User talk:EdiOnjales/2007-2008

Word of Life

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I think you did a good job on cleaning up the POV and unorganized mess that was Word of Life. Thanks for tackling it. --Lendorien 17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(Copied here for reference) Thank you for the kind note you left on my talk page about the Word Of Life article. I see all the great cleanup work you do, so it means a lot coming from you, seriously. One question: I just noticed that the article still has several tags. Would you mind having a look and seeing what you think about removing some or all of them? In my opinion, it still needs citations, but I'd like to think that the neutrality and tone have been much improved. I know I could remove them myself, but I'd really appreciate a second opinion, if you don't mind. Thanks again for everything, and keep up the good work! --edi 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'd be happy to give it a lookover. I did scan it initially when you first did your edits, but I'll give it a close look now. Aaaaaand I'm back. I'll admit, I think the article is overly long for its subject. It could use a bit better organization (a few things could be moved around) and there are still some tone and POV statements here and there that need to be weeded. I think that the neutrality tag can probably be pulled. You did a good job NPOVing it. I'm going to try and get rid of the rest of the POV issues I saw and move some things around. If you could go over it and check my work in a day or so, that would be great. --Lendorien 19:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. I read several books on Word of Life, and have read the archives at Wheaton--Edsargento (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Eurostile

(Copied here for reference) Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I want you know that I noticed the changes you make to my last edit of Eurostile and I like them a lot. They're small changes, it's true, but really good and perceptive ones. I'm more of a technical copy editor (spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc), but I try to correct tone as much as I can as well. But clearly you're much better at it than I am because I didn't even notice the words and phrases that you caught. I'm impressed! Keep up the excellent work! --edi 22:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your kind words! It was very kind of you to contact me. Woblosch 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cake Questions

(Copied here for reference) This is kind of silly, but I ran across your image here and I'm intrigued by the cake itself. I have to tell you, I've never seen peaches and chocolate on/in the same cake. So I'm curious: Do you know what kind of cake it was? Just chocolate and the peaches are used as a garnish, or did it have peaches inside also? Or was it the other way 'round, a different sort of cake and it just happens to have chocolate on the outside?

I appreciate your help, and I'm also very impressed with your photography. I love photography and I mess around with it some, but I'm not nearly as good at it as you are. Keep up the good work. -- edi (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi EdiOnjales,

Well it was a homemade birthday cake my mum made for the b'day of one of my younger siblings. It's a layered cake with maybe four or five layers of sponge separated by chocolate cream. Two of those separations have peaches (canned ones) in them. And then there's grated cooking chocolate on the outside. Hope that helps! And thanks for the compliments and I hope you the best of luck with your photography! --Fir0002 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all userboxen are created equal

(Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mets501&curid=3957872&diff=216504948&oldid=216283261) That one you were asking Mets about is taller than the rest, is this any better? You could consider tweaking the userbox heights directly, but this may affect other users. If you display userboxen in a vertical format, perhaps utilizing {{userboxtop}}/{{userboxbottom}}, then the height will not be an issue. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 23:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any empty rows there in either Firefox or IE. Yes the met-the-moonwalker is on it's own row, bu that's about it. What browser are you using? xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 23:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Any better now? I added valign to every row of that table. Unfortunately, it can't span across the entire table for some reason. The problem didn't manifest in IE7, so you might consider upgrading your browser, or switching to a much better one ;>. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem =) I used to be a fairly staunch advocate of not using Firefox either, but once you get used to it, it's really hard to go back to IE. P.S. I think I found the problem, you had an extraneous row statement here. Better now? xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 00:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello EdiOnjales

I don't know if your problem is already solved, but i've checked your user page and everything seems to be aligned. Anyway i can't help you much, i just copy the box code and fill in the blank spaces. Hope everything is in order now.

Stay well --Bluedenim ^(talk) 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem was an extra row..(see my comment above). I guess IE6 rendered this, while Firefox and IE7 ignored it. But you'll enjoy using Firefox all the same =) xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 01:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Christianity in Korea

(Copied here for reference) Hi there. I intended to come here sooner, but was neglectful, and for that I apologize. I've come to thank you, first, for the obvious hard work that you've put into the Christianity in Korea article both as a writer and as an editor. It's a really good article and I've enjoyed working on it. Which brings me to my second point: I hope that the changes I've made haven't offended or annoyed you in any way. My goal is always to improve Wikipedia, but I try very hard not to do that at the expense of the feelings of other editors. I know very well how personal and emotional a writing project can be, and if anything that I've changed bothers you in any way, I hope you'll feel free to talk to me about it. I'm very open to having my own edits edited wherever it can make the article better.

My third reason for posting here is to thank you for reverting the deletion of the last section of the article. As you probably saw, I was unsure about what to do and I appreciate you stepping in. And finally, I want to compliment you on your user page. Not only is it attractive and informative, but I like the sense of openness and friendliness that it presents. Very nice job.

I think that's everything now.  :) Thanks again. Have a great week. -- edi (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your note on my talk page. Yes, I have seen your edits and greatly appreciate them. I do understand that some of what I wrote is probably out of date and needs to be updated, and there is a lot more material about Korean Christianity that needs to be added. I'm pleased to see your contributions to the article. The anonymous edit that I reverted was in a very different category from yours, I must say.

I'm glad you're playing a part in Wikipedia and look forward to seeing more of your work. Unfortunately, I'm now trying to run two jobs plus a course of study, which allows me almost no time to do what I love best (contributing to Wikipedia), but I'm still lurking in the background and will resume my activity here when circumstances permit.

Keep up the good work! David Cannon (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Todd Bentley

(Copied here for reference) I'm curious about your removal of the information about common evangelical doctrine with regard to angels. I agree that it presents a POV, but it's in the "Controversy" section and in my opinion it served to explain to those who don't know the teaching a bit more about why Bentley's account is controversial. I would think it would be difficult for someone who doesn't know that fact to realize it from the subtle implications given in the paragraph as it stands. Would it be more acceptable with a citation showing that many (if not most) evangelicals hold that view, or would you still object to it? And if you prefer not to include the information at all, do you feel it would be better to remove the word "female" from the remainder of the section (even though this is, in fact, a huge source of difficulty for many evangelicals)?

Also, I was planning to add a bit of information about the problems that evangelicals might have with his claim of a "breakthrough in financial stability" after the vision, and possibly some other points, after doing a little research to find sources. For one thing, there is a lot of information in the AOG SoFT and it might be difficult for those who are unfamiliar with the document to sort out which parts are relevant, so I thought I might address that by listing specific sections, quoting parts of it, etc. Would you object to that? If so, can you explain why? And if not, what form do you feel it should take?

I have no desire to argue with you; you've done a great job of editing and maintaining the article and I fully understand your concern with POV. I truly am interested in your thoughts on this. I merely want to clarify some points in the article, and I'd like to do it in a way that is acceptable to the larger community. Thanks for your help. -- edi (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Edi. I removed the edit about the femaleness of the angel because it is already addressed in the following paragraph - that a specifically female angel is part of the issue that many have with considering the vision. Belaboring this point brings bias - several people have (as you've probably noticed) tried to emphasize and de-emphasize the controversies with this particular vision as well as all Bentley's otehr aspects. More experienced editors and admins have repeatedly pointed out that there is a fine line between offering information and creating bias.

You were right in noticing that I've found myself time and time again raking it clean of both well-intentioned POV adds and outright vandalism - this person incites a lot of emotion, across the spectrum which I do understand. But if you read Hitler and Billy Graham's bio's, you'll see two excellent examples of encyclopedic information written without bias - those are the models I follow when in doubt.

Another issue I struggle with is the constant adds of repetitive minutiae. Too much detail can undermine an article as much as bias, which is another struggle. Does Bentley, at this point in history, warrant an entry longer than that of a former president of the US or a famed Saint of the Catholic church?

I don't own this article, although I do often find myself (somewhat tiredly) gatekeeping it. And I absolutely DO have an agenda - I would like this to be the first article I ever shepherd to good status. Other than that, it is a truism several times proven that many others know more about this person than I and have ways of improving this article I can't imagine. EBY3221 (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(Copied here for reference) Thank you for your note on my talk page. Your explanation clarified a couple of things in my mind regarding excess information, and I appreciate it. I've been watching the article for some time now but have refrained from making any really meaningful edits until now precisely because I do have strong (negative, just so you know, for the sake of discussion) feelings about Bentley, and I also believe strongly that this isn't the place for that. I do, however, want always to be sure that useful (especially referenced) information isn't removed simply because it's negative... or simply because it's positive, for that matter. (I think it bears mentioning that the only previous edits I've made to the article have been to fix a link and to moderate a sentence that I felt was unfairly negative in tone.) So for now I'll leave the article alone and just keep watching until I see another reason to speak up. I do appreciate all your hard work, and I look forward to seeing more of it in the future. Have a great weekend, and thanks again. -- edi (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)