User talk:John Cline: Difference between revisions
→Jazmín Chebar: new section |
→My recent edit to Septuagint article: new section |
||
Line 259: | Line 259: | ||
Hey there - what can I help with? I did see the AFD, but thought it seemed pretty safe following the arguments and after I saw it was kept, wasn't too worried. [[User:Mabalu|Mabalu]] ([[User talk:Mabalu|talk]]) 11:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
Hey there - what can I help with? I did see the AFD, but thought it seemed pretty safe following the arguments and after I saw it was kept, wasn't too worried. [[User:Mabalu|Mabalu]] ([[User talk:Mabalu|talk]]) 11:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
== My recent edit to Septuagint article == |
|||
I disagree with your reversion. My edit was not POV, it just needs a source or two (not my strong suit). If you search the subject on the Web, it will be obvious that there are no shortage of fundamentalist Protestants for whom Biblical Inerrancy is everything, both KJV only and not, who disparage the LXX as errant, even though the evidence that early Christians relied upon it is irrefutable. And there is a strong correlation between Protestant Fundamentalism and KJV preference. Logically, the doctrine can only stand to suffer from the scholarly evidence that the apostles did not primarily rely on the Masoretic manuscripts the KJV was translated from. |
|||
Is there one credible scholar, that you can name, whose opinion it is that the apostles only used the Hebrew OT text? Would love to know of even one. |
|||
Ultimately, it seems virtually impossible to use the term "Fundamentalist" on WP, not because it doesn't apply or isn't a category without a basis in reality, but because it has such a pejorative flavor. If you know of a better named category for the people whom I am referring to, let me know. |
|||
In any event, I would like some sort of reply. [[Special:Contributions/74.141.69.51|74.141.69.51]] ([[User talk:74.141.69.51|talk]]) 04:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:41, 8 February 2014
I will not be as available in the coming weeks as I have customarily been! Email will be a better means of reaching me and talk page questions may be missed. Cheers! |
———————————John Cline ———————————
———————— Originally known as user:My76Strat ————————
Happy New Year to allBe well!—John Cline (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Happy New Year John Cline!
A personalized New Year greeting
The Signpost: 01 January 2014
Category:Magnates, moguls, and tycoons of the worldCategory:Magnates, moguls, and tycoons of the world, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Macrakis (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Perhaps you have some ideas about how this category could be sharpened into something more objective? (I don't think the deletion discussion is the place to talk that over...) I'm still not clear about the intent. Is it about fame? about influence? about personal wealth? about control of a large company? To take the modern computer industry as an example, where would you draw the line? I assume that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Larry Ellison would qualify under all three criteria. But how about, say, Mitch Kapor (founder of Lotus), Charles B. Wang (founder of CA), Nolan Bushnell (founder of Atari), Ken Olsen (founder of Digital/DEC), Gordon Bell (DEC), An Wang (founder of Wang), Azim Premji (WiPro), .... And presumably influential people who don't control a large corporation don't count, regardless of how influential they are: Tim Berners-Lee, Jay Forrester, ... How about, say, Paul Allen, who made his money from Microsoft, but no longer has an important role there... --Macrakis (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Duck DynastyIf you used your eyes and actually read the CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension You would see where it says: Outrage and support The NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E expressing "outrage and deep concern about the recent racist, homophobic, and ill-informed remarks made by Phil Robertson." READING IS FUNDAMENTAL or do a Control key-F and type racist in your browser--Ron John (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Management Information Systems pageI was trying to rename the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_information_system to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_Information_Systems Is it possible to do it as this is how it is supposed to be. Thanks.
I have restored the article on Max Kaur and corrected all of the mistakes. Steve Pereira from Mediation Committee send me a message. "Steve Pereira <silktork@gmail.com> 29.11.13 Hi The Committee doesn't decide on content. The Max Kaur article was deleted in 2008 following an AfD it which it was decided that the subject did not meet Wikipedia's content inclusion criteria relating to notability. Though that article was deleted, a new article may be created if there are reliable sources which reasonably establish the subject's notability, and if the new article uses those sources and expands on the article which had been deleted. " I think everything is good right now. Sincerely, Taevakodu 10.01.14 (19.26) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taevakodu (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 January 2014
quick QHi..sorry for complaining at you. Aside, what do you mean by "pinged through the notification process"? It's always disturbed me that we have to keep track of every page we might get a response from. Is there some way to be notified when people post responses to your entries? It should be like email notification as far as I'm concerned... thanks Squish7 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Ariel Sharon articleAriel Sharon's page doesn't mention his death at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.78.18 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC) The Signpost: 15 January 2014
This week's article for improvement
Hi John, what is this category intended to categorise? It is empty, and nothing links to it. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 January 2014
Move like thisI liked your "special in its own way", - one link goes to "awesomely weird". - Did you see that miss Elen also? (my user page, look for "facts") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement
Consensus on the correct spelling of DodonpachiHello, you're invited to vote and express your views about this on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Invitation to WikiProject Mass surveillanceThe Signpost: 29 January 2014
This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2014)
The Signpost: 29 January 2014
FYIA proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Jazmín ChebarHey there - what can I help with? I did see the AFD, but thought it seemed pretty safe following the arguments and after I saw it was kept, wasn't too worried. Mabalu (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC) My recent edit to Septuagint articleI disagree with your reversion. My edit was not POV, it just needs a source or two (not my strong suit). If you search the subject on the Web, it will be obvious that there are no shortage of fundamentalist Protestants for whom Biblical Inerrancy is everything, both KJV only and not, who disparage the LXX as errant, even though the evidence that early Christians relied upon it is irrefutable. And there is a strong correlation between Protestant Fundamentalism and KJV preference. Logically, the doctrine can only stand to suffer from the scholarly evidence that the apostles did not primarily rely on the Masoretic manuscripts the KJV was translated from. Is there one credible scholar, that you can name, whose opinion it is that the apostles only used the Hebrew OT text? Would love to know of even one. Ultimately, it seems virtually impossible to use the term "Fundamentalist" on WP, not because it doesn't apply or isn't a category without a basis in reality, but because it has such a pejorative flavor. If you know of a better named category for the people whom I am referring to, let me know. In any event, I would like some sort of reply. 74.141.69.51 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC) | |||||||||||||||