User talk:Nathankyle2188

Welcome!

Hello, Nathankyle2188, 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 16:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Nathan Kyle Bailey has been reverted.
Your edit here to Nathan Kyle Bailey was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/the-corporate-view-of-election/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Nathan Kyle Bailey, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 21:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Soteriological Traditionalism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Soteriological Traditionalism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soteriological Traditionalism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dolescum (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further remarks the Soteriological Traditionalism article

Hi NathanKyle2188, I'm still not ready to withdraw the nomination. I've been quietly watching that wall of text you've been writing on the deletion discussion page grow and waiting for you decide you'd finished before responding. I can respond here if you'd prefer, but if you've concluded your arguments, I can start to elaborate on my concerns there as I planned. Entirely your choice, though I would rather comment on the deletion discussion, simply to allow other editors their space to contribute. One thing I will remark on is that even if the text does end up deleted, all is not lost. WP:REFUND is available to retrieve your article and WP:AFC has a team of experienced editors to help critique the submissions of new users. Dolescum (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Dolscum. I would like the opportunity to work this out before risking a deletion if possible. Are there any revisions that can be done to make the article more acceptable? Should I re-post it under a new Title? Myself and other protestant theologians have referred to this view as soteriological tradisionalism for some time now, but if it is necessary I can re-post the article under a name that is more consistent with "The Traditional Southern Baptist View of Soteriology" as it was titled in the scholarly publications cited in the article. The reason I think that title is unhelpful is because their are many adherents to Soteriologial Traditionalism which are affiliated with other denominations that do not consider it a baptist soteriology, although it began that way. So the current title addresses the viewpoint in a more interdenominational sense. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, let me run over quick synopsis for you. Okay to begin with, I'm not generally sold that the sourcing is compliant with our reliable sources criteria. Those, in the main, look like primary sources rather than secondaries, from those involved with the theology. This impacts on our notability criteria, where sources should be secondaries and independent to establish that a subject is important enough to warrant its own article. While I have noted that the journal articles you posted do seem to talk around the subject, my admittedly quick scan of documents indicated some discussion around the subject of Soteriology and traditionalist tendencies in considering such ( as did some of the hits from google ), I didn't spot anything to suggest a specific theological movement of this title. Couple this with the reliance on primary sources above, and that's where I start to see a synthesis and perhaps promotion.

I've also got stylistic concerns. The article has a large number of external links in the text. These are really an no-no in a wikipedia article and should either be converted into references, internal links or removed. The content itself also reads more like an evangelical proselytization tract than a dry textbook article to my eyes. I grasp that what you're trying to do is relate the underlying theology, but my opinion is that the presentation needs to change.

I hope this doesn't come across as an attack and apologise if it does. Dolescum (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel attacked. Thanks you for the input. I will comb through the article and see if I can address your remarks with revisions and changes. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Dolescum. I consolodated the acrostic section in a manner that is consistent with other theological acrostics on wikipedia. I organized the Traditional Statement to have a more informational feel to it. I added multiple secondary citations such as http://tomascol.com/category/statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-gods-plan-of-salvation/, http://www.bpnews.net/37939/statement-on-calvinism-draws-approval-criticism, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/how-calvinism-is-dividing-the-southern-baptist-convention_n_3399504.html,http://www.lacollege.edu/sites/default/files/reformed_theology_jan_13.pdf, http://www.baptisttheology.org/baptisttheology/assets/File/CalvinismaReview.pdf, http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-faqs-southern-baptists-calvinism-and-gods-plan-of-salvation, along with a list of citations from secondary source called SBC today which is a major southern baptists news portal (the primary outlet for traditionalism is connect316.net). I removed all external links and moved all relevant links into references. I have combed through the article and do not see any aspects that attempt to convert or proselytize. Will you please consider my request to reverse the nomination? Thank you again.Nathankyle2188 (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly simplified the former "Traditonal Statement" section to a Theology section. I organized it to read more informationally. Let me know your thou thoughts.Nathankyle2188 (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolescum. Are you going to grant my request? The article was revised with all of your suggestions considered. Is there anything else? I'd appreciate a response. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point me at a 2nd party source that directly uses the term "Soterological Traditionalism". 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This non-denominational seminary in Florida has a news publication on Soteriological Traditionalism in their post titled "Calvinism, Arminianism, or Traditionalism?" It mentions the term "soteriological tradionalism" twice. http://www.covenantbiblecollegeirc.com/#!news-and-events/c24vq Furthermore, if you were to use a less technical term such a "A Traditional view of Baptist Soteriology" it would be similar to calling Calvinism "A Calvinist view of Protestant Soteriology". The reason the term "Soteriological Traditionalism" is used it for literary simplification (in the same way we use the term "Calvinism" to address it's view of soteriology), and because the term "traditionalism," when left alone, can apply to various topics. This form of traditionalism is specifically related to the topic of soteriology so the common phrase that people use to refer to it is "Soteriological Traditionalism." Hope this helps. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Traditional Baptist Soteriology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Traditional Baptist Soteriology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Baptist Soteriology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. St Anselm (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Traditional Baptist Soteriology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. – Fayenatic London 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]