User talk:KJBIBLE1611

Welcome!

Hello, KJBIBLE1611, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sinner's prayer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

<ref> The Sinner's Prayer: A Historical and Theological Analysis, Paul Harrison Chitwood. (Ph. D. Diss, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001 [http://faithsaves.net/sinners-prayer-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KJBIBLE1611, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi KJBIBLE1611! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Asking Jesus into one's heart. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 12:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bondaea,

I am glad that you want the wikipedia content to be accurate; that is good. I am new to editing wikipedia, and I don't know if this is the way to respond to your comment. Since I have studied the subject in this Wikipedia article to a significant extent, and have interacted with many others on it, and taught on it in seminary classes in advanced Greek exegesis courses and undergraduate courses in Koine Greek, I did post material related to it that I also placed on my website. However, I did not write the doctoral dissertation that relates to this topic that is found there, nor did I write the article by Ovid Need I also linked to. Nor have I ever met the author of this dissertation nor the author of the article in my life, and they actually both possess theological positions with which I differ in significant ways. I am not sure why the article here is improved by removing all references to a doctoral dissertation on the subject--it rather appears to me to be significantly weakened. If you believe it is good to remove the one article that I authored on the subject, simply because I authored it, that is fine, I suppose, although it represents what is close to a consensus in evangelical scholarship, but I don't see why the other material should be removed. I am fully aware that search engines ignore external links on Wikipedia pages. I appreciate your desire to keep and increase the quality of Wikipedia articles by preventing them from degenerating into irrelevant advertising of external material or extraneous content; however, I do not think that my edits fit into that category. Perhaps it would be well to reconsider the wholesale deletions that were put in place here. Thanks again.

If I can chime in here, self-published tracts and pamphlets are generally not appropriate for Wikipedia. A doctoral dissertation generally is, but the problem with the Chitwood reference is the citation. It would be much better to cite Chitwood directly. St Anselm (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear St.Anselm,

Thanks for the comment. I thought that the summary of Chitwood was useful, and the button to download the dissertation was conveniently placed at the top of the link. What you said is worth thinking about, though. KJBIBLE1611 (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing is that Chitwood is speaking much more generally about the sinner's prayer than about the specific issue of inviting Jesus into one's heart. Perhaps the statements "the concept of bringing or inviting "Jesus into your heart" is one that does not occur readily before the turn of the twentieth century" (pp 43-44) and "seems to have become the common way of expressing conversion by the mid-part of the twentieth century" (p. 48) are worth including, but I don't see much else. St Anselm (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and added Chitwood. St Anselm (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are back to (over?)citing faithsaves.net and wondering whether that is particularly useful, and in line with Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

On checking what your editing pattern, it is

whatadded KJBIBLE1611

107 records; Domains added by KJBIBLE1611: faithsaves.net (92), kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com (4), libcfl.com (2), christianity.stackexchange.com (2), pneumareview.com (2), andynaselli.com (2), indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com (2), books.google.com (1).

and for the domain itself

whoadded faithsaves.net

97 records; Editors who have added faithsaves.net: KJBIBLE1611 (92), Ltwin (3), Leszek JaÅczuk (1), ClueBot NG (1).

Good researchers would not be concentrating their efforts on a single site of resources. Should I be pointing to the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? It certainly feels that way. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Billinghurst,

Thanks for the comment. I appreciate your concern that we avoide conflicts of interest, etc. While I think that in every case what I have cited is totally relevant and very helpful to the articles, I can see how it could look like bias. I would point out that there is not just one author, but various authors, etc. that I have cited from that webpage, sort of like if one cited Google Books or archive.org a lot with different writers. Thus, I don't think it is a problem, but I will keep what you said here in mind and try to cite a higher variety of webpages to avoid people coming away with the feeling you have expressed. Thanks for the comment.KJBIBLE1611 (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Life Theology page

Hey KJBIBLE1611,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your message. My "job" on Wikipedia is less to do with adding specific content and more to do with spotting problematic behavior and dealing with it across the project. Your edits came across my screen and warning flags went up.

Whenever every edit someone makes uses the same source for a citation that generally spells problems. In every single case I've looked into (with one slight exception) it has always been the case that the person is indeed spamming their cite or their publications (including scholarly papers they've written). Which is not to say that people are doing so with bad intentions but it is still happening and it is against Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

From reading your message to me I can see that this issue is a bit more complex. You (or whoever runs faithsaves.net) appear to be storing a number of academic sources on that site which you then link to. My first concern then is wondering if this violates the copyrights of those authors. We are not allowed to link to sites that house copyright violations.

But even if the copyright situation is fine the fact remains that you are still sending traffic to that website and it appears that there might be a conflict of interest somewhere in all this mess.

If you think these are good sources (a point which I'm not even discussing), then finding a better place to store them that doesn't come across so spammy is the ideal approach. If you are one of the authors or associated with faithsaves.net then you need to identify yourself as such and begin working within Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to avoid any hint of impropriety. A lot of people attempt to use Wikipedia to promote themselves both commercially and professionally and it's something we must be vigilant about stopping.

Also, whenever another new editor comes along and reverts edits like I made that's usually a sign that either the original editor (in this case: you) has created another account in order to look less suspicious or has asked someone to help out. Either of these is also against Wikipedia policy and is a bannable offence. I'm not saying that this is what has happened but again, it looks suspicious. SQGibbon (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SQGibbon,

Thanks for the reply. I have been working like a madman on two Biblical Hebrew classes I'm slated to teach, and a class on Biblical manuscript evidence and have not had much time to get back over here and reply. I can definitely see why you did what you did as someone who is doing a good job as a volunteer for Wikipedia; I think someone who was a Higher Life Theology scholar would not have reverted the edit, but I can see why you did it based on your explanation.

There are no copyright violations on faithsaves.net that I'm aware of. I'm also not the person who reverted the edits (although I sure would like to do it so that the time I spent making this article better doesn't go to waste!). I can definitely see why, as someone who can't judge the content of the article but is concerned about the looks of things, is suspicious. I would be happy, when I have the time to do it, to add links and references to other resources so that my edit doesn't look spammy. I appreciate your wanting to keep Wikipedia from becoming a bunch of spam--that's really good. I think that the material that I linked to is probably the best place on the web for those particular sources, so I wouldn't want to remove them; I would highly suggest that you revert them yourself. For example, the Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield's articles that are compiled in his Studies in Perfectionism are in the public domain in a whole bunch of different places, but I don't see them all put together on one page except for where I linked to them. However, I would be happy to add stuff from elsewhere also so that I don't look like a spammer, improving the article even more (it could still use more improvement for sure.)KJBIBLE1611 (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC) I am much less likely to spend the time to do it, though, if I think that the work I put in is going to go to waste. I can in good conscience say that the article with my edit is indubitably much better, and I think I spent several hours doing it, if I remember correctly, so spending the time on something like this to improve articles in my fields of interest is something I'm happy to do if the improvements remain for the rest of the world; not so much if they disappear in a few hours.[reply]

Thanks again for your concern to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can be. That's great!

Below is something I posted on SQGibbon's talk page, which he removed; since it is relevant to this edit, I have replaced it here. I am not a Wikipedia expert and have no idea if it is better here or there, but I think it should be somewhere.

Dear SQGibbon,

I appreciate your desire to avoid Wikipedia getting spam material, which you expressed in your removal of my recent edit of the Wikipedia article on Higher Life theology, and which you stated again when another user, Didaskalos7, restored what you removed because that user believed it was solid material. While your desire is highly commendable, I would like to suggest that in this case it is unequivocally mistaken.

First, I would like to point out that, in addition to teaching seminary classes, I have spent countless hours studying this movement, and the relevant Scripture texts on sanctification, and thus am well aware of the relevant primary and secondary literature, having possibly examined c. 100,000 pages of it. I trust that you are similarly well informed and that is why you are involved in editing the article. Of course, we would do well to edit only in our areas of expertise.

Please note that the top of the page states: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

I added key literature with extensive citations to primary and secondary sources. For example, in the sentence:

"In the 1870s William Boardman, author of The Higher Christian Life began his own evangelistic campaign in England, bringing with him Robert Pearsall Smith and his wife, Hannah Whitall Smith, to help spread the holiness message."

I added citations from a scholarly and definitive doctoral dissertation on the Higher Life movement that dealt with, in about 100 pages each or so, with Boardman and Hannah and Robert Smith. The article also made reference to the Broadlands Convention, and I provided a scholarly source that has many pages of material on that convention. I find it incomprehensible that this material was removed.

In the critique section, I added two of the most central critiques of the Higher Life movement, and posted links to the web pages where those were available online. I also added the Higher Life responses to those critiques because I want the article to be balanced. I am very surprised that these were removed.

I added material and references by Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal, and Anglican scholars. As someone who, I trust, has studied this field of theology, you know very well that the works I cited were some of the standard ones anyone who wishes to get into an examination of this historical movement must read. This is why I find it very difficult to understand why you would remove these references and improvements to the article and revert it to its far worse and far more incomplete state.

I believe that you were concerned that some of the sources were from a single website. If you find Warfield's Studies in Perfectionism online for free on some other website, by all means link to that one instead if the material is equally well laid out and equally readable. I found it very well laid out and readable on the site I linked to, and many people all over the world have found that site to contain excellent scholarship (as do, of course, many other websites.) If you find the doctoral dissertation by Ross somewhere else on the web, by all means link to that other website instead. I believe that anyone in this field would know very well that the sources provided are essential reading, which is why I confess I find it very strange to have everything added here deleted and the article returned to a worse state simply because I pulled doctoral material and theological journal material from a website that happened to have all of it on there.

You stated that you were not sure if the sources were reliable. There are thousands of references in the Ross dissertation, and many by Warfield, etc. also. If you can find a single one that is significantly out of context, then perhaps we should indeed be concerned about reliability. If you did not check the sources for the quotations--and usually doctoral students tend to be careful not to misquote people as their doctoral committees tend not to look well on such things--I am very surprised that you would state that the reliability of these sources is questionable. What were the sources you found misquoted? What percentage of the material was misquoted? What other scholars have complained about these sources misquoting?

Again, while I have no idea who you are, I would want to assume that you are editing this article because you are a scholar in this field. Whether or not you personally believe in Higher Life theology, let's work together to make this a better article rather than deleting useful scholarly information and leaving the work impoverished. If you think there are too many citations from one perspective, by all means please add scholarly ones from another point of view. Let's not just delete what clearly improves the article. Again, I appreciate the fact that you don't want Wikipedia spammed. I cannot imagine any scholar I know on this topic thinking that these additions were spam. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJBIBLE1611 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)KJBIBLE1611 (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]