Welcome!

Hello, Theowarner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jess ^talk _cs 04:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WB... with the proper name this time :) Jess ^talk _cs 04:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... took a little while. But, I have it now! Theowarner (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your removal of a section (and your edit summary) on WLC's talk page. Generally speaking, it's not ok to delete comments from talk pages besides your own. The process for getting rid of them is archiving, which you can find instructions for here. Generally, it's just a matter of creating a new page (like Talk:William lane craig/Archive 1) and copying the comments into that page. That said, we were the only two who commented in the section, and I don't mind my replies being deleted, so I didn't revert. I just wanted to let you know for future reference, as deleting other (non-vandalism) talk page comments elsewhere could get you a bit of scorn =P

No problem though! Just wanted to point you in the right direction. See you around! :) Jess ^talk _cs 23:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Here's another one... is there a way to get live updates of edits? Theowarner (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can add pages to your watchlist by clicking the blue star at the top right of a page. Then check Special:Watchlist to see the most recent changes. I doubt there's a way to have changes sent to your email, if that's what you're looking for... and due to the number of updates some pages receive, I'm not sure that would be practical anyway. I just have my watchlist bookmarked in my toolbar and I check it throughout the day. Hope that helps :) Jess ^talk _cs 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about your edit to K.C.A. You replaced some of that content with "The argument's first premise has been widely criticized^[1], but such philosophers as J. L. Mackie,Graham Oppy and Quentin Smith and physicist Paul Davies." I can't tell if "but" is supposed to be "by", or if you accidentally cut off part of the sentence. Just thought I'd let you know about the potential typo! I do approve of you removing some of the debate stuff; it should make the article more concise. Kansan (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's a 'by.' I'll fix it. Theowarner (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kalam cosmological argument, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Kalam cosmological argument was changed by Theowarner (u) (t) deleting 11871 characters on 2010-07-17T05:06:41+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first barnstar! Wow. That was very nice of you, and it is very much appreciated. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems this was a bit of a false positive. Be careful of your typos! It looked, both to myself doing RC patrol and to cluebot, as though you were replacing large chunks of text with disparagement, because in red letters in the summary appears "by suck philosophers as" and the old text is referenced. If you are trying to make it NPoV, please by all means continue and your work is much appreciated. I have deleted my vandalism warning to you, but be careful of spelling, especially such/suck. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on William Lane Craig. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary? We discussing these issues in a perfectly reasonable fashion. Frankly, it seems heavy handed. None of my reverts were not accompanied by a reason. Theowarner (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all of them were accompanied by bald and unsubstantiated assertions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why we took the conversation to the discussion page. I'm sorry, but I'm a pretty reasonable person and I feel like you've misused your authority in this case. Let's talk on the discussion page! Thanks! Theowarner (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, your edits were also "bald and unsubstantiated assertions." You claimed the bibliography was imbalanced, which then you explained meant 'lengthy.' But then, on the discussion page, this became an issue about self-publication. So, I think my reverts were to be expected since 'imbalanced' and 'lengthy' can't be appreciated without discussion. The self-publication issue is great but that only took place after I reverted your edits. I think I was doing this exactly the way an editor should. Theowarner (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) As I have no "authority", I can hardly abuse it. (ii) I based my argument of the lack of importance on the lack of third party coverage. You based your argument for its importance on stating that it was important. The former is a substantiated argument, the latter is not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're explaining that very well now in the discussion page. Thanks! Theowarner (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather after reviewing the language you use in your discussions, I would not place you any higher than . Quite clearly you are unable to form grammatical sentences that would qualify you on the level of , "Users with advanced and fluent level of English". As such, placing yourself in is very misleading and dishonest. Maiorem (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? Theowarner (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "I think theologian is probably inappropriate as Craig typically differs to theologians on some questions,"; the correct form would be "Craig typically differs from theologians..."
• "Anyone who knows Dr. Craig knows him for his defense of the existence of God primarily, that much should be true. And thought seem to be an apologetic. It's done in a philosophical manner, but so is most of apologetics these days."; I really cannot understand the sentence in the middle.
• "I've argued in the best at this should be mentioned in opening paragraph." I think you meant "at best".

I could go on all day listing down more and more grammatical and lexical errors, not to mention the many omissions and apparent typos. This can only place you below the level of . Maiorem (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fantastic examples of typos. I appreciate it. Theowarner (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are typos and errors that a would not make, let alone . Maiorem (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are typos. Theowarner (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are an unacceptable amount of typos even for . Maiorem (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable? Explain that. Theowarner (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be acceptable if it doesn't occur in almost all of your posts. Maiorem (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Noted. I'll be on guard for typos. Theowarner (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi theowarner! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|theowarner|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]