User talk:Mahigton

Welcome!

Hello, Mahigton, 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!

By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name.

I've noticed that you have made several edits regarding the Christian faith, and that's great! We have a committed and diverse group of editors in our community with similar interests! Please feel free to ask us questions and interact with us on the various talk pages for Christian topics; we'd love to have you working with us!

If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- KHM03 12:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theology[edit]

I do much appreciate point-by-point responses, so Im doing the same (shortly) at Talk:Theology. Regards, Ste|vertigo 15:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the responses, please be careful to not break up others comments. Copy them and indent insert is fine, but I will also use quotes and italics to differentiate between theirs and mine. WP:E-Ste|vertigo

Oops, sorry - my bad. I'm going to be away from the computer for a fortnight or so now, so won't be able to respond for a while.--mahigton 07:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Threat Warning Posted by User mahigton[edit]

Posted by user mahigton on my talk page:

Please undo your most recent revert on the Scriptural Reasoning page. It is your fourth revert on that page within 24 hours, and therefore a violation of the WP:3RR policy. If you do not undo the revert, you will be reported to the administrators. --mahigton (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User scripturalreasoning's response:

User mahigton, I am perfectly entitled to edit the article and correct errors in it, including now minor corrections which have now been actioned. Your tactics are political and nothing to do with appropriate editing of the article. Your communications and threats on my personal talk page could be construed as harassment of an editor.--scripturalreasoning (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scripturalreasoning"

I'm perfectly happy for this exchange to be repeated here - though I have altered the heading, as shown, in order that casual readers will not be misled. User scripturalreasoning had reverted the article Scriptural Reasoning four times in one day [1] [2] [3] [4]). The WP:3RR policy forbids such activity, and asks for it to be reported on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. That page states 'When reporting a user here, inform them of this on their talk page.' I did user scripturalreasoning the courtesy of warning him/her before reporting the infringement, so that it could be cleared up without involving the administrators. Yes, the wording of my warning was quite terse: given all that user scripturalreasoning has accused me of on the Talk:Scriptural_Reasoning page, I'm afraid I thought a cheerfully friendly tone would be hypocritical. I'm sorry that s/he reacted this way. However, the violation of the three-revert rule has now been reported.--mahigton (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Scriptural Reasoning again[edit]

Will do a.s.a.p. We've got visitors staying, so computer time currently much reduced. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Body's Grace[edit]

What is the point of this article? An article on Rowan Williams' views on sexuality, or specifically on homosexuality, might be worth including (I don't know how Wikipedia guidelines on notability would relate to such a proposal), but is it really worth having a page on a single lecture, most of which was not actually about the topic highlighted in this article (i.e., homosexuality)? Perhaps the problem is that the article is simply mis-named: the majority of the content is not actually about the lecture, after all.

--mahigton (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of an essay than a lecture, and it has actually been published as a book, which is available at Amazon.com. [5] The essay has been very important in the overall debate about Anglicanism and homosexuality and has been repeatedly cited both by opponents and defenders of homosexuality in the Anglican communion. Williams himself has also frequently mentioned the book when explaining his general perspective within the Anglican crisis. ADM (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]