Source: God's New Testament Economy, p. 230, 1986 (Local Church publication)

"The Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit."

Source: Concerning the Triune God, p. 18, 1973 (Local Church publication)

On man become God (apothesis):

"We are born of God; hence, in this sense, we are God."

Source: A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing, p. 53, 1990 (Local Church publication)

Ancos (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotations. By the way, do you have access to these books? If not, I was able to find them in Google Books, which proved most helpful. To provide context, I have edited the page to give longer quotes. You can see the quotations in "References"... I had to alter some of the claims to match what the quotes actually say (e.g. deification).

We still need a source that claims this teaching is the same as "apotheosis" (I did include the term "deification", which the book does use). And a source that claims this teaching of the Trinity is the same as "monarchianism". Just saying it is similar to monarchianism and sourcing it to Witness Lee implies that Witness Lee himself says it is similar to monarchianism (he apparently did not...). Instead, it would be good to directly cite those people who DO make that claim (Ministers? Seminaries? Theological journals? Christian press of some kind?) Thanks for your help, those quotes will make the controversy section a bit more rigorous.

-- Joren (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ancos. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 00:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There are FOUR Gospels!

Hi Ancos. I understand where your confusion is coming from, I've been there too, but please do read a bit more about the topic. I would suggest you do that and change back your amendments to Umm Qais regarding the "country of the Gadarenes" or "Gerasenes" or even Origen's "Gergesa". The four Evangelists (authors of the 4 Gospels) wrote at different points in time, from different places around the eastern Med, not all four knew the geography of Palestine and inaccuracies sneaked in. One wrote "Gadarenes", the other "Gerasenes". Your comments are logical from the point of view of a 2015 Web user, but they didn't have access to all the details available to you, contradicting each other at times. People like Origen tried to find solutions to those contradictions. So this is indeed such a case. It's also true that both cities, Gerasa AND Gadara, are a bit too far from the lake. There might be that Gadara had a port serving its needs near the southern tip of the lake, same as it did have a "hot springs resort" down the hill at al-Hamma/Hammat Gader, but the port theory hasn't been fully proven. Anyhow, if the Byzantine monastery at Kursi is indeed at the site of the Miracle of the Swine, then it's not at all at the southern tip of the lake, but much farther up the eastern shore. There might have been a town called Gergesa there, or maybe some lands owned somehow by Gadara far from its main territory, although Hippos, a fellow Decapolis city, lay smack in between, but who knows. We're still speculating, no less than poor old Origen. So go and check the existing sources and then please do go back and undo your changes. You're welcome to improve the wording, but the old version was factually correct, yours not really. I'm looking forward to see what you've done. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Thank you for your suggestion. Umm Qais is not a place to talk about how many gospels. The article refers Umm Qais to Gadara. Gadara is not Gerasa, thus there is no point to mention about Gerasa. Existing reference has been supplemented with source that talks about Gadara. Also "three-hour walk" is more to personal opinion and may be affected by gender, age, nation or even time like you say (2015 vs ancient time). Ancos (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ancos. 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)