| Revision as of 03:49, 15 January 2007 editDrboisclair (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,549 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:33, 15 March 2023 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,673 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <center> (1x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="center"><p>'''NOTE WELL'''</p> | |||
| ⚫ | '''Clutter, spam, and otherwise unnecessary material on this page will be deleted or archived. Thanks.''' | ||
| ⚫ | '''Clutter, spam, personal attacks, harassing notes, and otherwise unnecessary material on this page will be deleted or archived. Thanks.'''</div> | ||
| Please e-mail me via Wiki "E-mail this user".--] 21:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC) | Please e-mail me via Wiki "E-mail this user".--] 21:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 6: | Line 8: | ||
| ] 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | ] 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Fair enough, some users do not like their user talk pages cluttered with messages. I wanted to discuss the ] article. Paring it down while keeping in information that characterizes it and fits it into Lutheran and Christian tradition in a way that gives more information than the usual encyclopedia entry.--] 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | :::Fair enough, some users do not like their user talk pages cluttered with messages. I wanted to discuss the ] article. Paring it down while keeping in information that characterizes it and fits it into Lutheran and Christian tradition in a way that gives more information than the usual encyclopedia entry.--] 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Sounds like a good idea to me, Drboisclair. What do you have in mind? ] 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You are making good improvements; however, the need for stating the corollary: that the documents of the Book of Concord were/are not the private documents of their individual authors is an important point when one cosiders the issue of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, which Melanchthon believed he could alter as he saw fit. To say that they are public documents is to say that they are not private writings. Maybe you could put that in somehow.--] 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's fine, but the sentence was terribly worded. Just bad style. Better to make that thought another sentence. Go for it. ] | |||
| == '''NOTE WELL''' rules of civility and conduct == | |||
| If you ever try to return to wikipedia, which seems likely, you might note that your arrogance, condescension, and disregard for policy and guidelines is as much behind your recent banning as anything else. You do seem to possibly know something about the subject about which you contribute; however, your own conduct is seemingly what makes you unable to prevent getting banned. You might note that the next time you appear. ] 19:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:33, 15 March 2023
NOTE WELL
Clutter, spam, personal attacks, harassing notes, and otherwise unnecessary material on this page will be deleted or archived. Thanks.Please e-mail me via Wiki "E-mail this user".--Drboisclair 21:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, I choose not to have an e-mail on file with Wiki, so I can not e-mail you.
Justas Jonas 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, some users do not like their user talk pages cluttered with messages. I wanted to discuss the Book of Concord article. Paring it down while keeping in information that characterizes it and fits it into Lutheran and Christian tradition in a way that gives more information than the usual encyclopedia entry.--Drboisclair 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me, Drboisclair. What do you have in mind? Justas Jonas 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are making good improvements; however, the need for stating the corollary: that the documents of the Book of Concord were/are not the private documents of their individual authors is an important point when one cosiders the issue of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, which Melanchthon believed he could alter as he saw fit. To say that they are public documents is to say that they are not private writings. Maybe you could put that in somehow.--Drboisclair 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me, Drboisclair. What do you have in mind? Justas Jonas 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the sentence was terribly worded. Just bad style. Better to make that thought another sentence. Go for it. Justas Jonas
NOTE WELL rules of civility and conduct
If you ever try to return to wikipedia, which seems likely, you might note that your arrogance, condescension, and disregard for policy and guidelines is as much behind your recent banning as anything else. You do seem to possibly know something about the subject about which you contribute; however, your own conduct is seemingly what makes you unable to prevent getting banned. You might note that the next time you appear. Badbilltucker 19:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)