User talk:Ten of Swords

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Ten of Swords: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Dar-Ape 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWI

"Spotlighting mainstrean Christianity or Christian apologists (whatever those are)"

If you took the time to go to the highlighted link to the Wiki article on Christian apologetics, you would know what a Christian Apologist is before you dismiss them.

"Cult status is not a given, it's an accusation by critics"

No, in Christianity, "cult status" is not an accusation, it's based on certain criteria (and usually determined by Christian and Biblical scholars as well as sociologists and psychologists). People who have PhD's after their names consider TWI a cult, yet you seem to believe you know better how TWI should be viewed and who is actually scrutinizing them. Maybe you should look up the article on cults as well to gain an understanding about something you don't appear to grasp.

"I think leaving the mention of fundamentalists, apologists or whoever else you want to throw in there, leaves the impression that the cult label is affixed only for religious reasons, which it is not."

Well of course it is! TWI presents itself as a Christian denomination (even though they deny being a denomination), yet they do not accept the very basic tenets of Christianity that would make them truly Christian in nature. You can't decide whether a pseudo-Christian cult is precisely that based on secular precepts! TWI is a religious group, ergo, it must be judged on it's religious merits.

And something else, Ten: it's really bad form, unfair, and completely inappropriate to try and hijack an article (as you appear to be doing with this one) just because you have spent alot of time editing it. Others who may have more knowledge of and/or personal experience with the subject matter can add to an article in a way someone else cannot. SkagitRiverQueen 17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBC

Christian Biblical Council

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Christian Biblical Council, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Lsjzl 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L C M

Responded to you on that page about "Bad Science" Lsjzl 20:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr

Hey Ten, left you a note on the Dr W talk page about this line: "a non-accredited institution that was reputed to be a degree mill" Lsjzl 15:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:The Way International. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Alexfusco5 15:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever they appear to be, what they are is moving some old topics to the archives. Merry ChristmasTen of Swords (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ten of Swords. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ten of Swords. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]