User talk:MtB

Welcome!

Hello, MtB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --DarkEvil 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

I saw your post on Slashdot this morning and noticed you were here as well. Just dropping in to say hello. :) --radman1

Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief

Thanks so much for your input on this article. I was hoping that someone could come along from a pro-Pentecostal POV to balance out some of the things that I was putting in. I would really appreciate some more lengthy defenses of the P/C position against many of the charges laid in the article. Check out the discussion page because when I first created the page there was a major discussion on the Vote For Deletion page about it. One Salient Oversight 22:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the very intelligent discussion thus far. I have every intention of trying to balance out the articles that reflect on Pentecostalism. I'm actually debating how to differentiate between Pentecostal belief systems. Oneness for example is already well distinguished as being seperate from 'regular' Pentecostalism but several other factors are not so well documented on the Wiki. For example, as a member of the PAOC here in Canada, I am what is often refered to as a Calvinist pentecostal, and the institution I studied at was very strong on both biblical theology and proper exegesis. --MtB 04:17, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

User assistance

--Marcie 12:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)Thank you for your suggestion to go through the tutorioal page (your talk page appears to have good links). I've actually gone through it several times, although it has been a while. I DO have to go through it concerning the linking (its one of my weak areas generally). I did go through it extensively and talk with stewacide about how to write less like a university paper and more like a encyclopedia.

In terms of keeping new information short...i had the information (except for tiny bits) that i wanted to include on the discussion page for several months with little comment. If folks are commenting on it then how am i to work it? Edit amounts small enough that people that follow the page notice? (not meant sacastically...just kinda confused)Put the possible edit up in the discussion page?

I will try to keep stuff smaller. That is a weakness of mine. Thanks for the links + suggestion M.

--Marcie 13:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)I went through the tutorial that seemed appropriate. I could now do external links, but i don't understand the information on how to do internal links. Additonally i don't have a straight vertical line key that seems to be used. Links have always been my weekest point. I know the abortion page (general) has the definition of Chemical Abortion, but all the ways i've tried to link it to Chemical Abortion in the Abortion page in Canada have failed. Help? -- Marcie

You should consider changing fonts in your browser for one, I'm not sure if you mean the vertical bar or the square brackets (the square brackets can appear to be vertical bars in some fonts). However, the vertical bar is usually on US-104 key keyboards as shift-\, above or near the ENTER and Backspace keys. On french-canadian keyboards you will have to hunt around for it as I can't recall where it is as I believe the keys in question are usually { and } unfortunately. It is possible in Windows however to change keyboard layouts as well. If all else fails, edit a page, find the vertical bar, highlight and copy it with Edit, Copy or Ctrl-C (in Windows) then paste it where necessary in your own writing.

That said, the vertical bar is not usually for linking. To link the word "Computer" to the article "Computer", you simply wrap it in double square brackets, resulting in Computer (see the source of any page while editing for examples). The vertical bar is only necessary if the article you're linking to uses a different wording than you do. In the case of chemical abortion, the vertical bar is completely unnecessary as the article is in fact named that way. Simply put the double openning square brackets before "chemical" and two closing square brackets after "abortion" in your writing and it will be linked. Use the preview button to see if it worked.

Also, as I mentionned before, since multiple people can be editing a page at a time, consider keeping your changes to longer articles short and specific to one area at a time. This way changes can be viewed independantly and reviewers will be able to edit your initial comments while you're writing new ones. Also remember the neutral point of view (NPOV) considerations of writing in an encyclopedia project, especially for controversial subjects like abortion. --MtB 15:16, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the linking thing working. I can at least link common words now ;-) to articles, and i'm starting to see the pattern about how you can redirect something. You were right about where the | was, except on mine its the capital of the \ key. I actually use an American Keyboard, otherwise i'd go in to the Canadian abortion page and put some accents on the e in Hebert (i'd check but i'm pretty sure it has one....grammar rule although names can be exceptions.) On the POV thing. I've been trying to keep it neutral but i appreciate the heads up. I don't have time to rework it right now, but i'll put that into my thoughts (and i'm trying to do it smaller by smaller section although that is creating a huge list of minor changes....guess you can't fix everything.)

I guess the thing was i wanted to try and get the page up to speed (it had kinda gone nowhere for months when my computer was out of wack and then i forgot about WIKI until i tried to look something up after the American Presidential Debate (wierd how stuff pops up eh?) In fact i have issues with abortions and genetic testing. I think i was the only feminist in my feminist philosphy class (who wasn't Catholic...and even a lot of the Catholics agreed) who thought at times there should be a limit to abortion (say sex selection). People pointed out to me was i going to bar the door. Well no...so my position changed to some tests should maybe not be available and the community should decide. I'm assuming you are likely Canadian, maybe American? Its common here for people to have an abortion on a fetus with Down's Syndrom (which i think is pushing it somewhat) but it gets wierder if you go to the UK where it fairly common to have testing and consider an abortion over Turner's Syndrom or Kleinfelters (likely spelled wrong). Both mean you can't have kids, and Turner's mean you are more susceptible to genetic problem because you are female but only one X gene....but aside from that what i've studied of it (we did it under wierd combo's you were told couldn't happen before when i was in Grade 13 Biology although i'd come across it already) the only other problem is that there may be a need for chemicals to get you through puberty. I don't know anyone in Canada or the US that talks about it.....so its wierd to see it in Britain.

I guess all this to say i wanted to clean up the page and then work on some of those issues. Especially since i'm not sure how to put those in without a POV but i would think they would be worth discussing. Getting an accurate article on Abortion definetely came first (and i've been doing a bit of this and that too). I don't particularly want to preach here (i can do that elsewhere)...and i'm writing this to you...not as an article. I thought since you were bringing up POV you might be able to give me an idea of how you approach the issue of genetic testing without coming out looking like you have a POV on one side or the other. Here i think it would just be useful to give people information on the topic and let them make up their own minds...but the info isn't often available. Heck most people don't know there is a 1% miscarage rate every time you do amnioscentisis (likely misspelled) although that doesn't mean you should skip it either....i'm surprised people don't know though. Any ideas? I can find the stuff on my page now i think on my talk page...i'll keep an eye on it or you could just give me a quick heads up (i'm getting this slowly but surely). --Marcie 00:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I want to thank you for sharing with me the story of your son's Colin Isaac Babcock's life and the experience for you and your wife and your family. What you said at his funeral is undoubtably true...he was loved and cared for obviously hugely. The decision your family may have made might be different these days but it is just as valid as any other decions, in fact i think it took a lot of guts (i'm sure you had pressure to decide otherwise, if only from how society often views things). I'm touched you shared it with me and thank you . Its also nice to know that there was a good hospital out there that was supportive...i'll maybe answer back a little bit later but its obvious that your family made the right choice for themselves. I can't say what my decision would be, but i want to keep it so that people CAN make the decision that your familiy did. (ie the right NOT to have to have an abortion regardless of tests and such).And it sounds like the tests were still useful to you...someone i knew got tested when they had a child for Down's....because they wanted to prepare if their child had it, not to stop the pregnancy. It was the first time i'd really heard someone say that. And it sounds like it was useful information for you to have and then decide what to do with--Marcie 00:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Christian Copyright Licensing International

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Christian Copyright Licensing International requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shizhao (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]