Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
no edit summary
Line 14: Line 14:  
::As a gesture of goodwill, I removed the lock on the article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:55, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
 
::As a gesture of goodwill, I removed the lock on the article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:55, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
 
:::Appreciate that, Conservative. As the original contributor I will answer the complaint that only the Protestant view was deleted, leaving only a "massive" RCC content. In the originally composed Section on Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18 which compactly reviews and summarizes contradictory and conflicting interpretations (exegesis) there was, and is again, abundant representation of Protestant views and conflicting linguistic scholarship which I eagerly included in my original contribution of this article for "balanced reporting"—Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Strong's Greek Dictionary, experts in [[linguistics]], Christian history, pro and con apologetists' points, now explicitly highlighted with boldface. Those points were drawn from the "massive" list of Protestant and Orthodox links under External links along with the Catholic links. Moreover, it is rare that whole articles, unabridged, are imported into articles on Conservapedia, as was done here with Matt Slick's CARM article and the article from Ligonier Ministries; and yet the Section on Eastern Orthodox views of Petrine Primacy posted at the same time featured only an external link to Primacy and Unity in Orthodox ecclesiology, not the text itself copied whole, an article which was already linked under External links. I have seen plenty of articles on various topics which have headings and only external links posted under them in place of whole content or summarization of content of topic, which made access to the material convenient. The copy and pasting of the two whole Protestant articles ''entire'' only repeated info that was already covered in the article, making the whole text of them an unnecessary redundancy. It wasn't buried. So I adapted the utility of explicitly citing the Protestant articles in particular under the Protestant view of Petrine Primacy, already listed in the External links, emphasizing their titles with boldface; and did the same for Orthodoxy articles. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:10, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
 
:::Appreciate that, Conservative. As the original contributor I will answer the complaint that only the Protestant view was deleted, leaving only a "massive" RCC content. In the originally composed Section on Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18 which compactly reviews and summarizes contradictory and conflicting interpretations (exegesis) there was, and is again, abundant representation of Protestant views and conflicting linguistic scholarship which I eagerly included in my original contribution of this article for "balanced reporting"—Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Strong's Greek Dictionary, experts in [[linguistics]], Christian history, pro and con apologetists' points, now explicitly highlighted with boldface. Those points were drawn from the "massive" list of Protestant and Orthodox links under External links along with the Catholic links. Moreover, it is rare that whole articles, unabridged, are imported into articles on Conservapedia, as was done here with Matt Slick's CARM article and the article from Ligonier Ministries; and yet the Section on Eastern Orthodox views of Petrine Primacy posted at the same time featured only an external link to Primacy and Unity in Orthodox ecclesiology, not the text itself copied whole, an article which was already linked under External links. I have seen plenty of articles on various topics which have headings and only external links posted under them in place of whole content or summarization of content of topic, which made access to the material convenient. The copy and pasting of the two whole Protestant articles ''entire'' only repeated info that was already covered in the article, making the whole text of them an unnecessary redundancy. It wasn't buried. So I adapted the utility of explicitly citing the Protestant articles in particular under the Protestant view of Petrine Primacy, already listed in the External links, emphasizing their titles with boldface; and did the same for Orthodoxy articles. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:10, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
−
:::1990's guy — After my discussion immediately above I checked the article and found the same redundant material posted again. I reverted the reverting change with the edit summary explanation "I read both the Matt Slick Carm article and the Ligonier Ministries article - unless Conservative is in fact Matt Slick and the contributor of the Ligonier Ministries article, he did not write them, they were merely copied and pasted into this article." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:26, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
+
 
 +
:::'''1990's guy —''' After my discussion immediately above I checked the article and found the same redundant material posted again. I reverted the reverting change with the edit summary explanation "I read both the Matt Slick Carm article and the Ligonier Ministries article - unless Conservative is in fact Matt Slick and the contributor of the Ligonier Ministries article, he did not write them, they were merely copied and pasted into this article." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:26, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891

edits

Navigation menu