User talk:Tonicthebrown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hi Tonicthebrown, Thanks for your greeting! Good to see more people contributing to Adventist-related pages. I noticed your work on moving much of the doctrinal content on the Seventh-day Adventist article to a new page. Good stuff - it was getting too bulky, as you mentioned. No doubt I'll see you around on Wikipedia in the future. God bless, Colin MacLaurin 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

Hi Tonic, I see you've added some details to your user page: it's always interesting to find out more about the people I edit with! I have just rewritten much of my main user page, and request your comments please! It may be a little long. If you have any suggestions for improvement please let me know. Don't worry about all the subpages. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year mate (that's strine for any Americans reading this, not American English...) Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)



Prose vs Lists[edit]

In response to your request for critique, I thought I'd recommend you cut back on your use of lists. Prose is generally preferred in the place of lists. Just a general observation, if you have any questions feel free to ask. MyNameIsNotBob 05:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Framework view[edit]

Your very welcome. I will admit, it still isn't very well formated and even when I'm finished, the English won't be very good because I'm not the greatest writer, but at least the information will be there. One thing though, I think it should be renamed. Here is the break down of google results:

  • "framework theory" + genesis - 19,900 hits
  • "framework view" + genesis - 3,230
  • "literary framework" + genesis - 6,290
  • "framework hypothesis" + genesis - 543

I suggest it be renamed to framework theory or framework theory (creation). What do you think? Pbarnes 09:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In this context, theory doesn't have the same scientific meaning. It's different from creationism because things such as young earth creationism are scientifically verifiable hypothesizes which do not stand up to scrutiny because they contradict the evidence. The framework view is, by definition, a theory on the meaning of the creation days. I have no problem with calling it such.
I just googled "framework interpretation" + genesis and got 24,500 hits so maybe we should call it framework interpretation (creation) in order to stay clear of possible "theory" confusion. Pbarnes 10:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Heavenly sanctuary[edit]

Hi Tonic, I would appreciate your input on a new theology article I have proposed, heavenly sanctuary, on the WP:SDA project page. I have not studied this area. Please reply on that page. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Feedback for my user page[edit]

Hi Tonicthebrown,

I was wondering if you would give me some feedback about my user page. I am trying to develop it to be appealing in content and also aesthetically attractive. Writing about religious topics is always controversial, and I would like to know if you think anything would be offensive to anyone, or could be improved. I have also invited a few others. Please reply here. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Please activate your email or write to me. -- Fyslee/talk 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Having emailed both of you myself, what one discovers can be very interesting! Colin MacLaurin 02:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Christian Torah-submission[edit]

Good day! I see that you are a prolific and established Wikipedian. An editor has recently recommeded article Christian Torah-submission for deletion. I don't think there is any justification for deletion, but I'm afraid so many people see such a view as insignificant that reason will not prevail. If you're interested, I'd like to encourage you to weigh in on the discussion and make any more edits/citations that you think would be constructive. Thanks and keep up the good work. Namikiw 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion[edit]

Hello! I noticed that are an Anglican. You may be interested in checking out our WikiProject - |WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! -- SECisek 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


For your commitment to maintaining the neutrality of Christian theology articles, particularly those relating to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Colin MacLaurin 11:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletions on Creation/Genesis page[edit]

Guilty as charged. Let's just say that a bottle of Chardonnay may have to bear part of the responsibility. But more seriously, although I agree that there's good stuff in what I deleted, the article as a whole is seriously weak - it goes on and on about the question of composition (one version or two), and utterly ignores other issues. What I was doing in that deletion was preparing the ground for a re-write. I see a structure like this: 1. The text (your preference is for a summary of the text, and I can live with that); 2. The ANE context of Genesis (cosmogony/anthropogeny in Ugarit, Canaan, Egypt and Mesopotamia - this is the cultural milieu of Genesis and can't be ignored, as it is at present); 3. Genesis and the emergence of Israelite monotheism (this takes in the question of composition, but puts it in the proper context - the ANE and the emergence of Israel's distinctive theology); 4. Later interpretations (for example, the development of the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit from Genesis's ruah, and it's ultimate adoption by Judaism). whether this er-write is best inaugurated by nuking the present article is perhaps debatable. Bacchus, get thee behind me! PiCo (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


You may wish to comment on the AFD for Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. I have notified the major editors involved I could see. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for the well written and sourced text! If you want, you can be a member of the |WikiProject Anglicanism. It's painless and the project would like to have more participants in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SDA[edit]

Sir, I dn't dispute you're knowledge, but you're claim "and the traditional characterization of Roman Catholicism and other denominations " as "Babylon"

Problem comes with second part of you're statemant, I understand what's you're point, but... you have to give a qoute for "other denominations", and this qoute has to be from some adventist source and it has to be existing web site or official document, not a Weasel word like statemant

  1. "People say…" (Which people?)
  2. "I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
  3. "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
  4. "Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
  5. "It has been mentioned that..." (Who mentioned it?)
  6. "It is known that..." (By whom is it known?).

Unles you make a good stament that is source reliable and not a Weasel word you're change on SDA main page may stay. Second of all, I don't dispute that we (SDA) belive that many protestants have gone away from Byble, but we as much as I know NEVER call any protestant Church babylon.

Criticism REMOVED[edit]

I please you to stick with wiki policy!

There are some things in this article which break wiki policy, the main one is the fact that some parts of article should be moved to criticism section.

Roman Catholic Church is known for religious exclusivism, they claim to have truth, and that all others are more or less wrong, just as they claim that there is only one true church, other Churches couldn't be called churches, Peter was first pope, Jesus founded Roman Catholic Church and so on.... another words, claims which are disputed by majority non-RCC Christianity.

However, article regarding their "exclusivism" is in article called "Criticism of Catholic Church", not on main article, same is with Islam and all other Christian, or non-Christian faiths. Why? Becouse it is wiki policiy, parts of articles which are criticism focused go in criticism article, if such exists. And such, indeed does exist. For that reason I have removed "Criticism" section to "Criticism of ... Adventist Church"

The whole or great majority of Criticism section should go to "Criticism of ... Adventist Church"

If not, I will start one in Roman Catholicism article, which is probably most criticized religion in world, but has no word on Criticism in main article. Wiki has to use same rules for everybodey, all are equal. Roman Catholic Religion is not "over" the rule. User:Sumaterana

Intertestamental period[edit]

I see you have a history of working on the article Intertestamental period. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

7 in Creation in Genesis[edit]

Hi. If 7 is the key to understanding the structure of G-1, it needs to be explained. Incidentally, I want eventually to make a new section on the theology of Genesis 1-2, and this sort of thing can go there. PiCo (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

William J. Webb[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article William J. Webb, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


This page is about the theologian. For other persons, see William Webb.

William J. Webb is a theologian, ordained Baptist minister and professor of New Testament at Heritage Seminary, Ontario. He is notable for developing the "redemptive movement hermeneutic", which has been described by Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem as the "most sophisticated" Christian egalitarian hermeneutic that has ever been published.[1]. He is author of Slaves, women & homosexuals : exploring the hermeneutics of cultural analysis (2001), which argues for full role equality of men and women in the church and family while concluding that homosexuality is not a biblically sanctioned lifestyle.

See also[edit]


Category:Christianity and women

WikiProject Christianity[edit]

Hello Tonicthebrown!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

Christian cross.svg

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


I was looking at your graph,


, and had a suggestion I wanted to run by you. From what I've studied about Baptist and Anabaptist history, it seems that it would be more accurate to have a solid line between Puritans/Separatists and Baptists, and leave the broken line between Baptists and Anabaptists. From what I've read, the dominant viewpoint is that Baptists arose directly out of the English Separatist movement. [2] There may have been some Anabaptist influence, but it's not generally believed to have been a direct link, if it existed at all, so I think a broken line would be about right.

I'm willing to make my own version, if you're busy, but I wanted to run this by you and get your input. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Messy indeed. I've been trying to clean up some of the misinformation on Anabaptism and the Radical Reformation that's shown up in some articles, and it just underscores how confusing the whole reformation period is.
The problem with Baptist successionism is that it goes against the dominant view from historians and other religious traditions. As a result, it doesn't seem that we should be giving the viewpoint much weight in most cases. Successionism often doesn't seem to require a direct link between the different groups throughout history, so hopefully they will be able to accept the broken line as a close enough reference to what they believe. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a few books I can dig up, but some quick online references are ones such as The Baptist Historical Society, Britannica, and The BBC.
The diagram looks pretty good, from what I know of the history involved. The Pietism movement is a little tricky, too, as they had some pretty far-reaching influence for a while, though generally not directly forming other churches. I know that John Wesley was heavily influenced by Pietism in founding the Methodist church. Perhaps yet another dotted line?
There are a lot of little points of connection as far as influences go, because movements tended to contact and influence each other in various ways as time went on. Some branches of Anabaptism, such as the Mennonite Brethren and German Baptists (despite the name, unrelated in origins and differing in theology from other Baptists), were also formed partly due to the influence of Pietism. I think the hard part is figuring out when the connection is important enough to put into the diagram, otherwise I think the result would probably end up an unreadable web of lines. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I came upon that image by pure coincide (and saw this one too [3], and it strikes me as an image I've made [4] a few months ago. Have you stumbled upon it somehow, or do I know you from the IGN boards??? Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 04:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Well done on the GAFCON update on en:wiki. I'm upgrading the Jerusalem conference as well on Chinese Wiki. Am watching Jensen and Venables (Southern Cone) now on TheAteam (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Statement has been released, I'm trying to update it on zh:wiki.BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Creation link[edit]

I assumed good faith in Ben's attempt to fix the red link in Seventh-day Adventist Church. My reason for changing the link was that the article states "believe in ... creation in six days." The article he linked Creation myth while very comprehensive has only a minority subset that discusses the creation from a Christian perspective. However on retrospect I think that my selection Creationism was sub-optimal also. Instead the main article it references Creation according to Genesis is probably yet better. Do you agree? Sdenny123 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:JanOrsDF.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:JanOrsDF.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Yes I believe is is necessary to put information about Adventist camps. Most of adults went to camp as kids and there is a growing number of kids attending youth camp. I apologize for sticking it is the wrong place. Anthony White (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:DF Bridge.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:DF Bridge.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Day-year principle - Other views of 1260 Day Prophecy[edit]

Thank you for restoring this section I mistakenly deleted - I did not intend to remove it and did not check to see if it was still there.Lamorak (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


Hey Tonicthebrown,

We need your help on keeping the POV fair and balanced over at the Deuteronomy article. --Knobbly (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Women in Christianity[edit]

Thanks, Tonic, for the very smooth edits that greatly improve my updates. Sincerest thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I created an entry entitled women in Church history, and another called women in the Middle Ages. Please don't duplicate these, it undermines their legitimate existence. I think the article women in Christianity should concentrate on modern-day issues facing women and the Church, while other specialized articles can do a better job at explaining the situation as it was in the past. See User talk:Afaprof01 where I explained this already. ADM (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. That's as good idea. However, I disagree on the need for another content fork for women in the Middle Ages. I've put that material back into Women in Church history. Thanks for your initiative. Tonicthebrown (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Women in the Middle Ages includes Church history, but in other ways it is part of the broader topic of women's history. There were also women of other religions and women of a secular character that lived during the time of the Middle Ages, so we have to take that into account too. This cultural diversity on its own would justify the creation of a separate article, which could be included in the category:Women in history. ADM (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

90 East Ridge, Part of the Mountain building Flood aftermath?[edit]

Hey Tonic the Brown,

I came across your name as the one who provided the NinetyEastRidge.jpg. I am interested in it because Dr. Walt Brown mentioned the 90 East Ridge in his online book In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood in Figure 43.

Figure 43: World Ocean Floor.... Ninety East Ridge is so named because it lies almost exactly along 90ºE longitude. Its straight, 3,000-mile length, and curious north-south orientation aimed at the Himalayas are important clues to past events on earth.


From your comments on your user page I thought this would be of interest to you. The best overview of his theory I have found is on this page

I am hoping to use the hydro-plate theory proposed by Dr. Walt Brown as basis for studying earthquakes, perhaps leading to better forcasting methods and even the possiblity of reducing plate earthquake stresses by adding or removing subterrannean water.

Thanks for providing the J-peg, IdeaMan777 (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Adam and Eve Pix[edit]

Hello Tonic. As to "why remove the picture?", I personally find this pair of pix particularly distracting. I would prefer to see no picture than these two. I would appreciate it being removed until we can find a less risqué picture. Afaprof01 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Women in Christianity[edit]

Thanks for the affirming comment. Re: your changes. Please recheck them. I received an Edit Conflict lock, probably when you were making those changes which, BTW, sound like good ideas from your Talk description. I've compared your edit to the present version, and can't confirm that your changes are there. If they are not, it's purely accidental.Afaprof01 (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:WalvisRidge.jpg[edit]

File:WalvisRidge.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:WalvisRidge.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:WalvisRidge.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Melbrail former present proposed.svg[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:Melbrail former present proposed.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Creation according to Genesis[edit]

Hi, Tonic. Talk:Creation according to Genesis has an active WP:RfC "Request for comments" that may interest you. It concerns the dispute over calling Genesis 1-2 a "creation myth." Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tonic, I profusely apologize for misstating your evolution position. That was careless of me. Should I post a correction on CATG Talk in addition to your correction? I am very sorry! And I guess I should have checked with you before recommending acceptance of your excellent concession writing. I hope you were not offended. I was very proud of you, and just pressed on in enthusiasm without checking with you. AFAprof01 05:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons & Creative Commons[edit]

Can you please consider uploading your works to the Commons? Doing so makes sure it is available for all Wikimedia projects. Also, using Creative Commons licenses (in addition to the GFDL) is encouraged. See Wikipedia:Image license migration#Copyright holders. Thanks! Guy0307 (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Seventh-day Adventist Church[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at [[Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/GA1]. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Needed Consensus on the Genesis creation myth page[edit]

Being a latecomer to the article, I'm unclear exactly who is committed to the article and what they are committed to. I've heard a good deal from those in favor of the "myth" title, but not so much from those opposed. Eactly WHAT would be needed for a consensus title before you would be comfortable making improvements to the article? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nephesh[edit]

Per your comments, and the fact that you've already moved the article and placed the stub, I've gone ahead and closed this debate as withdrawn. FYI, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


You might note that at least one of your recent edits also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. This edit in particular [5] --Rumping (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


Please see here In sum, I think you are correct to change this into a proper dab page, but I am concerned about this material simply being deleted as well as incoming links to Brethren. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I'm taking a look at the incoming links to Brethren using WP:AWB myself, so between our two pairs of eyes, we should ensure that there are few--if any--incoming links. I appreciate your help. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 15:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Former Adventist Fellowship[edit]

Tonic, If you see an element of my post that seems to be an advertisement for the Former Adventist Fellowship, please edit to make it better. My purpose in creating the paragraph is to provide the who, what, where, and why of a group that is an active "schism and offshoot" of the SDA Church. The group is unique from the other offshoots and is significant due to their web presence and publications.

I plan to add a paragraph on another organization that is a unique "schism"--Mission Catalyst. This organization does not have a doctrinal quarrel with the denomination per se, but is establishing congregational "SDA" churches outside the denomination's organization. Their contention is regarding the use of tithe and missionary focus while holding adhering to the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Church. Cheer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abishiai (talkcontribs) 15:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


I would certainly say that it warrants reporting. Though I would not pick the edit warring board. There are always at least 2 guilty parties in the end of an edit war. It is more generic disruptive editing, assumption of bad faith, insults, and refusing to listen, that is the problem. And fyi - your report did not pass. The reason given was that it was improperly formatted.Farsight001 (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SundayLawTimes01.JPG[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:SundayLawTimes01.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Last Generation Theology[edit]

Hi Tonic. I have been systematically (sort of) going through the Merge backlog and have just stumbled across Last Generation Theology. It has been tagged for merging into Historic Adventism since December 2007. I see you and User:Colin MacLaurin started discussing it back then, but came to no conclusion. I know nothing of the subject and since you both still appear to be active, I was hoping that you might be able to either remove the tag, merge the articles or advise me on how best to merge. I will leave the same message with Colin. It appears from your comments that you do not oppose a merge, although it has undergone significant changes since then. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Yeah, I've also had to revert him on The Beast (Bible), and a few other subjects in the past, but the Waldensians article is where I'm really having trouble with him. I'm glad you're on my side. I know we're not supposed to template the regulars, but I think that might be a good idea from now on just to better track him. Would you like for the NPOVN report to be about his behavior in general? I'm considering modifying the title to "User:Willfults pushing conservative SDA POV on various articles." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see that they tend to want to focus on articles, not editors. Well, I've a compilation of his behavior in the past couple of months, and would welcome any additions to it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm prodding User:Ian.thomson/WillfultsPOV, since he hasn't editted in a few months. Since you contributed to what would have become an RFC/U report, I thought you should know. I will be saving the latest version as a text file for a little while longer until I'm pretty sure he's never coming back. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Revision on Historic Adventism site.[edit]

I have noted the recent revision regarding the Maseko information (since reverted by another editor).

Revision as of 09:19, 13 May 2011 (edit) Tonicthebrown (talk | contribs)("2 editors think" isn't good enough. Wikipedia policy states that claims have to be verifiable. You need to show where in the source the claim is supported)

The Maseko quote and info is solid secondary source material. He is not an editor here at Wikipedia.

1.^ a b c Achim Nkosi Maseko (2008). Church Schism & Corruption. Durban, South Africa. ISBN 978-1-4092-2186-9. p. 545 "The conservative end of the theological spectrum is represented by "Historic Adventists", who are characterized by their opposition to theological trends within the denomination beginning in the 1950s. They tend to view modern Adventist theology as a compromise with evangelicalism, and seek to defend older teachings such as the fallen nature of Jesus Christ, an incomplete atonement, and character perfectionism. Historic Adventism is represented mainly at the 'grassroots' level of the Church and is often promoted through independent ministries but has weaker support (if any) among Adventist scholarship.
I am pleased that the Maseko book is available to us. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your help needed at RFC/U for Willfults[edit]

Since you've dealt with Willfults in the past, I'd really appreciate your help over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Willfults. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought he might be gone as well, and hoped that he'd reform upon return, or take the RFC/U as a sign that he needs to change his ways. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

SDA Template[edit]


If I could have your always welcomed input on the SDA template, I would greatly appreciate it. Thx...Simbagraphix (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to it..

Adventist Template[edit]


Its ready, come check it out and see if any comments...Simbagraphix (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the discussion:

Here is the work page for the new template:

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png


January 2012

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

SDA eschatology[edit]

Hi Timo, If you refer to the following article Premillennialism you will discover the following


19th century to present

Between 1790 and the mid-19th century, premillennialism was a popular view among English Evangelicals, even within the Anglican church. Thomas Macaulay observed this and wrote “Many Christians believe that the Messiah will shortly establish a kingdom on the earth, and visibly reign over all its inhabitants".


Note that the current prevailing understanding among those that believe in premillennialism is that the Messiah will establish his kingdom on earth by conquest at the second comming. In contrast to this Adventist believe that judgement will be executed on all those living at the time of the second coming, righteous and wicked, in addition to the righteous dead being raised etc.

I appreciate that you usage of the term premillennialism is not intended to convey the understanding that premillennialists generally understand. But that's my point. Identifying Adventist beliefs with a term that means something quite different everywhere you look in the media is unnecessarily confusing.

For example E.G. White never used the word Trinity in her writings. Why? Not because she didn't believe in the Trinity but because Methodists and others at that time had a particular understanding of that word that Adventist did not agree with:

quote (from:;

One aspect of traditional trinitarianism espoused by some Protestant groups, but rejected by early Adventists, was the somewhat curious statement that "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts."[27] The early Adventists vigorously refuted this, citing several biblical passages that portrayed God as having both "body" and "parts."


Although this particular understanding of the word Trinity is no longer current I think the reasoning used by our pioneers still holds. If the use of a particular word is going to cause confusion in peoples minds it would be better to avoid that word.

Hope I'm making sense here :)



— Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventistJohn (talkcontribs) 13:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the TALK page of your diagram on Adventist eschatology. Your picture has inaccuracies. - Timo Flink, ThD (SDA church) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SDAs and the "Millennium"[edit]

Hi Timo, Thanks for reminding me about QOD. I haven't looked at this book since I was a teenager (about 40 years ago). My dad had it in his library and I found it to be a very useful resource. So I referred to questions 38 and 39 and found that the authors seemed to be at pains to explain the difference between the unique Adventist understanding of the millennium as compared to what other denominations believe. The only statement that I could find that links Seventh-day Adventists to premillennialism is the following on page 482:

1. Adventist Views Derived from Millerites.—Following the breakup of the Millerite movement came the formation of Adventist denominations. Of these the Seventh-day Adventists became the leading group, continuing and developing further the Millerite type of premillennialism, with a nontemporal, non-Jewish millennium. (The Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the millennium appears in the answer to Question 39).

Then if you turn to Question 39 (ie. What do Adventists understand to be the chronological timing of the millennium in relation to the end of the age, the nature of its two resurrections, the sequence of its major events, and the outcome and sequel of the millennial period? Please outline your view.) you find the following opening statement on page 490:

The word "millennium" has come to have a specialized meaning in the minds of most Christians—a thousand-year period when Christ will reign on earth with His saints amid plenty, peace, and progressively increasing righteousness. The word does not occur in the Bible. It is derived from the Latin words mille and annum, meaning "thousand" and "year." A thousand-year reign of the saints with Christ is foretold in Revelation 20:2-7, but there is no statement in that chapter that the saints will reign with Christ on earth during this period.

Not only do the authors back away from using the word millennium they don't even use the term premillennialism in their entire answer to this question. So it seems I'm not alone in trying to distance Seventh-day Adventist doctrine on the millennium from the use of the term premillennialism.

I'd suggest that if you really want to include a worthwhile comparison between the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the millennium and that of other Christian denominations you should at least include a link to Q38 and Q39 in "Questions on Doctrine" (QOD). A complete copy of QOD has been reproduced at:

Users may also find useful resource material at:

Regards, --AdventistJohn (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Anglican navbox colour discussion[edit]

Hullo, fellow WikiProject-er. We're having a discussion about the colours of Anglicanism navboxes. Please do come along and weigh in. DBD 19:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi Tonic, if you can help me with a little old business (ADD: or skip to the end): this article contains a long list of theologians that you originally inserted here for the statement "Most modern-day Christian theologians use passages such as Colossians 2:14-17 to show that Sabbath observance for Christians has been abolished". You amended the statement in the same edit set to "Non-sabbatarianism is the view that Christians are not required to keep a weekly Sabbath." Due to the long footnote and brief body text, this has now been telephone-tagged by me and probably others into "Many Christian theologians believe that Sabbath observance for Christians is not binding."

I am one who usually keeps everything, but here we have two fully developed source lists with no links and no indication what inclusion criteria were used or what the sources actually say, or indeed the difference between the two lists. The text might be vague enough to leave as is but for verifiability I would think a couple of quotes would be useful to illustrate the thought of the grouping, and I tagged it as such. I'm hoping you know who originally compiled the lists and that that source might be used (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT); even "[Source] lists Bauckham, Beckwith, Bietenhard ..." would be a better footnote. If you compiled the lists yourself then representative quotes would be good. In general the overabundance of sources could be considered lopsided and could be trimmed as well; it appears Martin and Hawthorne were not on the list preceding your first insertion, due to original alpha location.

Please let me know of any help you can provide at the article talk, and feel free to interact with any of my other changes to Sabbath topics at will. JJB 04:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

But maybe never mind, as a little more thought revealed that this was the original insertion, by User talk:, to whom all the encouragement above applies as well of course. JJB 06:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Creationist cosmologies[edit]

If you know where I'm going with it, then you know more than I do! :)

I've been feeling my way, my ideas keep changing. But now I see it as a comparison of three cosmologies, the scientific one, the cosmology of the Iron Age Israelites (i.e. Genesis 1 as analysed by modern biblical scholars), and two types of Christian cosmology, the "sane" ones I call theists (but really I think taking in mainstream Catholics, Anglicans etc), and the creationists who take a more literal approach to Genesis. What those two don't realise is that their understanding of Genesis 1 is a modern one, full of assumptions. They all share the knowledge that planet Earth is a sphere, that it circles the Sun, that the Sun belongs to one of many galaxies, that there's a quality called "space". All of these ideas appeared after Genesis was written, some of them (such as the knowledge that galaxies exist) within the last hundred years - we accept them as givens, but they're all innovations. So that's where I'm going now, drawing out these differences.

I think the real, fundamental difference between scientific cosmology and all the rest is the role of the supernatural - the bible, theists and creationists all agree that the universe is the work of a power outside itself - God. Scientific cosmology doesn't introduce such a power, and sometimes (Stephen Hawking) says that the universe can create itself. I think a comparison like this can be enlightening. PiCo (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of open clusters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Article on Walter Veith[edit]

Hello Tonic,

I need your help on this article As it needs work to keep it from being deleted from Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Simbagraphix (talk)

Also on this article on Amazing Discoveries....
....Thanks.Simbagraphix (talk)

Men's rights movement probation notice[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Bbb23 (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)