User talk:Be Dave

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Be Dave! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. And remember, no question is "stupid"; if you have anything, absolutely anything that you'd like to know, feel free to drop on by and leave my a message! :D Happy Editing!

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
My Talk Page New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

GeorgeMoney ☺ (talk) ☺ (Help Desk) ☺ (Reference Desk) ☺ (Help Channel) 18:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of God and other comments

You asked why the Kingdom of God was included in WPCalvinism. The justification I would give is "This needs input from Calvinists", especially since various ones had a well-developed view of this (if I understand correctly -- see Reconstructionist postmillennialism for details :) ), but my real reason was that I tagged mostly Calvinist stuff and a few others I couldn't resist.

Hmm. Maybe we need a category of "Core Christian concepts" or something -- stuff that *every* branch of Christianity has an interest in. For example, WPChristianity includes a whole bunch of stuff that is specific to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, which I have no interest in. But I think *all* Christians would see the importance of a soteriology/salvation article.

One other comment. You mentioned on your front page about being involved in "Northern Politics". Being an Australian in an American influenced world, I couldn't at first work out whether you meant Queensland (Australia), or some kind of anti-KKK, anti-US-south, post US Civil war thing :).

-- TimNelson 05:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tim -a bit Anglocentric -will ammend that Northern British! Thanks for your explanation. (193.63.62.252 20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC))(Be Dave 20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Penal substitution edit wars

I started writing something here, but then I ran across Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and it was saying everything I'd said, but better :). My suggestions are:

Stop edit warring, even if whatsisname deletes stuff
Discuss things on the talk page, and try not to make any controversial changes until consensus is achieved -- often disagreement can be resolved somehow (eg. Talk:Reformed Presbyterian Church -- it took a while, and I started changing stuff too early, but we got there in the end)
If consensus appears to be totally impossible, follow the dispute resolution process above.
As far as the POV tag is concerned, try to get Roger to agree with the solution I suggested on the talk page before doing anything.

I'm afraid I'm a little too busyish to get involved properly at the moment, but feel free to direct more questions in my direction. It may be a few days before I respond though.

-- TimNelson 13:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Williams, Offence is the the eye of the receiver, but I do not think that 'denigrate'and 'offensive' are appropriate for observations about edits. I might remind you that it was you who wrote 'nail the lie' in an earlier contribution. I might have taken offence at the word 'lie' - which might have been attributed to me; I merely pointed out that it was not true, a misreading of what Packer wrote. You put the word 'impermissible' into my mouth, which I politely pointed out what not true. I am afraid that I am still of the opinion that you missed the point in your edit about Oak Hill. I have removed one sentence in my comments (contrary to WP guidelines). Roger Arguile 09:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford City

Hi Dave, I noticed on your edit summary for Bradford City you put "sadly" - are you a fan? If so you may be interested in helping on List of Bradford City A.F.C. players. Thanks, GiantSnowman 21:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]