User talk:Ltwin/Archive 2000s
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Ltwin.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page. |
Archives |
Aproposed deletion template has been added to the articleVictory World Outreach Center, suggesting that it be deleted according to theproposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia'scriteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" andWikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the{{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or onits talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through theproposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of thespeedy deletion criteria or it can be sent toArticles for Deletion, where it may be deleted ifconsensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add{{db-author}} to the top of the page.FisherQueen (talk ·contribs)23:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Victory World Outreach Center, an article you created, has been nominated fordeletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel thatVictory World Outreach Center satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and theWikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory World Outreach Center and please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content ofVictory World Outreach Center during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.FisherQueen (talk ·contribs)12:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The article looks fine now. jj137 (Talk)18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The articleUnhindered has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure tocite anyverifiable sources.
Pleasesee the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteriafor biographies,for web sites,for musicians, orfor companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.NawlinWiki (talk)21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
|
--Secisek (talk)06:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delighted to see a Pentecostal commenting inTalk:Iowa Alliance for Reformation. What do you think ofmy proposal? If nothing has happened within a couple of weeks, I shall probably do it myself. But whereas I could only prune the article savagely, you may be able to add extra information. If you are more interested in the current Alliance, fine, you are probably a good person to be able to assess their notability. --RHaworth (Talk |contribs)06:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
No disrespect intended, but I had no particular faith in you. However I did have hope. Seems my hope was too optimistic, so all that abideth is charity! Whilst we must be charitable to these five men (and you are probably right there), the Wikipedia criterion isnotabilty. Be bold (another Wikipedia motto!) go ahead, edit the page - it can always be reverted if necessary. I fear that if you do the job properly and cut out all the POV and the irrelevant stuff about the Iowa Band, the article will crumble to dust in your hands and you will be left with … the name of the Alliance and nothing else. Try it! I have also posted a requesthere so hopefully something will come of it. --RHaworth (Talk |contribs)07:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your involvement with editing this page and your interest in having a consensus reached in this article so the block can be lifted and the article to be brought to some sort of consensus. I was brought in by a request on the Christianity Project page to have someone review the article. I haveabsolutely no former knowledge of GGWO, nor any particular bias. All I can tell you it in its current state, it looks like an absolute disaster (both the article, and the organization as a whole). My hopes is to help bring the interested editors to the table on the talk page to resolve the conflicts and have the page properly created/edited. Please take a moment to go over to thetalk page and review my most recent postings. Also do no be alarmed as your earlier comments/posts were refactored and archived (there is a link available on the page to the archive). My post is only one of several which will hopefully help guide this page towards something everybody can agree is appropriate.Tiggerjay (talk)00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I see you've put the pageunder construction. You go! All the independent reliable sources I found in prior versions or by link following and logged atTalk:Lakeland revival#Reliable Sources are already listed there in citation templates, should you wish to use them.GRBerry23:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for that, with only a quick look, that previous edit seemed somewhat POV, which I did not realize until now. Sorry, and thanks for the note! Marlith (Talk) 04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Responding to an old message about the International Pentecostal Holiness Church: I guess I haven't logged on in awhile, and just noticed your message. I quickly took a look at the page and its seems that you have done a good job improving it. I will try to take a closer look when I have time. -Rlvaughn (talk)12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit late, but regarding[1] and[2] (amongst others): There should be no reason to use level 1 headings (=Blah=), and articles should at most have level 2 headings (==Blah==). Level 1 headings match the style of the title of the page.x42bn6TalkMess10:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Why was the Protestant Church cat removed from the Church of the Nazarene page? thanks.Moonraker0022 (talk)02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying-up the Nazarene Missionaries article. It looks much better now.Far Canal (talk)23:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Even when an editor is behaving in a manner you believe to be tenditious or offensive, it's always best to take the moral high road and err on the side of being nice. Even, for example, when a material falsehood is put forth. It's better to be rightand scrupulously polite. Cheers,Jclemens (talk)04:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your interest on the above named article. The reason I created the article name Antiochis of Commagene, is it distinguish her from the other princesses of this name. There are another two princesses of this name from theSeleucid Empire. The information in this article is correct, that includes the facts on her tomb, she shares with her daughter and mother. I am happy the way I am written this article. If you can find anymore information on her, I am more than happy for you to update this article. You can check out the sources on this article that I have provided for the article, so you can read yourself.
Anriz 22 October 2008
The think the article should be deleted. In hindsight, the church doesn't seem to be notable in New Mexico at all. Ottre 03:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is obvious to everyone why there was a problem with Bentley's behaviour, and so it would be good to explain. Help me say it well, if you can.Hyper3 (talk)21:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding - you can always report the official numbers and then say that you don't know how many other members there are.—Precedingunsigned comment added byThe Four Deuces (talk •contribs)03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello seeing your vast knowledge inPentacostalism, I would greatly appreciate your input here [[3]] . I have just created this article and I was hoping if you would take the time in incoorporating some information fromPentacostalism into this article since this church's doctrine and creed stems off of it in its entirety. I would greatly appreciate your input and some help in expanding the pentcostal beliefs into this article to make more informative, thank youNinevite (talk)03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your followup. Oneness Pentecost is very very simple difference from Trinitarian Pentecostal. There is a lot of debate about the right method of describing it but aiming at a page as concise as the Trinitarian page would be a laudable goal. In fact the Trinitarian page would be a great place to start, copy into a topic calledNew_Oneness_Page fix it to be OP, archive the Oneness Pentecostal page.
There are two definitively different subjects that people have tried to group together. Jesus Name Baptism and Oneness Pentecostalism. I believe that this is the result that most people baptized in the name of jesus are OP. Jesus Name baptism is simply people who believe they should be baptized directly in the name of Jesus instead of the Titles. There are many other groups and people that execute Baptism in Jesus Name other than OP people.
As the Trinitarian page states there is no direct reference to 3 persons in the bible. OP people simply believe that the Trinity is 3 manefestations of same god. They also believe there have been many other manefestations of the same god through time, for example the burning bush, and as God who walked with Adam in the Garden of eden etc.
On the Trinitarian page it says OP are Modalists, and then it goes onto to say that OP believe in "One Personage" which is simply a bad way to describe it. OP don't believe in the personage of god at all. God has a personality, but God is not a person, or three persons god is YHWH (I am that I am).
OP believe that God is One, and there are manefestations of God, but there are not "Persons of God" For example traditional Modalists would suffer to explain,
There is One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
OP totally believe and teach this. That Jesus is Lord he is the One God, who as it says in 1 Tim 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
So OP draw from this conclusion that when God was Manifest in the flesh, that he progressed his relationship with Man from being a 3rd Party relationship of man-to-YHWH (I am that I am) to a first party (brotherly John 1:12) relationship of man-to-YHSWH. He became our Personal Saviour who died for our sins, as opposed to us offering a sacrifice of lambs and bullocks.
So when we refer to YHSWH or the Greek the Greek Ieasus (very few OP ever speak YHSHW or Ieasus except as the historical reference) or the English Name (Jesus) OP believe they are referring to the proper name of the One God that we should speak to him with.
OP would also use titles, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the hundreds of other titles found in the Old and New testament to refer to God. They would consider Hosanna, and Father equally valid Titles of God, whose proper name is YHSWH -> Ieasus -> Jesus.
You often would here a OP pray, "Heavenly Father..." and all the OP in the room would know he means Jesus as the manefestation of our Father and in that Fatherly relationship, and OP would not think there was a different person other than God.
I hope that all helps set the tone of OP beliefs.
DevonSprings (talk)03:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am more than willing to improve the Neutral quality of the document as much as I can.
So you asked the question that gets down to the major factoring of trying to limit God to personage?
If Jesus was God, and the "Fullness of the Godhead dwelt within him fully, why did he pray to the father?"
How did Jesus talk to his Father. Was Jesus Talking to himself?
This is very very simple. Jesus was both Man and God. The father dwelt within him. The nature of God, the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit is not the nature of Man!
From John 14
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Jesus the Man had the "father dwelling within him", in Jesus case it was "the fullness of the Godhead".
God is a Spirit, to communicate to God, you must believe that his and submit to that Spirit and pray to God. God is not flesh, when God was manefest in flesh, the fleshly man was praying to the Spirit of God.
Simple?
DevonSprings (talk)04:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The nature of God versus the nature of Man. I too have long stopped arguing OP versus TP. And I agree we should definitly discuss the sameness of it all as opposed to the differences. I hope you take time to help me be clear in the OP Pov. The page when I read it was so confusing.
I think what I will do is spend a week or so and fix the 3 introduction paragraphs, then I will describe the Doctrine, then the History. All of the Doctrine today is described in "as opposed to Trinitarian doctrine" which should be one very small section, stating some of the differences and maybe the samenesses in the chart.
At the end of the day, OP describes the Persons as Manifestations, just like wording in 1Tim 3:16. Its just that simple.
There is almost no difference other then OP people don't have to spend multi-paragraphs describing how 3 is one. One is One, it just happens to be God so God can manefest himself however he chooses.
I appreciate your help and encouragment, may we pray each day that the work can be accurate, respectful and representive of what a OP person would say themselves.
The PAW was never part of the Assemblies of God and therefore never came out from them. The PAW is much older than the AG. The PAW was racially integrated in the beginning as was the Azusa Street Mission (Apostolic Faith Mission). Those within the AG that recieved the Oneness revelation were basically excommunicated by the AG. My grandfather was part of the Azusa Street revival. He knew SR Hanby and GT Haywood and others. He was part of the PAW in the very beginning. History has tried to cover the fact that the white brethren left the PAW soley over racial division. My grandfather, who was white, kept fellowship with both the PAW and the PAJC(later to merge with PCI as the United Pentecostal Church International). My grandfather founded the very first Pentecostal Church (Oneness OR Trinitarian) in the whole Tri-State. I have documents, letters, ect. that shows that much of Pentecostal history has been twisted to political correctness. Alas, who am I to change anything. But I am concerned about some historical aspects of Pentecostal history that is readily available but lightly being glossed over. One of these being that the PAW was never part of any other organization and that UPC was never the mainline Oneness group until the white brethren left PAW over racial predjudice.Connor1551 (talk)09:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean when you say "is this page necessary." I assume you are referring to the OP article proper. There is another article titled Oneness Pentecostalism Doctrine. Perhaps the OP article could go a little lighter on the doctrine (and refer readers to the OP Doctrine page) and go more in depth in the history of the movement. BTW, do you think a separate article on OP Church succession would be an acceptable article? ThanksConnor1551 (talk)16:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I apologize. I had no idea there was such as article as Oneness vs. Trinity. I found it interesting but it doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic subject. Perhaps someone should merge it with the OP Doctrine article. As for the Church succession article, I was wondering if it might be something someone else would consider writing (it's called passing the buck ;) There are quite a few Church successionists in OP, although they may not call themselves by that particular name. Dr. Marvin Arnold founded an OP Church organization that is basically made up of Church successionists. Dr. Curtis D. Ward worked for some time with Dr. Arnold. Dr. Ward differed with Dr. Arnold on the nature of Church succession and proposed a very strict linear succession. He wrote a book on OP Church succession. Dr. Ward also wrote a book that teaches Church succession for Churches practicing glossolalia (which does not go into OP doctrine as the first book does). Chalfant has been quoted as a Church successionist also. Previously in the OP article every Tom, Dick, and Harry was listed in that section as successionists and none of them really were except for Arnold, Ward, and Chalfant. The article is much better but still leans a bit heavy on the doctrinal end as opposed to the historical end. It takes time. Keep up the great work!Connor1551 (talk)02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose that ONLY secular mainstream authors publishing through secular mainstream publishing companies be cited in the articles.Agciorg (talk)15:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
If acceptable I would like to work closely with you and DevonSprings on the OP article. There is a certain individual attempting to sabatage the article for personal reasons. I intend on completely going over the article and then share any need changes with you. Thank you.Connor1551 (talk)18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
G'day. These guys spammed thecloud computing article so I've warned them (uw-coi) and prodded the article. --samjinout19:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey... thanks for stepping in. A lot of editors run from I-P related articles like the plague, and for good reason. Look forward to what you have to say.IronDuke16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Ltwin, can you enable your email?IronDuke19:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Click "My preferences" at the top of your screen (right near where your watclist, etc are). Then there will be a space where you can enter your email in a box, which I think would be a handy think for a mediator to have enabled. Now, no one will be able to read your email address. What happens is that users looking at your userpage will have an option on the left side of the screen to "email this user." When they click that, they can send you an email, but they themselves cannot see your address unless and until you reply. You might want to make sure your email address does not identify your RL ID (unless it's too late for that) as a fair number of creeps do haunt the environs of WP.IronDuke20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed a compromise for now consisting of taking out all negative & positive material and leaving the entry at the bare-boned facts. This seems like a reasonable compromise.—Precedingunsigned comment added byFlawfixer (talk •contribs)20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Your edit wasn't wrong, getting sucked in by Flawfixer is. If it's any consolation, the mediation didn't seem to really be progressing, anyway. I can't reach a compromise with myself.IronDuke22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested in improving the IPHC article so it will pass a GA review. According to the review on the talk page its almost there. I can help with reliable sources - I've added a couple already and will add more at a later time. I also plan to add a graphic or two, such as a visual timeline with the start of the organizations and the date of their mergers.Lamorak (talk)02:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, nice work on the Sandford article. I've nominated it for GA status. There is one sentence that I took out that you put back in. Its not a huge problem, but why in an encyclopedia does this need to be mentioned?
Well that's fine, but the qoute kind of sounds like it came straight out of the book not an encyclopedia. I think for an encyclopedia it would be better to say it how you just said it above.Ltwin (talk)15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I will work on a few more cites as I get time. Thanks for being patient. I found this article some time ago and it was a morass of bias and intentional attacks on Pentecost ala History Channel/NatGeo (e.g. all Pentecostals are snake charmers who drink rat poison and practice witchcraft.) Okay I'm paraphrasing but not by much. I did a quick hack job trying to clean up the most egregious junk and point out the primary text, uncited facts, and opinion issues. But It needed a bottom up rewrite. Apparently it got one. Look like you've had a lot to do with that and I want to thank you for it. What I did was a patch but an ugly one and probably raised a lot of hackles not the least of which is that I go anonymous.—Precedingunsigned comment added by76.172.48.224 (talk)01:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I have placed the review on hold as there are some issues which need sorting out. Another editor has decided to fail it, but as that is against procedure I will revert that in a moment. Please respond on the GA Review page atTalk:Frank_Sandford/GA1.Jezhotwells (talk)15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I maintain that the beliefs of the so-called "new" anglican church are based upon beliefs that reach back to the 14th and 15th century. I have seen the literature myself. They quote a text from the 15th century and compare it to today's text. Yes, we evolve. We change. We do not believe everything that we believed in the 15th century, because we know better. The "new" anglican church comprises very, very old thinking.76.119.148.224 (talk)04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ltwin -- Thanks for your message. I'm confused. Why do you feel that my edits are in violation of Wikipedia's policy? Based on my own understanding of the C.S. church, they rectify serious problems in the entry's opening paragraphs. As it stands now, the article reads like a church publicity statement. Look forward to your response.Digger2009 (talk)12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)digger2009
You look like you're getting into an edit war, over simple editorial opinion. The revisions in question do not violate NPOV, they are not biased, nor are they irrelevant. The fact that the individual died for the very reason he was seperated from the church is information that readers, students, etc. might find quite relevant. I understand your concern, but in cases where a piece of information is "on the fence" you err on the the side of allowing the information, not on censorship. Especially when the information has to do with religion, and since you have publically identified yourself as a Pentecostal, your constant reverts give the appearance of protective bias, whether that is the case or not. However, since the individual in question died due to a practice that was condemned by the church, does it not serve to actually reinforce the church's position? Something to consider. As to your statement that the word "ironically" should not be used; it would, in any definition of the word, be considered ironic that the person who initiated the practice of snake handling would die of a snake bite. Again, this is a case of editoral opinion. You may dislike the editorial styles of other Wiki users, but that is not grounds for an edit war.—Precedingunsigned comment added by50%quick (talk •contribs)01:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- thanks for your work on editing the article on Christian Science.
The unfortunate fact is that the best source for citations to the article would come from religious scholars that probably don't frequent Wiki (as they are doing more scholarly things).
My own viewpoint (POV) is that Christian Science is only a new (non Christian religion) if we put in that category any religious viewpoint that falls outside a circle of orthodoxy.
Certainly, since Christian Science defines itself as a Christian religion (by name and by explicit statements by Mary Baker Eddy that she was a faithful follower of Jesus (and in her words, Jesus Christ, kind of making the point) -- hard to state that it isn't.
My alternate POV is that it is also defined by the philosophy of the Protestant Revivals of New England in the 19th century.
Anyway, again, thanks for your efforts. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk)23:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Will look over the edit history to see if their are any references to journal articles on popular theology in New England in that period. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk)02:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Huge article with lots of information, would like it to go on GA sometime. Can you help copyedit it? thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Uhhm yeah actually I did. I'll start it tonight ok.Ltwin (talk)01:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Your email. If there is a real-world consensus that there are now two distinct churches, and each church meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article of its own e.g.notability, etc., then by all means create two articles. If one or both churches do not meet the criteria to stand aloneeven if they are separate entities then there should be one article, or perhaps no article if neither stand-alone church meets the criteria for inclusion.70.116.134.151 (talk)22:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Peace, brother. Hey, I' m an inclusionist, and don't think people should have to go off Wikipedia to find an organizations basic beliefs. I'm all for putting as much info as Wikipedia as it can hold! If you can rewrite it better than they did, go for it.DavidPickett (talk)04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware of thisCfD to renameCategory:Universities and colleges by affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement to either
Thanks so much for repairing the recent vandalism to theOneness Pentecostalism article. It's sad that folks have to engage in that kind of foolishness just because they don't like something. I'm not attending the Oneness church I had been attending when we last spoke (or any other kind of church, for that matter, right now), but Istill want to see the articles on this subject become the best they can be. It's nice that you took time out to do that. Hope all is well with you, and thanks again! -Ecjmartin (talk)02:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The article currently titled "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" will soon change its name. An earlier straw poll narrowed the choices to six alternatives, listed at:Talk:Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover#Straw poll 2(once this thread is archived, seehere.)
If you wish to rank the names suggested there, please do so soon. Please put other comments BELOW rather than interpersed among suggested names. Thanks. --AuthorityTam (talk)18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Please check to make sure your last addition made it toTalk:Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence. I saw it appear on the page log (seems like it said "Free advice" or something similar), but then I didn't see your comments. Maybe it is just a system timing issue.Afaprof01 (talk)21:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I checked it. It's there, thanks.Ltwin (talk)22:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ltwin, sorry to bother you, but I was maybe hoping if you can copy-editBrad Pitt's article, as I'm trying to aim the article to Featured article status. This past June, the article failed itsFAC, due to the article not having a good prose. A kind user copy-edited the article, but a second pair of eyes would be helpful. If you have time, I would appreciate your help a lot. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ltwin!
I'm glad you have taken an interest in theSpansih monarchy page! I have to let you know I reverted your recent edits however as too much information was lost. I understand the desire to compare the Spanish monarchy page with the British monarchy page, but they are two different animals! As I read the British Monarchy artical, it is far more focused on the history of the British monarchy, while the Spanish monarchy article is focused more on what the Spanish monarchy is, and how it operates in Contemporary Spain.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk04:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello LT! Listen, on the Peer review page you made note that we have different opinions on formatting, but I think it may help if you could list what those may be so that we can brainstorm on them ok? It may also give other peer reviews an idea of what you were speaking on! They may agree after all!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk03:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
As you reverted my edits twice now without offered reason - not even a hint in an edit summary - I've started a discussion about the matter atTalk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Section arrangement. Do please offer your input. --ĦMIESIANIACAL15:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Is my face red. I should have double checked this first. I'm sorry I made a royal mess of the comma's in OP. The present style of punctuation just looks so awkward. If I would have used this style in college I would have never graduated :) Thanks for straightening that out.
BTW, you have done a GREAT job at OP. I was quite impressed.Rachida10z (talk)16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Some, including myself, have wondered about the extra spaces in some of the articles. For example the spaces between sentences are sometimes more spacious than necessary. Does tightening up the article either hurt or improve the article, or would such corrections serve only to appease the obsessive compulsive nature in some of us perfectionists? :)Rachida10z (talk)16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
