Changes

Debate: Infant baptism (view source)

Revision as of 13:12, November 6, 2019

8,369 bytes added , 13:12, November 6, 2019

remarks posted on Andy Schlafly's talk page copied and posted here as relevant general commentary re the debate

Line 1,000: Line 1,000:

::::I have zero time to work on any articles. I am not sure when I will be free again.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 20:40, 5 November 2019 (EST)

−

==Remarks reposted on [[Talk:Infant baptism]] moved here==

+

== Problem with Talk:Infant baptism ==

+

Andy, RobS on the [[Talk:Infant baptism]] page is beginning to be a real problem. I tried to be patient but it's getting out of hand. Please take a look and see if the Talk page too should be locked. I'm not certain one way or the other, but I don't think he is posting any thing useful anymore, just repeating the same argument. It ceases to be an example of vigorous debate. The whole page has become bloated. I tried to be fair and answer every objection. It seems to be utterly counterproductive. If you do lock it, it will remain an example of debate on the issue. As before I trust your judgment. I'm not going back to look. Quite frankly it's been hard on my bloodpressure. Peace be with you. Michael Heart. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:58, 3 November 2019 (EST)

+

:I'll take a look but the general policy is to leave talk pages unlocked. You don't have to respond there and everyone knows that a talk page is merely a discussion that typically contains different viewpoints. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 10:58, 3 November 2019 (EST)

+

::Michael, you seem to have a tenuous relationship with the truth. I called you out on this in January, [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&diff=prev&oldid=1485333 here], where you had falsely claimed that your user page had been vandalized, and that you had arranged for it to be locked.

+

::And now you claim (4 sections above) that the infant baptism article has been vandalized. Aside from a notice from Andy that it has been locked, and a very few edits today by Wikignome72, who, as an admin, can blow past any locks, the page has 331 revisions, '''every one of them by you'''.

+

::So now the discussion has, not surprisingly, moved to the talk page, and it is a very lively and robust discussion. And you now want '''that''' locked? That's not the way things are done on talk pages. Perhaps you would rather do your writing on a blog someplace, that lets you control comments from other people. I believe there are services on the internet, such as "blogspot", that let you do that. You might want to contact one of the [[User:Conservative]] people about doing that. But that isn't how things are done on talk pages on an open wiki. Especially now that the locking of the article pages has moved everything to the talk page.

+

::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:29, 3 November 2019 (EST)

+

:::Michael, the above rant is by a user who has been repeatedly blocked. Your edits are very welcome here and please ignore the rude tone above. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:35, 3 November 2019 (EST)

+

::::Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there is anything that Dataclarifier should or should not do. I think the robust discussion on the talk page is fine, and none of it bothers me. I apologize for anything that was considered rude. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:05, 3 November 2019 (EST)

+

I don't think the talk page should be locked. CP has editors of different theological viewpoints, and inability to reconcile those different viewpoints shouldn't be an excuse to stop discussion of them. And to be fair, the vast majority of the text on the talk page are comments from Dataclarifier, which is fine, but because of that, it's not fair to put all the blame on RobS for the long text on the talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:08, 3 November 2019 (EST)

+

:And spamming a talk page is not discussion. Neither is removing other people's comments to remove them from context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 15:37, 3 November 2019 (EST)

+

::In fact, the mainspace "Infant baptism" page should also be unlocked -- there was zero edit warring on it, so Dataclarifier didn't even have a reason for requesting protection. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:52, 3 November 2019 (EST)

+

:::He's put a lot of work into all his stuff. Most of his postings on talk really belong in Essay space if he doesn't want to be interrupted by argument or refutation. Many of these discussions then could be held on an Essay space talk page.

+

:::His basic argument is that infant baptism brings salvation, yet he's never defined what salvation is despite repeated requests. Consequently, the discussion strays off into numerous other topics. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 17:08, 3 November 2019 (EST)

+

:::A link could even be made from Infant baptism to his Essays. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 17:13, 3 November 2019 (EST)

+

Andy, I'm more grateful than I can express for your remark above regarding my edits. (I do disregard the rude tone of the "rant".) I had come back to mention that I discovered that other sites on infant baptism and other related "hot-button" topics have talk pages that have been archived one, two, three, even eight times, full of comments and venom responding to their topics. Accordingly, I ''withdraw'' my request that [[Talk:Infant baptism]] be locked, so that there will be more opportunity for others to speak up and further enliven the debate. Eventually I suppose an archive will be necessary. I am absenting myself from that Talk page. It just means that I won't be available to be baited any more, and will no longer be anyone's favorite target. That may put out the fire. (Just take a look at my own talk page, at the remarks made at the bottom by RobSmith's "Suggestion", and my final definitive answer in response: [[User talk:Dataclarifier#Suggestion]].) ''Pax vobis'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:43, 5 November 2019 (EST)

+

:The mainspace "Infant baptism" page should be unprotected. There was absolutely no edit warring, and Dataclarifier dominated the page's edit history. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 07:59, 5 November 2019 (EST)

+

::Dataclarifier, you wrote: "Quite frankly it's been hard on my blood pressure."

+

::You should keep in mind that if people want to find answers to an issue, there are tons of resources on the internet plus God gives wisdom/answers to those who humbly seek Him. So if you see a page or two on the internet that you want to change, but cannot do so to your satisfaction, its certainly not the end of the world and certainly not worth getting your blood pressure up over. [[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 15:35, 5 November 2019 (EST)

+

:::Per RobSmith "Suggestion" on my talk page, I just created [[Debate: Infant baptism]] and moved into it most (not all) of the debate on the [[Talk:Infant baptism]] page, leaving intact on the original talk page at infant baptism the comments re the article, its structure and sources of information cited there, and posted a note redirecting all general comments on the topic to [[Debate: Infant baptism]]. I did the same on my own talk page. By the way, the blood pressure response was unexpected, and is entirely physiological and involuntary. I was surprised that it happened. I think my creation of the new debate page will be more useful. (I don't intend to contribute anything more to it.) --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:34, 5 November 2019 (EST) (The "final definitive answer" that I posted on RobSmith's "Suggestion" entry on my Talk page, has also been included in the move of the debate from the [[Talk:Infant baptism]] page to [[Debate: Infant baptism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (EST) - )

+

::::I was suggesting you place the original two lengthy sections on Protestantism versus Catholicism in one Article Essay space, minus the intervening comments, to preserve the original research. It just needs an appropriate title. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 23:03, 5 November 2019 (EST)

+

::::For example: [[Essay: Differing perspectives on infant baptism]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 01:25, 6 November 2019 (EST)

+

==Remarks reposted on [[Talk:Infant baptism]] moved here below==

==More evidence those who are under grace are saved from wrath and judgement==

Dataclarifier

Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect

30,891

edits