Difference between revisions of "User talk:Wycliffe"

Revision as of 18:24, December 31, 2010

• Welcome to Conservapedia! Glad to see another Anglican member --IScott 11:57, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Editing

We get far too many vandals here, so please be careful with your edit notes, and make sure if you state an edit is "minor" it is indeed minor, okay? Thanks! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:18, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

paragraphs

Some paragraphs have been missed in your edits. Could you please reinstall them or support your deletes? --Joaquín Martínez 19:45, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Hi. The Calvinism paragraph seemed overly long in a long article, and it repeated some material already found on the page. But that was the only issue with me there. My changes mainly went to to either correcting grammar and making for easier reading OR replacing language that could be considered somewhat slanted with more neutral or balanced wording. I have read the guidelines and try to abibe by them all. Wycliffe.

Church

I wonder why some material was missed. Any comment? --Joaquín Martínez 14:25, 12 December 2010 (EST) ..........................

Could you specify?

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church&diff=832422&oldid=760252 --Joaquín Martínez 17:32, 13 December 2010 (EST)

........................................................

Well, that (above) links me to the entire article, so I'm not certain what "missing" material is of concern. I can find only several lines out of a long and repetitious article that appear to have been edited out for the sake of avoiding redundancy. Those lines basically reasserted what had already been stated (and which is still in the article).

Mainly, sections or paragraphs were rearranged for easier reading, not eliminated. Wycliffe

Sorry, please see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/+Cathedral --Joaquín Martínez 08:59, 17 December 2010 (EST)

Seems to be fine. You may sign here using the button next to the red circle in the upper bar (edit window); like this: --Joaquín Martínez 08:02, 14 December 2010 (EST)

Thank you, Joaquin! I had been looking for the way to sign like everyone else does, but until I had your directions to trust, I didn't see how the symbols that appear become the signature and date.--Wycliffe 09:40, 15 December 2010 (EST)

Merry Christmas!!!

Merry Christmas!!! --Joaquín Martínez 14:47, 24 December 2010 (EST)

Edits to Virgin Birth

While I appreciate the copy editing and amelioration of wording whenever possible, I took exception to this edit because it clearly adds doubt where there isn't any. Does that make sense? While I realize that we do "believe" this occurred, it is more than simply a "belief" and "we believe it so therefore it's true." Seeing as it's documented in the Bible, I don't see a reason to introduce extraneous doubt that in turn casts doubt on the authenticity of the Bible. Let me know if that all makes sense. Thanks! Tyler Zoran ^Talk 23:46, 30 December 2010 (EST)

Hi, Tyler. If it indeed is a matter of casting doubt on the Bible, I'll admit to having been overly (and wrongly) concerned about using neutral wording. But that only applies to the Virgin Birth being undeniably supported by the Bible. So we agree there.

You also changed other edits which dealt with doctrinal matters that are not clearly and unquestionably settled by recourse to Bible wording. On them, I feel that presenting both sides is clearly desirable...or at least let's agree that we can't justify describing the belief in the way that only one side prefers.

In that category are 1) Catholics worship Mary. Despite tbe Catholic denial, the Protestant cannot be treated as flatly wrong. It's still a matter of dispute. It depends on how one defines "worship," and I was fair to both sides there. And 2) when the line says that mainline Protestant denominations believe or don't believe X, we'd better be sure that every last mainline Protestant denomination actually does take the position described. That was not the case as the text stood before I edited it. Thnx. --Wycliffe 13:24, 31 December 2010 (EST)