User talk:KHM03/Archive 9

This is ARCHIVE 9 for my talk page....

3 March 06 through 4 April 06.

The Grand Poobah Invites You!

You are hereby invited by the Grand Poobah Avery W. Krouse to announce your membership in the Wikipedia Christian Cabal! Please add your name to the members list. If userboxes are your thing, you may add {{User:Averykrouse/Christian Cabal Box}} to your userpage to declare your allegiance! The Grand Poobah salutes you! --Grand Poobah Avery W. Krouse

Counteroffer

Care to join the Centrist Faction? See User_talk:Jim62sch#Love_Your_Latin and responses for details. Arch O. La 14:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Is it that bad? Must be frustrating for the regulars. Which of my edit was bad? I'm not sure i was changing content but rather fixing refererences and adjusting some POV. Maybe i should just stay clear if i don't know the history? David D. (Talk) 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

KHM03, my intention was not to spam or to simply promote another wiki. I have been meaning to link Wikipedia articles to some of Theopedia's articles so that users can have a source for a conservative and/or different take on an issue. If I am doing something wrong, please let me know and I will refrain from doing it. Thanks. JordanBarrett 00:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why aren't you deleting WikiChristian's links? Theopedia's is exactly the same as this one, is it not? I understand that I cannot just add Theopedia all over the place. What if I want to add it to an external link on one page, can I do this? JordanBarrett 00:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it's the same thing in that it is another Christian wiki portraying a different point of view. WikiChristian's isn't the same, hence why I posted Theopedia's. Furthermore, Reformed theology's view of God is not different from the majority of Protestant Christianity except in its understanding of God's sovereignty. I don't understand why we can't allow users here at Wikipedia to link to Theopedia and read a different viewpoint. Do all of Wikipedia's articles have to link to something that gives a complete representation of a community (e.g., Christianity)? This is not what I've seen elsewhere. JordanBarrett 01:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think you're missing what I'm saying, but so be it. It's obvious Wikipedia isn't to be a linkfarm. However, if the (or a) Christian view is not presented under "External links" would it be ok for me to link to Theopedia, WikiChristian, or Orthodoxwiki for that matter? Or is this spam? I truly want to be fair and go by the rules here, but this appears to be a hard line to walk. I'm trying nonetheless. JordanBarrett 05:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't think you are qualified to make the judgment call here. I did some background checking, and about a year ago I saw that you were asked to leave Theopedia if you were going to continue promoting Wesleyan theology. I'm not saying that you are playing sides here (I can't be sure), but with your past with Theopedia I don't think you are qualified to be a fair judge. I would rather have a different Admin make the call on this, even if it means the same one you made. I'll see what I can do. JordanBarrett 03:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John 3:16

There is ongoing debate on paragraph 3 of the Jesus article (especially salvation and John 3:16) Arch O. La ^Talk TCF 03:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet request

Yes, Raisinman was a sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo. I've blocked that sockpuppet, and another one he was using for similar edit-warring. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, KHM03. I see Jayjg has answered you before I got round to making a comment. Apologies for ignoring your message. I was going to answer last night, but I had had a very busy day, and my eyes started closing. What I was going to say, before the checkuser result came through, was that I understood that if you have prior experience of Kdbuffalo, and knew that he uses sockpuppets, then you'd be likely to "smell" sockpuppetry before I would. Based on my limited knowledge of the situation, there wasn't enough evidence to start sticking sockpuppet templates on his user page. But I was sure you wouldn't condone it unless there was more to it than I was aware of. I remember several months ago reading a discussion between two administrators that I respected (Mel Etitis and Sam Korn) about the appropriateness of using those templates before there's proof, and I found myself in silent agreement with the one who was arguing against it. Anyway I do agree that it's important for Giovanni, Robsteadman, etc. to see that the "Christian" suspected sockpuppets are treated the same way as the "atheist" suspected sockpuppets, so thanks for making the request.

By the way, I haven't been trying to e-mail you, but just thought I'd let you know that it's currently not possible for a user to e-mail you through Wikiepdia, because some security changes were brought in recently, requiring all users to validate their e-mail addresses. You haven't done that yet. If you go to "e-mail this user" from your user page, you'll see that it's disabled. If you've decided that you don't want people to be able to e-mail you through Wikipedia any more, fine. If not, then you should go to your watchlist, see the notice at the top, and follow instructions. You'll then get an e-mail from Wikipedia, giving you a link to open. That's all that's required. (I must tell that to Str also.) Cheers, AnnH ♫ 13:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last question, I would say, undoubtedly. By the way, your e-mail still hasn't been enabled. When you clicked on "mail a confirmation code", did you then receive an e-mail from Wikipedia? And did you then click on the link in that e-mail? AnnH ♫ 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that I've asked him about RTS and he says it's not him. As for NPOV77 the typing has a "non native english speaker" feel to it. Not quite sure why and maybe I'm wrong. However both are so obviously OTT and "our friend" does have a few enemies from outside wiki so maybe they are wind up accounts. Something 'aint right. On my computer systems I'd have nailed them down - it's frustrating not to be able to get to the information needed. Having said that I don't envy the admins here! SOPHIA 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there have been socks and rumors of socks. It's getting difficult to separate fact from suspicion. Especially when one does not have access to the facts. ;( Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dirty socks. Based on Proverbs 26:22 (and surrounding verses), I'd prefer not to get involved. But, on another topic... Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent Life Ethic

...I clicked on the "Consistent Life Ethic" link on your front page and found that this affirmed many of my own views. I'm not sure about the part about war. The page said that some CLE-ers are pacifist and others are against unjust war. I fall into the latter camp. My views on just vs. unjust war are based on St. Augustine; I see just war among nations as morally equivalent to self-defense among individuals. I'm not sure how well this fits with CLE.

I've always just called myself pro-life, although I've had to say "pro-life beyond anti-abortion." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm two generations removed from Mennonites on my father's side of the family (including a great-grandfather who was a Mennonite preacher), so I can see both sides. The Lutheranism comes from my mother's side of the family; Mom and her friend Chris brought Dad and his brother Bill into Lutheranism. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up?

If you want to see what that guy's on about, just check the histories for Last Supper or Sermon on the Mount... He's just been blocked twice, but still prefers edit warring to discussion... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice, i have made EVERY ATTEMPT to discuss with Codex, he just refuses to reply to any of my comments. (posted by User:134.161.241.176)

oops sorry about that 134.161.241.176 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Jessequick.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jessequick.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 05:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi, KHM03. Have you ever thought of linking your signature to your talk page? I sometimes think you should, because your messages are often the kind that I could reply to instantly. See here if you're interested. And by the way, I checked, and the e-mail link is fine now. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 12:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ann! KHM03 ^(talk) 18:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaving a message for Woohookitty, and I saw a signature that interested me just two messages above mine. I clicked on "edit this section", so that I could see the coding, and then I modified it and tried out a few versions on some page using "preview", and then pasted

[[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]]

into my signature in "preferences", making sure that raw signature was clicked, and that was all. I'm sure there are other symbols that could be used, but I wouldn't know where to find them. I don't care for the really flashy signatures that some users have, but I'm quite pleased with mine now. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM

Hi,

You sent me a message regarding SPAM and stated that I may not link to a page on my own web site.

If this is the case, how can the protest warriors link to their web site? It's the very first link? Wouldn't their whole wikipedia article be considered SPAM if my critical link is?

Please advise.

Thanks,

Rev

Please review this. KHM03 ^(talk) 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I added my part to the "reactions" section of the protest warrior article.

Is that acceptable?

Please advise.

Thanks, Rev

Hi,

I'm brand new so I don't really have a clue what I'm doing yet. I don't know what internal links are.

So, are you saying that I can't add those links, but someone else can?

Rev

My RfA

Hi KHM03. A Steelers fan, eh? I'm proud to say I was on the bandwagon a full three weeks before the Super Bowl! ;) Seriously though, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed earlier this morning. If there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. ×Meegs 10:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

File:Re-exposure of elephant - lahugala park1.jpg

I think I'm the one on its head.

Thanks for your support in my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with the new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me. Flower party■ 17:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bishops of the United Methodist Church

List of Bishops of the United Methodist Church Please see my response to yours and others' suggestions for disambiguation on this page. Glad for your interest! Pastorwayne 13:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't spam

I won't bother to submit to your area again. You won't see spam in my page because you won't see this argument anywhere else, as it is unique. But I really don't have time to add the truth to your article, though without it you cannot understand the limits of anabaptist thought. Gary

John Owen

Again, you cannot understand the "gospel" of John Owen by relying on other sources. If you wish to dilute the knowledge of the truth I will be happy to oblige and go away. I will just debate elsewhere. Your articles on Owen, Luther, and all the others cannot reveal the truth unless you allow my sites to be listed. Again, I am not interested in making money. If you look at http://www.newcovenanttheology.com in the upper left corner you will see that the gospel is not for sale. I hope you haven't sold the gospel.

While I am emailing you you may as well know the truth straight up. The "gospels" of free will and law preaching are gospels that are false. They deny grace and you are misleading thousands by your failure to acknowledge these truths. And you are misleading yourself. Remember my words. Gary

Chistos Meant Athlete Rubbed with oil

This is not nonsense. In Secular Greek Christos indicated an Athlete rubbed with oil. You can take some classics courses if you need. (posted by anonymous vandal User:24.61.71.99) I have been studying ancient Greek for over twenty five years. I know what I am talking about.

Oh yes it is nonsense. "Christos" (Χριστός) has nothing to do with athletes, at least no more than with any person who was oiled. It merely means "oiled", "anointed". It is regularly applied, yes, to athletes, but also to priests and kings who are ceremonially anointed with oil. The verb (χρίειν) means "to oil", "to anoint", and chrisma (χρίσμα), has passed into English as chrism — see any dictionary. Bill 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My spelling mistakes!

Thanks for your corrections. Just wait until I catch you using a greengrocers' apostrophe, and I'll get my revenge then! AnnH ♫ 13:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Successful RfA

Thanks for your support on my recent RfA, which I am pleased to say passed with a final tally of 80/1/1. If you ever need any help, or if I mess something up as an admin, please let me know.

Cactus.man ✍ 07:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin now!!

Thanks for voting on my RFA and helping me become an admin. The final tally was 108-0-1 (putting me on the WP:100 list). I hope to do my best in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. Thanks again, Gator (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of the Covenant Theology article

I'm working on a revision of the Covenant Theology article. The current version is unsatisfactory. If you are interested in giving feedback and helping with the revision, see User:Guðsþegn/Covenant Theology. You can leave comments on the discussion page there. I've been working on it for about a week. It will probably be at least another week before it is ready to be posted. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 23:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks KHM03/Archive 9

Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores ^Talk 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Saintpauloftarsus.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Saintpauloftarsus.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 13:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I've never done one either so it will be trial and error! We have the same editors covering multiple pages so the articles I was going to ask for comment on would be Jesus, Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, Christianity, Early Christianity and Jesus-Myth. It's alot of pages but the same people are turning up at all of them and the disputes are pretty much the same. Contested scholarship and how to balance the mainstream/fringe/new research views.

I will give everone the link when I have made it as we need to get as many involved as possible to get a neutral view on all aspects of current conflict. Hopefully in the long run it will save us all alot of time. Sophia^TalkTCF 13:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Experts"

Not to beat a dead horse--but someone with an academic position is no more automatically an "expert" than someone with a published book. There are more and less reputable academic institutions, and there are tenured cranks at the reputable ones. In every case one has to make judgments about the reliability of sources--there's no automatic test. I doubt you'd actually say that every academic is automatically reputable, but that's no more or less silly than saying that every non-academic is automatically non-reputable. Turning your back on the wealth of information produced by non-academics is like burning the Library of Alexandria.

I also take issue with your saying that "it doesn't matter what we think." If a reasonable person can't judge evidence, then the Wikipedia project (not to mention the jury system) is doomed. Sure, we look at what others in the field think--but we necessarily use our judgment in evaluating who to look at and what to make of what they say. There's a great deal of subjectivity involved in making an encyclopedia, inevitably. Nareek 19:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not every institution is equal...a doctorate from Duke or Harvard or Cambridge is far more "legitimate" than one from "George Smith's Bible College and Merchandise". But a doctoral degree from a reputable institution matters, as would a professorship at a reputable institution. We need to take these folks seriously, whether or not we agree with them. Yes, there is something to be gained from listening to "non-academics", but that doesn't mean we can call them scholars or experts.

Yes, there's subjectivity involved in Wikipedia, but when we state opinions and positions (and, depending on the article, facts) in articles, we simply cannot state what we think (see WP:NOR). This isn't the KHM03 Encyclopedia or the Nareek Encyclopeia; it's a broad project which relies on the editors reiterating what "experts" have said about a variety of subjects. We also have to deal with this policy and this one, which really hurts the Freke/Gandy/Jesus myth supporters...and these are Wikipedia's policies, not mine.

Hope this helps...KHM03 (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move for RCC

KHM03, please visit Talk:Roman Catholic Church#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church again. If voters don't start responding to my actual case (laid out in the discussion section), and explain to me why Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of Christ, and similar articles, should be titled by their claimed names--even though they can be ambiguous--but the Catholic Church should not be extended the same treatment, then I will begin proposing moves for those articles, as well. Merely for the sake of consistently applying this new de facto policy we are inventing for this article. Also see Robertsrussell's point on this double standard at the top of the page. --Hyphen5 09:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You stated on my talk page..."If voters don't start responding to my actual case (laid out in the discussion section), and explain to me why Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of Christ, and similar articles, should be titled by their claimed names--even though they can be ambiguous--but the Catholic Church should not be extended the same treatment, then I will begin proposing moves for those articles, as well." Please review WP:POINT. You called for a vote; any editor can vote any way they choose for any reason they choose, regardless of how you feel. I will make some administrators aware of your plan to disrupt Wikipedia to prove your point (please review the policy). KHM03 (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KHM03, I'm glad you're calling this matter to the attention of administrators. This is an example of a huge double standard on the part of you and other "no" voters. I will not speculate about your motives. But you didn't even read, or respond to, my rationale. What, then, is the point of voting? Regarding WP:POINT, calling for votes is hardly a disruption of Wikipedia. It is a demand for consistency. --Hyphen5 21:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Should we have disambig pages at Orthodox Church and Church of Christ also? To redirect to all the churches that claim to be orthodox and "of Christ"? Look, I've never had a problem with discussion of small-c "catholic" at Catholic (even though we are normally supposed to redirect adjectives to nouns) or at Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. All I'm asking for is for Catholic Church to be extended the same courtesies as the rest of the Churches that claim possibly ambiguous names. According to the Google test (40m hits for "Catholic Church", only 10m for "Roman Catholic Church") and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) (which states: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?"), we should err on the side of "Catholic Church". --Hyphen5 22:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm trying to do by these private arguments! But now you seem to be throwing in the towel. Nobody in the actual VOTING is responding to my points, so it's impossible to gain a consensus. --Hyphen5 22:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Stop bad-mouthing me

Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you should go around on all these talk pages bad-mouthing me. None of you on the pro-status quo side have made a case from the naming conventions that the article should remain where it is. I have pointed out inconsistencies and you have all ignored them. I am trying to mediate the dispute because that's what one is supposed to do. This is a perennial dispute, and it's not going away, because the title of Roman Catholic Church is simply and flat-out wrong, no matter how many of you vote otherwise. If you stopped being so obstructionist, and so hostile, maybe we could come to an agreement. MEDIATION is COOPERATIVE. You clearly have no interest in cooperating in any of this. --Hyphen5 03:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "bad mouthed" you at all; you called for a vote, failed to build consensus, and lost the vote. Refusing to abide by the results of your own vote, you've endeavored to disrupt Wikipedia by taking the issue to numerous places. Mediation was unnecessary because a clear, strong consensus emerged. Please review WP:POINT when you have time. Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
SteveBot (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Fasten 13:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the article that was vandalized

Hi, KHM03. I don't know if this is of any interest to you, but I was about to send a test1 message to the anon who inserted sdfg hjkl (or something like that) into Christianity, and I got an edit conflict and saw that you had beaten me to it. You can make the messages more relevant by using {{subst:test1-n|Christianity}}, {{subst:test2-n|Adolf Hitler}}, {{subst:bv-n|Jesus}}, etc. It's basically the same message, but it inserts the name of the article that was vandalized, as in this example.

You may, of course, already know that, and just choose not to use it, as the other is quicker. I sometimes don't bother, especially if someone has vandalized several different articles. AnnH ♫ 22:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am a fellow methodist- a preachers kid. Feel free to talk on my discussion page: User:Valento

Wikireason Debate link

Please stop removing the wiki debate link to Wikireason: God. If you want to remove it please state your reason why it souldnt be added. And allow the community to decide. I know you are evangelical and maybe you dont like the idea of debating the revelance of God. doing so might threaten your supernatural imposition for his existence. H0riz0n

I'm happy to allow debate, but not in violation of WP policy, as your linking has been. Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a wiki sentinel!

KHM03, while you and I have differing theological views I certainly appreciate your edit Revision as of 01:14, 2 April 2006 KHM03 (rv inaccurate/POV edits) on Baptism.

Specifically I am referring to your change from

Those who believe that baptism is an "outward sign of an inward grace" often make the claim that the classic interpretation of baptism by the Churches of Christ results in a works-based salvation. However, it seems Paul is saying baptism is really a working of God - and not man - in the Col. 2 passage.

To the following

There is a movement within Churches of Christ recently which acknowledges that while God did in fact command baptism, He saves us at the point of faith. To understand baptism in the 'classic' Church of Christ sense is painfully close to a works based salvation and that view is beginning to fade.

We need more sentinels such as your self to replace bias with fact.

Criticism of Christianity

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism.If you want to remove something please go through the talk page first do not remove things without discussion just because you dont agree to it. Thank you.Mystic 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not falsely accuse me (or any user) of vandalism; please review WP:VANDALISM. Please also review WP:CIV and WP:NPA. The content on Criticism of Christianity was removed because it was inaccurate and, more importantly, because it was misplaced on the article, and should have been included at Criticism of the Bible (or at least discussed there). I will join the discussion, of course, but will also exercise my right to delete inaccurate or inappropriate material. KHM03 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi

Thanks for the message you sent about my edits. I am very new to this -not only wikipedia but the whole internet thing, so forgive me if I make too make mistakes. I am very interested in the development of wiki so as I learn more I hope to get more involved.

Clare Williams 12:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Christianity

I reverted the edits by user Arsath as they were poorly written and just seemed to be making a badly worded OR point. I took it back to your last edit but can you just check that you are OK with it without the warning tag? If I've missed anything let me know and I'll sort it. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]