Talk:New Testament Christian Churches of America/Archive 1

~The initial author of the historical article can be reached at: tracts@juno.com

Many have written more to this article since its initial version, so the above person isn't solely "responsible" for the article Hanako 15:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NTCC supporter, You keep changing/vandalizing the article & I keeping reverting it back. I think we should discuss this and try to reach a consensus, per Wikipedia's guidelines. Please respond on this page for discussion. (I am not tracts@juno.com by the way.) Hanako 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NTCC supporter, You are vandalizing the article according to Wikipedia guidelines. This is an encyclopedia. It is supposed to show all sides of a topic or issue, and be written with a neutral point of view. Hanako 15:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wwjd2009: The primary contributor to the History section was not "just a member"; he was a licensed NTCC minister for years. This is no smear job; on the contrary, you are on a censorship campaign. Please work with us, not against us. --Rin3guy 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wwjd2009: It is not true that NTCC has the same licensure policy as the Assemblies of God, as you tried to purport: The A/G will accept a minister in good standing from the Church of God (Cleveland TN) simply upon letter of transfer, provided he resigns his previous credentials. And each local congregation has the autonomy to decide who they will invite to preach in their local pulpit; that is not something decreed from church HQ.--Rin3guy 16:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wwjd2009: If headquarters officially remains in St. Louis, then why do you also say to "contact headquarters for verification assistance"? Surely you are not referring to Pastor Wright, because church officials are in all Graham, where reports have gone for over 20 years.--Rin3guy 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woops!!

Two Sided

Sometimes people should not be so narrow minded and be open to sharing with people bothsides of the story. This pages was made to tell about New Testament Christian Churches of America. However there was an under-line of hate being shown. Is it a Christian thing to DOG out a churches effort to bring people to the Lord? Just go back to Factnet, people there are negative and LOVE it. They LOVE being feed that trash!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.63.254 (talk • contribs)

How is this supposed to show all sides of a topic or issue, and be written with a neutral point of view, when you are not neutral, but opposed to New Testament Christian Churches of America?

Please tell me how is this an 'encyclopedia' on this church? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiepoo (talk • contribs)

I personally can't say I have an opinion one way or another on this church or any other, but when people edit in blatant proselytizing or intentionally vandalize valid information or links on the page, it becomes merely a question of what is dictated in WP:VANDAL and WP:NPOV. I welcome any contributions you may have to the page, but anything added should adhere to the guidelines of the encyclopedia. If particular pieces of information are not factual, or need to be substantiated, there are numerous templates which can be added to the page, or a section of it, to request that sources or proper references be cited. If there is a particular point which is of contention, you could mention it here and perhaps the original author and yourself can discuss it and come to a compromise on how it should be worded, or if it should be included at all. Above all, WP:CIVIL. Thank you. -Dawson 20:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unbiased wikipedia entry? I think not. The negative connotations directed toward this church are clearly noted. It is not in error that the original intent of the writer(s) was to be of great detriment to this organization.

Notwithstanding, I am chagrined that the portion reading, "The fenced compound is in a rural area, just 20 miles below Mt. Rainier, America's most dangerous volcano." was removed. That statement undoubtedly displayed a negative mindset regarding this church in a most blatant fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.152.38.216 (talk • contribs)

I see nothing inherantly negative about mentioning that Mount Rainier is a potentially dangerous volcano, this is a documented fact, but it has nothing to do with the article at hand, and thus there is no real point to mentioning it in the article. Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF. Not everything is an attack, and I would be happy to help you reword the article if there are other particular points that you find are not neutrally represented, but at the same time the article should never be an advertisement, it is an encyclopedia entry, it should claim the verifiable facts, and leave it at that. -Dawson 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-->vandalism-->report to administration To wwjd2006: Why do you insist on vandalizing this article without properly dicussing npov? What is you objection and why? Tyworld 15:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To wwjd and other NTCC supporters: The mere existence of this article seems to be more scandalous to you than any alleged non-objective content. There has been no mention on this page yet of any specific statements, inaccurate statistics or remaining negative connotations so they can be worked out or smoothed over. Again, this is incumbent on you, because the "neutrality disclaimer" should not remain there indefinitely. After a reasonable period of time it needs to be permanently removed after any disputes are settled, but so far none have been raised.--63.25.16.61 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should facts about a religious organization be concealed because of their possible detrimental effect? I understand that certain churches have very good reasons to be ashamed of or embarrassed by their history. But should churches be held to less of a standard of truthfulness and honest disclosure than other businesses are?? --63.25.16.61 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give specifics as to the bias or unverifiable fact within this article. Do not give an opinion, give specific examples of what is not true within this article. What are negative connotations you are referring to? What is NOT true PLEASE BE SPECIFIC with any objections you may have BEFORE vandalizing the article!! Let's be objective and reasonable in our discussions, please. Tyworld 20:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media

What forms of media are allowed in NTCC? What are the restrictions, past and present? Loyalty, wouldn't your recent edit include all forms of movies and television? If so, I find your edit to be easily misunderstandable by the unaffiliated reader. Specifically, where you changed television and movies (are prohibited) to and the exclusion of visual media which would show sexual content or violence. Hanako 02:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Media: I am glad I can interface with you about this. The organization uses a Bible verse to guide the teaching of media in all forms: Psalms 101:3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes... This verse excludes sexual or violent content. I know that many members do not own televisions, but as with any teaching from whatever source you have, some will adhere and some will not. It is personal choice. The doctrinal emphasis is then on obedience to the Bible, not church dogma.
It is true that ministers of this organization are expected to live according to the bible, because, again emphasis on the Bible: ...to be examples of the believer... Laity are taught the bible and if they want to adhere to those teachings that is completely up to each individual. Period.
In general:
Hanako, in following your posts, I sense objectivity, so I'll tell you what the supposed "high attrition rate" means, which in itself is an opinion and without real meaning. It is not due to the lack of love, since the first thing visitors realize and members know is the sense of love for each individual. It is not church dogma because of the continual quoting the bible throughout sermons and teachings. Many people do not want to live according to the bible. Since many people believe it to be the infallible word of God and also realizing they don't want to live accordingly for whatever reason someone must be blamed. They can't blame the word of God and certaintly can't blame themselves. So, the only entity left to blame is the church they attend. Thus, you have the forums calling NTCC a cult. First, to believe their claims, you have to believe those people are telling the truth and members of NTCC are not. I am not ready to believe that. That is why I organized the links into links and dissenting links. Very little of the factnet.org posts are verifiable, which truly seems to be a shame to wikipedia.org.
I know wikipedia can not control outside links but has anyone investigated those sites since these are "important" links to understand NTCC? In review of the wikipedia policy of verifiable many of these links certaintly could be considered under "Sources of dubious reliability" If certain people wish to plainly commit slander should not wikipedia find the facts before allowing posts to go unmolested without edit or clarification?
In conclusion:
I hope I answered your original question. I also await your reply. Hanako, as stated before I believe you to be objective and so I believe that we both want the same thing: a factual article free of fantasty or opinion. I am ready to assist to that end. Respectfully, Loyalty. April 23, 2006

Thank you, Loyalty. I have read your response and will attempt to respond later this evening as time allows. I just wanted you to know that I am not ignoring you. Until then... Hanako 20:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. One other point I was thinking about to assist you in this article's production. If you have read the blogs both pro and con you probably have picked up on the total opposite view points of the posters/bloggers. It is as two people describing the exact time of day, one describe night and the other day, with very few in the middle. If there was an in-between opinion it would be easier in my mind to identify verifiable truths. However, this when there is a loud clamor from both opposing view points. If we were discussing opinions we could call it politics, but what do we call it if we as discussing facts? The only possible answer: someone is right and someone is wrong.
Does wikipedia care about determining fact from fantasty? Perhaps, this is not the proper forum for this discussion, but that is for someone other than myself to decide. I sincerely do look forward to your response. Respectfully, Loyalty. April 24, 2006

Loyalty, are you saying you can confirm that the owning and watching of television, DVDs, etc. is now permited for all members and ministers within NTCC? If so, can you confirm when this was constituted? Tyworld 15:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalty, I am sorry that I haven't had time to debate this with you in great length, but I've communicated with several ministers today and had to correct your edit. Thank you. Hanako 18:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyworld, if you careful read my post you would not have drawn the conclusions you did. Simply put: Psalms 101:3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes.... Respectfully, Loyalty 26 April 2006

Loyalty, do you attend NTCC? Do they allow TV, movies, theater going, etc? This is the focus of the subject. You did not answer the question. Wikipedia and it’s readers are not looking for scriptural interpretation, but verifiable fact. Our sources have told use Television is NOT allowed. If you dispute this, give us FACT please. Do you attend? Are ministers AND members allowed to own and watch a TV? go to the movies? purchase or rent DVDs? Tyworld 02:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current statement: "In the past, use of the internet was believed to be a negative influence and was highly discouraged." Suggestion: "In the past, because accidental porn was nearly unavoidable, and it had been catalist for trouble for several ministers and members, use of the internet was believed to be a negative influence and was highly discouraged." ~ a member

Doctrine

I do not see the need to list the entire docrinal statement within this article if there is a link to such information. Tyworld 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wwjd2009: The NTCC doctrinal statement is WE this and WE that. That is not neutral. Interested parties can veiw YOUR statement of faith on YOUR official website. We are not trying to look like others as you suggest. We can discuss this without having to change the article over and over. Tyworld 20:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am following the format of other churches on this site. so it is needed. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostal_Church_of_God#Doctrinal_Statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwjd2009 (talk • contribs)

I agree to mediation in this matter, do you? Tyworld 21:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a third party article with all intents and purposes to be neutral. There is nothing in this article to promote or discount this organization. All point included are factual and verifiable. It if the doctrinal statement is to be added, it must be seriously edited to reflect that neutrality. For this reason, it has been suggested that the link be given to the organization’s “official website” so the interested party may read the all inclusive doctrinal statement there. If this organization so wishes to include the doctrinal statement within the article, then are you also willing to add your bylaws, officers, membership requirements, financial status and everything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.136.139 (talk • contribs)

All parties should sign at WP:RFM, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyworld (talk • contribs)

WWJD2009: OTHER SUBJECTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED REASONABLY, WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO DISCUSS AND COMPROMISE? SIGN THE ACCEPTANCE FOR MEDIATION AND PLACE YOUR OBJECTIONS AND REASONINGS HERE ON THE TALK PAGE! DO NOT KEEP CHANGING THE ARTICLE! Thank you for your cooporation. 70.90.19.97 14:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWJD2009, Do you attend this church? Are you a bible school student? Are you a minister? How many "chapters" have you attended? Do you attend in Graham? kindly respond to our inquiries and discussions. Please do not ignore. 70.90.19.97 14:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Bathing

71.250.136.139, I don't understand your recent edit. NTCC outlaws co-ed swimming, and mixed bathing? Can you please explain? Hanako 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed bathing is an old fashioned expression for co-ed swimming. The point is that NTCC prohibits both swimming in public or any co-ed (mixed gender) bathing/swimming. No swimming pool, no beach, no jacuzzi or hot tub. The only exception would be privately with same sex or with spouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.136.139 (talk • contribs)

Oh, I see. That should be rephrased, shouldn't it? Mixed bathing is a confusing term. Even you said it was old fashioned. Perhaps we could say that NTCC prohibits both public and co-ed swimming? Oh, and please sign your posts by adding four ~ 's to the end. Thanks. Hanako 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's wonderful that we were able to agree on at least one point. :) Hanako 14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrinal Statement Fiasco

Okay NTCC wants the doctrinal statement put in, outsiders do not. One issue is that the doctrinal statement does not cover the full spectrum of doctrines that NTCC follows. So, it's misleading to the public and to even their own members. It sounds very much like an advertisement for NTCC and not a factual listing of what they believe and adhere to. We are trying to build an encyclopedia article and not and advertisement. Plus, those who keep adding the doctrinal statement are also blanking other sections at the same time, which is vandalism. 161.155.177.104 just blanked valid edits that were made overnight, and deleted the mediation notification, which needs to go back. It would be one thing if the the doctrinal statement remained in the article, but the vandalism that accompanies those edits isn't fair. Hanako 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this can being upsetting, but let's try not to yell at each other. :) Hanako 14:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone object to leaving the doctrinal statement in, (without the headings which are taking up lots of space) and letting me revert the other sections back to before they were vandalized yesterday....and we'll try to start on even footing again in that spot? Hanako 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the other individual will not adhere to Wikipieda's Mediation Processes or reasonably object on the talk pages. I agree the doctrine can be added as long as the article is clean. I implore you to keep the other subject lines in the acrticle. Those subjects may not be seen as "doctrine" to current members, but they are practices that everyone should be aware of, not hidden as they are not included in thier "official doctrinal statement." Also, change the WE statements within the doctrinal statement. This article is NOT an adverstisment for this church. I suggest that if WWJD2009 continues to vandalize the article without discussing on the talk page as we are, that user the blocked. I have asked and questioned with little or no response on this page from that user. How can we agree unless we first discuss?70.90.19.97 14:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View

Someone keeps blanking out this portion of the page. That is considered vandalism. Please stop. Please take a look at the lutheran church or Assemblies of God. Dont you think they have many enemies? yet at least it's a readable article. this is not the place to put your one sided slants, you can do that on your counter-ntcc web sites. this ought to be like reading an encyclopedia brittanica, very neutral in content. wwjd2009 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe i am doing this unsuccessfully. i have added to this discussion page at least 5 times and it is not showing up or getting deleted. i want to discuss and work with this process. did this show up? this is my 6th time. wwjd2009 14:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must add to wwjd's remarks. You are definitely not neutral. please adhere to the neutrality in an article. if someone wanted to find out more about this church the first thing they often ask for is the doctrinal statement. they shouldn't have to leave wikipedia to read it, because then they may get sidetracked and not come back to their site. do you think wikipedia would want that? of course not. so the doctrinal statement is a matter of fact, of what this church believes and practices. daddylonglegs2050 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, wwjd2009, is that there are two sides to every story and both sides must be represented in this article. That can be done and still be neutral. You want "neutral" to mean that no negativity will represented. Unfortunately, that's impossible given the history of the organization. You just blanked out my very neutral paragraph pointing out that NTCC has a high attrition rate, which cited 4 sources. Hanako 15:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hanako. i will respond to this since wwjd2009 has not yet. how does one verify this? what is a high attrition rate? listen to even how that sounds and what kind of point are you trying to get across. if i look back at the baptist church or assemblies of God church i went to, out of 300 people that went, maybe 20 people still go to that church. is that a high attrition rate? other authors have wrote whole books on this concerning American christianity in general. so i don't see what this false fact is trying to get across? do you understand now? i look forward to talking about this with you. daddylonglegs2050 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The docrtinal statement cannot read "WE BELIEVE". That does not sound neutral or thrid party. Tyworld 15:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a doctrinal statement is not a point of view, it is a copy from that church groups by-laws. it is not stating a pov, just a fact of what they say. it is not stating the whole world's beliefs but this church groups beliefs. daddylonglegs2050 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in order to come to a consensus, i personally have no problem with you changing 'we believe' to 'NTCC believes'. that is what a doctrinal statement is. a statement of their faith of what they believe. do all agree or object with this? thank you for discussing. daddylonglegs2050 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to changing the title of the section to "Doctrinal Statement" and removing all WE's. daddylonglegs2050, Perhaps the term "attrition rate" could be changed. The fact is, there is a negative aspect to this church and it must be noted. An encyclopedia would note it. A news reporter would note it. Why? Because there are other writings on the internet that support it. Hanako 15:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since no one objected, i will agree with Tyworld to keep a neutral point of view. the words "we believe" has been removed by his request. daddylonglegs2050 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that is agreeable. What about the other NTCC practices AKA doctrines that are not inclued in that statement? Such as outward holiness, prohibition of TV and swimming. These things are not biased that are fact and NTCC is proud of their stance on such issues. 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If the doctrinal statement is a "copy from thier bylaws", then why hide other areas or practices that are in those bylaws? such as the above standards (swimming, outward ho******, etc.) Tyworld

Yes, I submit that a copy of the current bylaws be included. Hanako 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to this. A doctrinal statement is common practice for someone to want to know before going to a church. The By-laws refer more to the licensed ministers in that group. If I go over to the lutheran page on wikipedia or the PCG page or COGIC, it doesn't have by-laws but some of them do have a doctrinal statement. also, they don't go into detail about everything they believe, or that which is perhaps 'different' from other church groups. it appears that you are trying to bring out questionable practices because you don't agree with them. i also notice you keep bringing up about a question of a prohibition of tv. the tv is not forbidden among church members of ntcc, period. yes, this is verifiable. and how is this different when james dobson and charles stanley and a book i was just reading by warren wiersbe were warning their followers of what they see on tv and have even advocating throwing it away. i heard this personally on their site. it comes down to a matter of conscience.

once again, if i go other religious groups pages on here, it doesn't name all of their practices. it gives a brief synopsis of their history, some of their core beliefs and that's it. if you want to to more, you are free to do so on your other sites. this is to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a place for you to vent your personal vendetta's against a church group. daddylonglegs2050 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

daddylonglegs2050 You are attacking me. There is no vendetta. The intent to share information. What is negative about not having TV. The Jews, the Amish and many other share the sentiment. You are making it negative. An encyclopedia, yes...but if we were writing about frogs, we might include thier habits and abilities. 70.90.19.97 19:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70.90.19.97 please do not make it worse than it is. i am not 'attacking' you. if you took it that way, i do offer my sincere apologies. either way, that is not church policy. An overseer just came by the other week and went over this very subject. ministers do not have a tv, due to time constraints and yes, in one's view, objectionable material. but it is not forbidden for church members. once again, it is a matter of conscience. so to say such would be untrue and would filter out the true content of this article which is to give someone a neutral point of view about this church. if they want to find out more, they can go to google or even below to some of the links and find out anything they want that is not covered. daddylonglegs2050 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

daddylonglegs2050 Again, you are the one finding fault with not being able to watch TV. I never stated it was a fault of the church but a practice. Regardless of the reason behind it, it is not allowed for ministers. Why are yu trying to hide this? 70.90.19.97 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i feel as though you are attacking daddylonglegs. i have nothing to hide or gain or lose by any of this personally. your comments just aren't literary pure. this is an encyclopedia. read below and see some of the other sites on religion and how they dealt with practices in the church. wwjd2009 20:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referenc this statement, under history: "...'Free Ho******' movement. However, NTCC chose to adopt a much more liberal stance on the issue of divorce and remarriage, which distanced them from that group." Much more liberal? How much more? What were the differences? For a conservative Church, this can look really bad, and it can discourage potential members. ~a member

The word "ingrown" has been used. Are we a toenail? How about a different word, maybe one that is used for businesses that get their talent from the inside? (A positive word is much more nuetral, at least, than a negative one.) And has anyone seen my thess-a-russ? Nevermind. There it is, embedded in a rock. ~a member

a member - your point is well taken, i will fix it right now. wwjd2009 20:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Mediation page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/New_Testament_Christian_Churches_of_America%2C_Inc I'm not sure what happens next. Hanako 17:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Purity

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Pentecostal_Ho******_Church for a good article that i wouldn't mind reading in an encyclopedia that comes from a neutral point of view. i may not agree with all of their practices, but i wouldn't expect to read all of their faults (in my eyes) in an encyclopedia. this is a well written article, telling their history and the suchlike. daddylonglegs2050 20:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i just logged back in. the site is looking much better now. i am glad we have been able to come to agreement on many items. i did read the link above and must agree, that is a good npov. wwjd2009 20:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i just did some more research and read the following two web pages. i suggest that we all do the same to get a good idea of how others have come to agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_day_saints http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon i personally don't agree with their practices but at least it's a good decent article. notice they don't get into what i would view their questionable practices. it stays neutral. it doesn't talk about their holy underwear or secret temple practices, etc... it gives some history and other tidbits of info, even a doctrinal statement (article of faith) on one, etc... in reading their discussion page, they had numerous edits and 'arguments' for lack of a better word but came to a npov, a good consensus.wwjd2009 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wwjd2009, the mormon article you read is only a page defining the meaning and origin of the word "mormon". Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints. This article is very good about talking about the Mormon church in plain language while still keeping a npov. It's good that we are trying to maintain a consensus. Great effort, everyone. Hanako 21:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Readability!

Uggh! I think the doctrinal statement is too long. Could we move down with the article, (as originally published?) and refference/link to it under the doctrine heading? The link can even include "We Believe" and the bullet about salvation, then people can find the rest below. ~a member

Wwjd2009

Can you please go look at the article right now, and see that you have messed up the way it looks? Everything is over to the left, a ton of spaces inbetween everything, and when I fix the format you feel that I am changing content. Also, the portion about outward holiness is valid and documented by a major newspaper. If the reporter felt it was necessary to include it to explain the church to it's readers then it's necessary to include here as well. The reporter had NPOV and so does this article. No difference. I think you're copying and pasting the entire article which is messing up the formating and text. Please make your edits within the form. Hanako 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Wikipedia pages you suggested. But they describe individual "terms" and not churches. Did you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints? Please do. It will help us come to an understanding. Hanako 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you changed all instances of the word "holiness" to "ho*****"? That seems strange. It's confusing. Can you explain? Hanako 01:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]