User talk:Andrew from NC

From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change

Please be aware that I do not log on much anymore so it might be a while before I respond to you.

[change] Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia

Thank you! --Andrew from NC (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Gospel of John

A lot of what is in the Gospel of John is very different than what is in the other three gospels. Andrew, this sentence is really bad!

I just corrected "different from" to "different to" which is correct. "Different than..." is worse, not better. Any sentence that starts "A lot of what..." is an ugly sentence.

The sentence only needed one word changing. It needed "from" changed to "to".

Yes, I'm an old teacher......

You are certainly not on your own. A very large number of young Wikipedians are uncertain about the correct syntax of prepositions.

Amandajm (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to make it easier to understand. This is the Simple English Wikipedia after all. --Andrew from NC (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the problem. Some people always talk about high falutin' ideas that require fairly complex language. But most people, in day to day life, use very simple language and a limited vocabulary. English can be complex, but we often simplify it by using one word in lots of ways.

The word "what" is one of those words that we use in many different ways.

So, you have written "A lot of what is in the Gospel of John...." This makes sense to a lot of people who speak ordinary day-to-day English. People who have grown up using English understand you.

• Correctly you mean "A lot of that which is in the Gospel of John is different ("to" not "than") that which is in the three other Gospels."

When you see it written out in a grammatically correct way, it becomes clear that it is not such a simple sentence at all.

• Problem. What is the problem with using "what"? The problem here is that no person who is studying English as a second language will ever learn to use "what" in that sort of way.

When they study English, they learn to use the word "what" correctly, as a question. "What" is a Gospel? Tell me "what" the Gospel of John is about? "What" is it that are you talking about?

• So if you try to simplify things by putting them into "ordinary, everyday" English, it is not a help. Everybody's ordinary everyday English is different. It depends very much on the country or even the town that you come from. Putting complex English into "colloquial" English only helps the little group of people who come from that English-speaking area.

Everything that is simplified here has to go into English that is Grammatically correct. Because when a German, Chinese or Russian student learns English, they do it out of a text book. They learn some ordinary phrases (which you learn by heart, so the grammar doesn't matter) but everything else is learnt by grammar and vocab.

Many English-speaking students nowadays don't learn grammar at all. I go around correcting the mistakes.

Young people who are native-speakers but don't have much knowledge of grammar often write long sentences using lots short words and bad "syntax". (the way the sentence is constructed)

At the risk of being discouraging, I am going to say that what is required to write good simple English (or simplify complex English) is a very good grasp of the English language, a "theoretical" knowledge and a big vocabulary. This might sound like a surprising requirement, but knowing the simple way to put complex ideas effectively requires vocab.

Are you planning on continuing work on the New Testament? More stubs for all the books would be a great idea.

I hope you like the pics I've added.

There is also a great shortage of pages on things like Twelve apostles, Three wise men with redircts from Magi, Three Kings etc and all sorts of other Christian concepts that people are likely to look up.

Amandajm (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Response: I never really thought of it that way. Grammatically correct and simple seem to contradict each other, but I will try to use proper grammar in the future. Sorry if my previous comment sounded insulting. In response to your question, I have started the Simple Wikipedia version of WikiProject Christianity. By the looks of other Simple WikiProjects, few (if any) people will sign up, but it is worth a try. I do plan to work on other articles related to Christianity, but I don't have a lot of time to spend doing it, so it will be slow work. --Andrew from NC (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think your comment was insulting, Andrew. Thank you for taking it so well.

• I'm glad someone is working on the Christianity articles. I have been involved quite a bit at Wikipedia, and also rewrote the Jesus article here with a lot of opposition from some person called "Coppertwig". Be careful of Coppertwig. He/she will insist that you use the words "only Christians believe this" or some such, after every sentence that you write. This person hassled me endlessly until I suddenly realised that "Coppertwig" is a little "Copperstick". A copperstick is a "stirrer". In other words, the beastly person was a troll.

On Wikipedia there are some very anti Christian editors who tweak things to give them a bad slant all the time. I just left a little message for a writer who said "The supposed author of Mark's Gospel", instead of "The presumed author of Mark's Gospel". A few little words like that can add a really negative slant.

• Can you do a bit of research into Hebrews? It's almost certainly not Paul. Ordinary readers might presume it is, but I don't think that any Biblical scholars do. There's probably a reference that would be appropriate.
• That Genesis summary needs rewriting. I'll have a go at it, when I've got a bit more energy. I'll have to reread Genesis first.

I usually write Art and Architecture artcles, but there is an overlap, because so many of the paintings are of religious subjects and so many of the buildings are churches.

God bless! Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I have seen a lot of articles written with a negative slant, both here and on regular English. As far as Hebrews goes, a lot of Christians say that they have no idea who wrote it. They say that "where God is silent, we should also be silent." I have taken several Bible and New Testament survey classes, but none of them really got into detail when it came to the author of Hebrews. I am just going from memory here. I will do a bit of research sometime when it isn't so early in the morning and see if I can get some sources. I think I might have accidentally attributed it to Paul in Pauline epistles. I will go check and, if necessary, remove it until I do some more research. Thanks for taking so much time to explain the grammar! Grammar has never been something I'm great at, but I see now how important it is here on Simple. --Andrew from NC (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not the best person to discuss epistles. I'm not a great fan of St. Paul, I have to admit. If I get landed with the Epistle Reading in church I fall over the words. I'd much rather read the Prophets, particularly if I have to do it out loud. What makes it worse is that our dear old clergyman recites it quietly from the King James version, while your trying to read it out loud from the R.S.V which is the one that is in the pews. Amandajm (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Books of the New Testament

Hello Andew from NC, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. I hope you will have fun editing here.

You created an article Pauline epistles, which contains a list of the letters Paul of Tarsus supposedly wrote. These letters are in the New Testament of the Bible. Most scholars agree that some of the letters were indeed written by Paul, like the Epistle to the Romans. Some letters were lost, like the First Epistle to Corinth (the Corinthians). Others, like the Epistle to the Hebrews were probably not written by Paul. My reason for removing the Category: New Testament, was that it is called Category:Books of the New Testament here. As there will probably be many Pauline letters, I created a category Category:Pauline epistles, as a subcategory of Books of the New Testament. Our proposed guideline on Categorization says that an article should not be in a category, and a subcategory of that (Example 1 of the Guideline). For this reason I removed Books of the New Testament, when I added Pauline epistles.

All the best. --Eptalon (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Sinners in the hand of an Angry God

Hello again,

I noted that for th article, you added categories Category:Christianity, as well as Category:Sermons, an Category:Speeches; Category:Christianity is far too broad, so I changed to Category:Puritanism (but, as always such categories are up for discussion); Currenlty I do not think we have enough articles for Category:Sermons, but we might have enough for Category:Speeches (A sermon is a speech after all); the only problm is to find a Category we can put Speeches in? (The two other articles I think qualify are I Have a Dream, and Sermon on the Mount; though with sermon on the mount it is unclear if the speech was really held or if it simply is writedown of ideas).

All the best --Eptalon (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could keep Category:Sermons in the article so that once more sermons are added (which will probably happen) there will be a category. I'm not sure where, but I know that I have read somewhere here on Simple that it is okay to have a red category until there are enough articles to populate it. As far as Sermon on the Mount goes, it was definitely a sermon (and, as you said, that makes it a speech as well). --Andrew from NC (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(What I actually did is comment out the category Sermons); As you have probably seen, I have come up with a way to do a category Speeches; On a more funamental level, what is the difference between a sermon, and a speech? - Except that the sermon is given by some kind of clergy? - Until we do not have at least three articles that we can clearly classify as Sermons, there is no need for such a category. Sermons clearly goes under speeches. Which means that two of the three entries there currently will change - making the current speeches category obsolete. Once we have more speeches, we can think about subdividing them. --Eptalon (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, as to the Sermon on the mount, some people think it might come form earlier sources; some passages can also be found in the en:Gospel of Thomas, a text discovered in 1945. Some scholars think there is indeed a (lost) source text (usually called en:Q document) Matthew and Luke are based on (except for Mark). In that case this could be a poltical text (aimed at converting more peope to the new belief, rather than an actual speech Jesus gave); see also en:Synoptic_Problem for a discussion of these relationhips. --Eptalon (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] User:

I joined your WikiProject Christianity project! Hoping to help out in anyway, thanks for putting it on the Wikipedia talk page. Talk to you soon, AmericanEagle 02:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for joining WikiProject Christianity! I was wondering if anyone would even see the message I put on the English Wikipedia and I'm glad you did. I don't have time to sign on every day, but if you ever want to contact me then I will certainly respond when I do sign on. I hope you like it here on Simple! --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've already created some articles and largely edited others [1], I find this funner than the Big Wikipedia because there are more things to do/create. Blessings, AmericanEagle 05:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Good-Night!

[change] WP:PW

Well, you started the Christianity project, I started the Prowrestling project...I'm not a wrestler nor is any of my family but it is still part of my blood!!!--  † ChristianMan16  08:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Consensus

I'm not going to even touch the point that his "vote count" is an actual legitimate vote that we have a set policy for. We do not use consensus to mean a majority. We use the definition of consensus of "an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole." This group will never reach a single opinion or position on this matter. If there were a couple of hold outs that's one thing, but there are quite a few. Not everyone has given a position either. You don't see my name on the "vote" for one thing. I'm not "voting" because it hasn't been agreed that we are going to have a vote in the first place. That's InkPen's creation. I'd be in the oppose group at any rate. -  EchoBravo  contribs  13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring your attention to a couple of replies I've made to you on other pages: here and here. Thanks. · Tygrrr... 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to briefly reply to your question to me on Benniguy's talk page. Perhaps I should have said the voting was really only to get a clearer picture of where members of the community stand on the issue, not is. I'm not ignoring anything, I simply think it's gone on long enough. It's been going on for a long time with no consensus, so I am simply suggesting we bring it to a close. I hope that helps you understand. · Tygrrr... 23:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The quickest (and not to mention fairest) way to bring it to a close would be to give him one last chance. --Andrew from NC (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Thanks

For alerting me of that post! :) SwirlBoy39 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for reconsidering! --Andrew from NC (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Article

I've made articles for several of the books of the Bible, but the one I just made took me so long! It is called the Book of Ruth, I thought it looked pretty good too. Anyway, I have been working a lot for the Wikiproject Christianity, God Bless You! AmericanEagle 01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought Book of Ruth looked good. Many articles around here are lacking when it comes to pictures, so they really added a lot to the article. I also found it interesting because I just read Ruth a few nights ago so it was fresh in my mind. Great job creating the articles. You've definably got me beat. I don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia so I'm glad someone is working on the Christianity related stuff! --Andrew from NC (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Blocked

You have been blocked as it says in Wikipedia's blocking policy for 1 day for breaking the policy against personal attacks (calling people pornographers), despite several warnings. If you do not agree with this block, please reply on your talk page by adding {{unblock|reason}}, replacing reason with why you think the block is wrong, or send an e-mail to an active administrator in this list.--Eptalon (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting. It seems as if you are going out of your way to prove to everyone just how incapable of logical thought you are. And you are doing a good job of it too. Of course this might be considered another personal attack... --Andrew from NC (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Your personal attacks

If you are still angry about the incident at Simple Talk, please note that Wikipedia cannot cater to the censorship demands of everyone. We are help to write an encyclopedia so that others can learn, not to censor content. Anyway, the photos are all part of "the sum of all human knowledge", there is no good reason to take them down. If you do not agree with this, please leave. Thank you. Chenzw  Talk  11:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to have read it on Simple talk: Look, here's the bottom line: Wikipedia's not censored. Tasteful, educational pictures are chosen for articles wherever possible. You act like we've got a picture of a wet t-shirt contest on the breast page instead of a black-and-white diagram and a painting of a mother breast-feeding. If that's too wild, racy or shocking for you, I believe that sounds like a personal issue and is far from a compelling argument to change a long-standing valued policy of Wikipedia. Your options boil down to two: 1. accept that we're not censored and that we do our best to make sure images in articles have an illustrative, educational purpose and aren't just be there to shock or 2. leave. It's as simple as that. · Tygrrr... 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am certainly not going to just accept the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. But I will let it go for now because I am clearly in the minority. If I run across a conversation about censorship again I will probably chime in there. I do not and will not take back what I said. I also will not leave Wikipedia for fear that the Christianity articles be left all alone in the hands of atheists, but for now I will stop contesting your precious rules. And, for the record, you will never gather "the sum of all human knowledge." Those who think that they will are just setting themselves up for disappointment. Thank you and have a nice day (or on this side of the world, night). --Andrew from NC (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I just read the comments above. End of story. Though I agree with most of what you said, you can't say it...here 'sigh'. This, as I have found out, is not a Christian site. So we have to live in harmony, while editing. But to the people above, I didn't think it was a personal attack, he was just stating that only people who want those kinds of things on here, aren't fighting it. Hence the word: ____________. Good point that if you left wikipedia, Christian related articles would be left to people who no nothing about it (atheists). I would still work on them though. God Bless You, AmericanEagle 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] RE: Courtship

I read the last comment about ChristianMan16's story, I thought: Only Andrew from NC could have said that. My elder sister just officially started "Biblical courtship" last night! Great timing! That was so true about "Why would she want to break up with him if she was going through a hard time? If there was really any love in the relationship they both would have realized that he needed to be there for her. And the boy would not have run away from home if he really trusted in God to make the situation right". So True. God Bless, AmericanEagle 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to see that a few folks around here agree with me. Hope everything works out for your sister! --Andrew from NC (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Billy Graham

Hello Andrew from NC , I just proposed this for a "Good" article. Can you help it become better and then vote on it with me when it's time. Thanks a million, AmericanEagle 02:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Billy Graham

Please vote in this Wikipedia:Proposed good articles#Voting section for Billy Graham. Thanks, AmericanEagle 04:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] That's fine

It was a bust anyway. I am going to be working on it for awhile then relist it. But it took it off after one day, because I saw their point. But when I relist it, you'll have a week to vote on it. Thanks, AmericanEagle 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[change] Barnstar!

		The Special Barnstar
		For first getting me started on Simple, I award you this Barnstar! AmericanEagle