User talk:Mkmcconn

Contents

1 Archives

2 Human

3 Mormonism and Christianity

9 January 15 Seattle meetup

10 WP:LDS

11 Christian ecumenism

12 Historicity of Jesus

13 Protestantism

Human

Hey, M. Have you seen the human page? Wow! It is funny. Species status: secure ROTFL Any ideas? Tom 23:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like how its written as though it might be read by someone other than a human. Very amusing. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I actually get the idea some of the editors think NPOV means hypothetical AlienPOV rather than AllSignificantPOVs. Maybe I ought to ask them if they have read the NPOV policy and NPOV tutorial lately. Tom 17:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity

So, how do you like the article nowadays? Any remaining aspirations for it? Tom 17:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that I like how things have settled. I'm not sure though; I've been too busy to do much on Wikipedia, lately. A very close look might give me a different perspective. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Take it easy and love your family. The human article is in much worse shape nowadays, IMHO. Tom

Van Til.

Just so you know, I filled in the Cornelius Van Til stub. I'm letting you know because you mentioned you wanted some progress on it. Please feel free to expand or correct anything that is wrong!

Human

M, if you get a minute, I would really appreciate your opining at human on my efforts to resolve NPOV problems. The guys there have the understandable misconception that NPOV means Scientific POV, and they are digging in their heels a bit to changes. I asked them to please read the NPOV doc and the NPOV tutorial. We will see how it goes. I'd appreciate your help. I am a bit alone. Tom 21:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a short favor to ask of you. The Human discussion is getting strong, and I think it would help to lay our cards on the talbe so the "secularists" can see just how different is our point of view on just what is a human. But at the same time, I want to be able to get a "generic" (ha ha) religious view. In any case, would you take some time to drop by my user talk and add your personally believed factual definition of what is a human. I appreciate it. Tom - Talk 22:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Local meeting

I don't know if you're around much these days, but we're having a meeting of local Wikipedians on Saturday afternoon, November 6th -- almost certainly at the downtown Seattle library. I know it'd be a bit of a drive for you, but I thought you might want to come. Michael Snow and I are planning the event, and details about it can be found on our talk pages, if you're interested. I hope you'll consider it -- best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 22:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been extraordinarily busy, lately, and haven't felt that I have very much to offer. I am grateful for the invitation, though. I don't know right now what I'll be doing on November 6th. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that life is getting a bit hectic. I hope you know that you have a lot to offer -- not only are you in possession of a lot of knowledge worth sharing, but your calm and considerate way of resolving disputes is much admired by me. I hope you'll keep looking in to share a thought now and then when disputes arise on pages that interest you, even if you feel you have less time for editing. And regarding the 6th, I know it's hard to plan, but I hope you have the chance to come -- it would be great to meet you. Have a good autumn, Jwrosenzweig 21:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The truth is that things have been more "normal" lately, so that I don't have the blocks of free time that I enjoyed previously. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Image copyrights

Thanks for uploading Image:PantocratorSinai.jpeg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, — Edwin Stearns | Talk 20:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you know how old Image:PantocratorSinai.jpeg is. If it is more than 100 years old, it's in the public domain and can be tagged {{PD-art}}, otherwise I am going to leave it tagged {{unverified}} and leave the decision about what to do with it to others. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 19:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

January 15 Seattle meetup

Just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. We're trying to get a sense of who will attend, so please drop by that page & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

WP:LDS

I wonder if you might be willing to add WP:LDS project page to your Watchlist. There is no hot talk or burning issues at this time, but the project has become quite a reality, with a dozen or so participants, and your occasional presence and a comment on a poll now and then could round out the mix even more toward quality and non-bias. Your help in the past was immensely valuable, and your mere presence now would be greatly appreciated. As long as we are at it, if you really want a project, perhaps you would add WP:JW the new and tentative Jehovah's Witness project to your watchlist and help it get off the ground. Tom Haws 19:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Christian ecumenism

Wikipedia is NOT your freaking soapbox. You should know better than to put something that I'd expect from an anti-protestant hate site on an online encyclopedia. Kade 06:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Touched a nerve? Anyway, I don't perceive anything particularly anti-protestant about the article. The contrary, in fact. It depends on the "eyes" you look at it with, I suppose. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You asserted that Protestantism is "absurd", and don't have any sources to back up your statements. It's garbage. Kade 01:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kade, did you notice on his user page that Mkmcconn is an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? He's a conservative Protestant. If you see anti-protestantism in his writing, it's probably because he tries so hard to be neutral. (Nice to see you around again, Mkmcconn. I missed you.) Wesley 04:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's nice to be missed, Wesley Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

I'm contacting you in your capacity as an adminstrator. There's a lot of talk going on at the Historicity of Jesus discussion page concerning the writer Will Durant, NPOV issues, and users named The Rev of Bru and Slrubenstein...and things seem to be getting a bit heated. At the least, the page may need a "disputed" tag of some sort. I'm asking if you could just look into it and pipe in if you feel that's appropriate at this point. Thanks. KHM03 21:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Protestantism

These are not "tedious distinctions". There is a great deal of difference between the various positions, and I am afraid that, as it currently stands, the article does very little to make it clear that while they fall under the "Protestant" umbrella, Lutherans are not Calvinists are not Arminians. --Rekleov 20:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The distinctions need to be made, and not minimized. However, because the article is about "Protestantism", it will be hurt by extensive explanations of particular views in dialog style - "Lutherans think x" "Reformed also think x, but explain it differently." "Lutherans deny that this understanding of x is adequately described as 'x', and rather describe their view as 'y'". "Reformed themselves do not use the term 'y'". ad ho hum.

In the context of the paragraph we've been working on, Lutheranism is clearly distinguished. If you don't think that Lutherans believe, as all other Christians do, that the controversy concerning the sense in which the Bread is the Body of the Lord, is ultimately a controversy concerning the nature of salvation and of the Church, then by all means explain yourself. But it is tedious to use every opportunity to try to make Lutheranism stand out from the rest of Protestantism, when the distinction you want to make has already been made. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my rambling yesterday. It seems I am myself the best example that Catholics are not people of the book and that’s why my Lutheran friend says that it’s difficult for her to have a conversation with a Catholic. We refer to our general feelings while Protestants give exact quotes. Also Protestants like asking “How do you know?” and Catholics reply “We just know”, lol. I left some much better cited opinions on Tradition and Priesthood. Please, see also my question about Bonhoeffer. --SylwiaS 16:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the interaction, SylwiaS. I'm not sure that the respective characterizations of Catholics and Protestants usually hold up, in my experience; but, it is of value to know that this is your experience and perception. I'll try to help with the Bonhoeffer question. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Mkmcconn"

User talk:Mkmcconn

Archives

Human

Mormonism and Christianity

Van Til.

Human

Local meeting

Article Licensing

Image copyrights

January 15 Seattle meetup

WP:LDS

Christian ecumenism

Historicity of Jesus

Protestantism

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools