Errancy Wiki talk:Community Portal
Assuming that to be ok, I deleted spam from Revelation 7:4 and 1 Chronicles 4:18. I just want to know, if such action from a non-admin is ok
--FreezBee 10:54, 8 Jun 2006 (CDT)
It's okay and appreciated.
--JoeWallack 11:18, 10 Jun 2006 (CDT)
.
Are there specific rules for posting to ErrancyWiki. I noticed that you removed comments from several passages related to the inscription on the cross because of redundancy. However, would it not be redundant to list one topic as "Crucifixion: Four Different Accounts," and then each of the contested verses individually? This gives the appearance of padding the list of verses for errancy. Why not just collect verses under separate issues rather than listing verses separately. If you are going to list verses separately, then you should allow each pro and con section to be entered. Maybe just require that any unique issues presented in the particular verse be addressed by both PRO and CON.
Also, you seem pretty tough on "speculative" comments in the CON section but somewhat more lenient in the PRO section. A lot of the PRO sections allege much but explain little.
rhutchin
JW:
1) "Are there specific rules for posting to ErrancyWiki."
Peter Kirby, the Creator of ErrancyWiki, has the original rules listed on the Main Page. I Am the current owner and I will be posting "New Rules".
2) "I noticed that you removed comments from several passages related to the inscription on the cross because of redundancy."
Disallowed arguments that are repeated will be removed. Related complaints should be posted to the related Talk Page.
3) "Also, you seem pretty tough on "speculative" comments in the CON section but somewhat more lenient in the PRO section. A lot of the PRO sections allege much but explain little."
Common sense, even if it is speculative, is the best potential evidence. Specific complaints should go in the related Talk Page. I have not reviewed most of the arguments at ErrancyWiki and I'm sure there are some Pro arguments that do not meet the Minimum standards.
--JoeWallack 09:54, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)
- ...Well, I'm not Joe, but I have noticed that you've often posted the same stuff several times over, and sometimes in the wrong place. For instance, on the "God lies / cannot lie" issue, I deleted your "Con" article from Titus 1:2 because you were actually agreeing with the "Pro" interpretation of that verse (which does indeed say that God cannot lie). You had also posted this on several of the "God lies" pages, which was a more appropriate place to put it: but it would be better to enter it once (preferably the page where the main "Pro" argument is actually explained in detail, especially if this is a dedicated page for that discussion) and post links to it on the other pages, such as "See the ((whatever)) article" (just replace the double round brackets with double square ones to make a link). --Robert Stevens 04:08, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)
The cross posting was done because those coming to this site are likely to be looking at one particular verse. Links may be viewed as an inconvenience because they just want to deal with one verse at a time. One solution is to identify the issue, e.g., "Does God Lie?," and post it along with all the verses that are thought to be covered. The PROs and CONs can be posted there. If the verses are individually listed then the PRO and CON should be listed with the verse (unless you have file storage problems).
Rather than delete a CON article, why don't you put it in the discussion page with a comment related to your objection.
However, if you are correct that the CON does not address the issue, then you should leave it as evidence of the lack of a CON argument and explain to the world how that is.
--rhutchin/Rhutchin 06:24, 29 Jan 2008 (CST) i am new to your site, i think i did something incorrectly, but i cant figure out what or how to correct it. please advise
thank you
Help Contacting Website Owner
How can I contact the owner of this website? (I've tried asking by editing wiki pages, but they keep getting deleted)
