Jump to content

User talk:Epiphyllumlover/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

ĪWelcome!

Hello, Epiphyllumlover, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in Lutheranism WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Lutheranism. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!





Barnstars

Please stop by and give your opinion on the two proposed barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David † (Review) 18:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Mayerhoff.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Mayerhoff.JPG. The copy called Image:Mayerhoff.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 03:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

HST of X-tian Views on Contraception

I just wanted to let you know that the motivation behind my edits was to remove the impression that Anglicanism is a Protestant denomination in the same way Lutheranism is. As I would assume that you know, Anglicans consider themselves both Protestant and Catholic...the "middle way" and all that.

To the extent that the article has or had a RCC POV to it, I agree. But that had nothing to do with myself or any of my edits. I used the phrasing "Other Christian denominations" only because the article had all denominations, including Anglicans, under the title "Protestant". It was not any attempt to make Catholism the standard and other denominations some lesser collection of subgroups.

Also, do any other denominations have a magisterium in the manner that Catholics do? Again, that was there when I first started work on the article, the words are not mine. But as far as I know, Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians come the closest to Catholics in terms of leadership. And the difference is still rather stark as that the RCC has a Pontiff with supreme jurisdiction over every RCC in the world. Where as in the other two churches, each country's Presiding Bishop oversees their own Church with no international interference.

Of lesser importance, do you object to Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterians being listed under a "Protestant" label? They all are self-indentifying Protestants, are they not, even the most high-church Lutherans? Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites are all Protestant to the extent that they descend from Anabaptist traditions, do they not?

And do they think someone can do something about those poor Mormons. I read the talk history and I understand the Nicene creed point. But surely they deserve better than just "other".

Thanks!

SacredSpermWhale (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Anti-Catholicism

Well done! What a clever Lutheran. Quand le jour se lève les ténèbres s'évanouissent. (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Elimination of Antichrist as the Leader of the Western World

I find it somewhat disingenuous that the repeated removal of the "base of Antichrist" being the leadership of the Western World somewhat disturbing--it is repeatedly removed from the discussion - this interpretation of Holy Writ has become so pervasive throughout the world, that to omit these discussions must be viewed as editorial prejudice? Doug Krieger (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)kriegerdwmDoug Krieger (talk)

I am fine with a futurist explaination of the Antichrist in the article. In the past, I have added some futurist info--see the section in the article titled "Early Church". I deleated your paragraph because you violated Wikipedia:No original research by writing about the ideas you have developed in your own book. Some other user or users messed with other text that was directly sourced and substantially changing the meaning. That rendered the old sources untruthful to the new text, so I had to undo their changes. If you want to add a dispensationallist section, I suggest you derive and source it from a scholarly journal published by a dispensationallist seminary.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Irresistible grace

Please lend your thoughts to Talk:Irresistible grace#Calvinist vs. Lutheran view. Cheers! --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Bucer

Hello, the Martin Bucer FAC was archived. In my opinion, this was closed too early. I have renominated it; would you please vote or leave a comment on the new FAC? See Talk:Martin Bucer and click on "leave comments". Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of {{ImageStackRight}}

Hi,

Regarding the comment you made here: the {{stack}} template is the modern replacement for {{ImageStackRight}} and can be used for the same purpose. {{ImageStackRight}} is less flexible and is redundant to that template, hence its coming replacement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lutheranism

I disagree with with about the Bible section in Lutheranism. Listing the orthodox view gives the impression that it is the view for all Lutherans. It is not. All Lutherans agree that the Bible is the Word of God, but there is much disagreement about what that means. KitHutch (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

From CRAZY TALK: A NOT SO STUFFY DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS published by Augsburg Books (of the ELCA), "The 'Word of God' refers to (1) Jesus, God's word to us (see John 1: 1-4); (2) the Bible; and (3) any spoken witness that the Holy Spirit uses to create faith ..." I think our disagreement is about what we mean the Word of God to be. Just because the Bible is the Word of God doesn't mean that everything in it is literally true. The Bible is filled with folklore, metaphors, poems, adventure stories, history, and other types of literature. While they are not all literarlly true, all tell us something about God and His interaction with His people. KitHutch (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CC vs RCC

I noticed your earlier opposition to the renaming of Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church, in case you're interested, a new debate has started about renaming the current wiki article "Catholic Church" back to "Roman Catholic Church", you can find the debate at Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Antichrist (historicism)

I think it's a good idea to have an entry on Antichrist (historicism) apart from just Antichrist. The first refers to a term found in Scripture and accepted in the canons of all Churches, while the second refers to a peculiar Reformation doctrine spread by Luther and Calvin which had its origins in the Western Schism of the Middle Ages. It seems better to arrange it this way, given that only a minority of Protestants still hold to the historicist interpretation, while most have switched to alternative views such as futurism or dispensationalism. ADM (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the Antichrist article had a substantial description of the history behind the historicist position, I hardly see the need for an article splice, given that the article is well under 100kb. I would much rather see a Futurist add to the history of the futurist position. I am not capable of doing this myself, given that I am ignorant of the Futurist viewpoint's history prior to the Schofield Reference Bible. Perhaps you could add it? In addition, the unique views of the Eastern Church deserve explaination, but likewise I'm not well read enough to write the section. Issues of undue weight are better fixed by adding more to the other points of view than by removing sourced material.
In your comment, you claimed that Historicism is a minority view among Protestants. I was under the impression that Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists tend to be historicist, while Baptists, Church of God, Church of Christ, and Pentacostals tended to be Futurist. While there are more Baptists in America than any other Protestant Church, when you look at at the situation globally, there are more Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists than Baptists, Church of God, Church of Christ, and Pentacostals.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Anglicans are not historicist, that is for sure, given that they have long had ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church. In general, any Protestant organization that engages in ecumenical relations with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity must have long abandoned historicism, because you can't reasonably dialogue with someone whom you believe to be the Antichrist. Given this information, the Lutheran World Federation isn't historicist, and neither is the calvinistic Baptist World Alliance, or the World Council of Churches for that matter. There are probably a minority of Baptists, a minority of Lutherans and a minority of Pentecostals who still are though, along with various non-trinitarian groups. Even if that does sound like a minority, it's still a substantial minority of people that adds up in the millions of adherents. ADM (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have a narrow definition of historicism. Historicism is merely the interpretation of Revelation as dealing with events throughout history, not just the end of the end-times. In contrary to your statement that those that dialogue with Rome cannot believe that the Pope is the antichrist (a claim made by some historicists), the Missouri Synod has dialogued constructively with official talks with Rome together with the LWF for over a generation now and the LCMS doctrine hasn't changed since then. Rome must be more tolerant of the view than it used to be.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This is because LCMS dialogue with the Vatican has been deliberately kept at a strict minimum by its conservative leaders, such as Gerald B. Kieschnick. For instance, the LCMS never did sign the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, as most Lutheran bodies did. I suspect that if the LCMS did sign the Joint Declaration and did participate in all the interfaith meetings such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America does, there would be strong pressures both from within and from outside the Synod to do away with the papal antichrist doctrine. ­I'm refering here to historicism as it has historically been understood by most Protestants, with all its associated symbology of the Man of Sin, the Beast, the Whore of Babylon, which have been deliberately used to target the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
So, would you advocate that all the other possibilities for the Antichrist should also be given a separate article, for example, "Antichrist (futurism)", "Antichrist (dispensationalism)", "Antichrist (orthodox)", "Antichrist (preterism)"? Who is going to write all these articles? Why would anyone visit them?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't advocate it unless a substantial amount of material was added on the subject. If it were, I would say why not?, but that hasn't beeen done yet. I am thinking about adding some content on futurism, so maybe it will be done eventually. The important thing is that the article is properly categorized, so there are enough categories that link to it. The historicist doctrine is arguably among the most notable of such teachings, and so it deserves special attention because it has deep roots that in the writings of the Reformers, as well as in the medieval period. ADM (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Luther's canon

Given that no Lutheran scholarly book that I've read believes Martin Luther advocated a closed canon for the New Testament, I find an article titled, "Luther's canon" preposterous. Specifically, Luther advocated an open canon, with a consideration of the distinctions between Homologoumena & Antilegomena, simply noting which books had been termed as such by the Church Fathers (although following Erasmus in not including 2nd Peter as antilegomena, given that he thought Jude was an extract of it and not vice-versa). Catholics often argue that Luther set a canon because this allows them to say he put himself over Scripture, but that is their POV about Luther. This article at the present is an essay for the Catholic point of view.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether Luther advocated a closed or open canon is probably a separate question, this article merely describes the canon that is attributed to Luther, and which is consequently used by Lutherans and others. Since the Lutheran canon hasn't really evolved since the time of Luther, I suppose that suggests that Lutherans haven't yet adopted an open canon and have essentially stuck to what they believe is Luther's canon. ADM (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Syncretistic controversy

I don't think the content of syncretistic controversy should be fully included within the article syncretism because it contains too much specific information, as opposed to the much broader phenomenon of mixing religions and beliefs together. This peculiar Lutheran affair happened centuries ago, in the 1600s, and so it should be treated as a primarily historical matter that occured in a very regional context, i.e. between Protestant churches in Northern Germany. ADM (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

An individual does not speak for a whole

Please revise this change. It hardly seems like a theological statement has been made by this organization. One official has doubted a sentiment. That is not 'approval' of the sentiment. Plus the 'approval' mentioned is a supposition by one person, the mentioned McAllister (in last paragraph quoted below).

"Oh you're not quitting," she said, waving her hand dismissively. "You haven't lost your faith."
"Um, yeah I have," McAllister said. "This is for real."
The bishop shook her head. For the church elders, McAllister's revelations simply did not compute.
"They're either in complete denial," he says, "or they're completely comfortable with the idea that they have a pastor who's a fraud, as long as he puts asses in the seats."

There's so much wrong in going from this passage to your statement. Probably you should remove the change entirely. Shenme (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The section I edited was referring to the diversity of positions within the ELCA--not their official positions. Actually, many Christian scientists believe in atheistic evolution along with theistic Christianity. If you read the scholarship in the science and religion field there are different schools of thought. The "theistic evolution" position only encompases the "cooperation between religion & science" camp. There are many that instead feel that there is no place for God in science and that God did not direct or influence evolution in any detectable way. However, I didn't have a specifically ELCA reference for it (until a new study that I am anticipating comes out in perhaps half a year or so). So I had to use the Psycology Today reference. I edited it to reflect that he is a "former" pastor.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Christus austreibt.JPG

File:Christus austreibt.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Christus austreibt.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Christus austreibt.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page

Hi there. Discussion between September 2007 and December 2008 is now archived in Talk:Lutheranism/Archive 4. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Efficacy

Thanks for adding the Lutheran use of efficacy to efficacy. I watch that as a user of the other terms and am interested to learn one I hadn't known. I find the language unfamiliar and hard to navigate. For example, Scripture, capitalized, must be something more specific than scripture. But how would a reader like me know what is meant? Can we link some of the specialized terms to appropriate other articles? Then I'd be better able to understand what's written and might have more suggestions.

One suggestion right away is that the reference numbering should be one number per source. If it's a list of five references for one topic, each gets its own ref and /ref tag. Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on this. I'm not opposed to capitalizing Scripture--it might even be useful in distinguishing between the general concept and the specific set. It would be great if it could be capitalized and linked to a section of an article that was specifically about what Lutherans consider Scripture. Your list of other terms to clarify and/or link looks really good.
I meant to say one source per number, not one number per source. Does that make sense now? --Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Americanman095 (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

translation impossible?

There is a discussion going on whether the name of that German church body can be translated or not (it appears like this on the english pages of this church's homepage). One user changed the name of this Church (actually a federation of several Lutheran, United and Reformed churches) and it's regional member churches to the German form because he says their names can't get translated. so the article on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria now appears under its German name because he says the "concept" can't be translated into English. Please go to the discusson page of the Evangelical Church in Germany and have your say --93.130.249.56 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

Dear Epiphyllumlover, I removed vandalism from your talkpage. See the history of the talkpage for more information. kind regards, Taketa (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:John Calvin#infobox again

Can you comment on this discussion on the John Calvin article-- and placing an Template:Infobox theologian there? Thanks. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging pages on The Beast

I have been doing some work on The Beast (Revelation) and have seen the article The beast (preterism) which you initiated.

Would you agree to merging these two articles. Dadaw (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012


ICHTHUS

January 2012
Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Johann Gottfried Herder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • it did not exist except as the process of reasoning. This process was dependent on language.<ref>[Copleston, Frederick Charles. The Enlightenment: Voltaire to Kant. p. 145</ref> He also turned away

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

We do not use case reports. Refs says "They proved it with two examples." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Cross namespace linking

I reverted your edit to Lamp, as Wikipedia:Linking dos and don'ts says, "Don't link to user, project, draft, or talk pages in articles." - Donald Albury 00:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

John Adams

Hello. I noticed an addition you made to the John Adams article. There are two things I would like to say about it. Firstly, when you added your content and source, you put it directly in between already existing content and its citation, failing to copy the citation to the end of the content that existed before where you added the new material. This can lead the reader to erroneously believing that the content that existed previously is actually verified in the source that you added, which would be incorrect. Secondly, in the future, please use the Harvard citation style already in use in the article. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Too many woodcuts

Please stop spamming these appalling-quality images everywhere - they wouldn't be very attractive nor instructive even at better quality. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

PS I notice these images aren't even categorized under their subjects on Commons - that would be something useful to do, though ideally using versions that meet contemporary scan quality. And please do a line break, and ideally leave an empty line, after you add an image. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Years ago I was given a complete bound set of these woodcuts as a gift. They have long been treasured by more than just me.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, help to categorize them properly on Commons then! The quality of these scans is well below what we expect. In some cases there seem to be better versions on Commons, which you have ignored to add these very low-quality dark ones. But adding so many images exclusively from a single source amounts to WP:SPAM, and does not help the reader. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that it was spam or should be considered as spam. In addition, not all of the ones I recently added were even from that particular artist. And one of the ones from that artist was a drawing, not a woodcut. As far as quality, years ago I added one from one of my bound volumes that was a higher quality. I re-added that one. The existing quality is not that exceedingly low, though. Many of the higher quality resolution ones have margins and captions left in, if you want to edit those, you are welcome to.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I checked and noticed you were editing at the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse page. That woodcut in particular gave me pause because it was yellowed. I picked it anyway because it was not over-exposed at least like the one from 14:51, 13 December 2008. But it still seems to be lower quality than most of the Commons page von Carolsfelds. If you want to delete it on that objection, I will not object.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I left it, as I thought it was one of the better reproductions, & good as an image. NB it's about x4 more bytes than most of the others. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I've watched other reverts of your edits. Partially because of WP:SANDWICH which I presume you haven't read, partially because of adding more than one image by the same source. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Nude photography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Collateral
Prostitution in China (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Collateral

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Institute of Lutheran Theology has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Institute of Lutheran Theology. Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Serge Maschewski (February 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kvng was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Many of the refs are not clearly WP:INDEPENDENT and some are lacking WP:SIGCOV if the subject. I was not able to identify 2 WP:RELIABLE sources to satisfy our notability requirements.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
~Kvng (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Epiphyllumlover! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~Kvng (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Institute of Lutheran Theology has been accepted

Institute of Lutheran Theology, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Re:File permission problem with File:Chancel of Trinity Lutheran Church on Easter Sunday.jpeg

Dear User:Epiphyllumlover, thanks for your message on my talk page. I did not actually take the photo myself although the photographer did supply similar photographs that had their licensing information completed properly (see File:Chancel of Trinity Lutheran Church on Holy Saturday.jpg used on the Holy Saturday article, for example). If you provide me with a reminder around Palm Sunday, I can probably get one of that church's chancel on Easter Sunday. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vicarius Filii Dei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellarmine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

[]]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lutheranism to Efficacy (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The material you refer to was authored by me originally from years ago. I had written it for both articles. It came from the Efficacy page's own history. It was removed on the Efficacy page, a long time ago, but recently I tried to add it back, but this was quickly reverted due to scope of article issues. (I think possibly one phrase was changed by another user on the efficacy page many years ago, but other than that it was mine.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cuius regio, eius religio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peace of Prague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Music of the Reformation

I like the idea of the navbox, but can you make it a bottom one? That's the usual place, compare {{Lutheran hymns}}. If not, please make sure the navbox title isn't larger font than the article title in the infobox. It looks too attention grabbing at present ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought about it. Years ago I made the Lutheran History templates that way. A major reason I didn't do it this time is that I would like followers of the "Reformation" navbox to see it as a continuation of the one they have.
I had serious reservations about putting the sidebar navbox on the ones that have the Lutheran bar type navboxes. It gets excessive. For now I will move them lower so that they are less inconspicuous, but I won't be offended at all if you remove them completely from the ones that already have a bar type navboxes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Understand. I wasn't even aware of the Lutheran side bar, but would say the same for that one: should be at the bottom, is much worse attention-grabbing-wise ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
It is possible to make them smaller by deleting the |expanded="something" part--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I know nothing about side nav-boxes, or nearly nothing. I know that in bottom navboxes, you can have the whole thing collapsed, and for Lutheran hymns, I always do that. (When there are 2 or more, all are usually automaticcally collapsed.) - Side navboxes are still on some operas, such as Rinaldo (duplicating - and hidden on top - what a bottom navbox also has), but I prefer infoboxes in the position, such as Carmen (which has two bottom navboxes, one intentionally open). A navbox is there to navigate away from an article, and why would you want to do that when you just entered? - Nutshell: side navboxes look old-fashioned to me. In a Lutheran hymn, the infobox has (or should have) a link to that article right below the title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have set them to be auto collapsed. So if you want you can go to the article which has a navbox and collapse it simply by removing the |expanded="something" and leaving only the }} at the end. But I organized them so it is smaller anyway.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Images

In you history of hymnody, I am not happy with the image placement. Images should normally be right, left only when the subject looks right, and even then not when headers are "pushed" out. When more images are wanted than can be easily inserted that way, a gallery may be the choice, compare Unionskirche, Idstein. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If I had a shorter image for Gregorian chant that would really help. If one were to do galleries, it would need to be multiple small ones like on the Protestantism page where each one has three images. I will move the St. Cecilia one down below the header right away.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Lutheranism at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1500sProtestantwomen

Template:1500sProtestantwomen has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Lutheranism article

I think I have removed all of the html formatting from Lutheranism. Could you run your bot on the article again to see if there is any I'm missing? Thanks for alerting me to this issue.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There were a few minor issues, but I fixed them and removed the cleanup tag. Thanks for your help with this! -- Beland (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lutheranism

Hello! Your submission of Lutheranism at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lutheran Indian Ministries (March 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hell in a Bucket was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Template:Deism sidebar

Was deleted, but I’ve started it over, if you’re interested in doing something with. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

2018 Met Gala

It seems there is a problem in attributing to "traditionalist Catholics" (as a whole) what in fact can only be cited to some traditionalist Catholics and only of the dissident variety. (The article makes clear that there are not only individual non-dissident traditionalist Catholics but even organizations of traditionalist Catholics "in good standing with the Holy See".) It is also out of place to mix up with the typical problems that traditionalist Catholics have with "developments of the Catholic Church's teaching and practice" the problems that they have with what you call "the more liberal-aligning dissident Catholic groups". Perhaps you could revise the article to make the distinction clear. Naturally, it is inevitable that one extreme will criticize the opposite extreme.

As for the 2018 Met Gala, you yourself consider that "probably most non-traditionalist Catholics would be offended too" by the style of dress (or undress?) by which certain celebrities won publicity through their attendance and which Cardinal Dolan said may have indicated poor taste. The linking by the National Review of the Gala function with the vestments loaned from the Vatican for the 2018 Met exhibit, not for the 2018 Met Gala, would in Wikipedia have attracted an immediate "citation needed" or "original research" tag. It could be pointed to as an example of falsehoods about the Holy See on the part of some traditionalist Catholics. I do not believe that "incorporating it broadens the traditionalist cause", as you say. Rather the contrary. You may therefore wish to remove it, since you also say: "Removing it helps to simplify the article as it is a tertiary issue" (I would say "a secondary issue"), especially under the heading, "Traditionalists' claims of discontinuity and rupture". There are many museums (including, perhaps, the Vatican Museums) that exhibit particularly artistic liturgical vestments of the past. I leave it to someone else to remove it, and certainly will not object if you are the person who does so. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining about the gala vs. the exhibit. The exhibit itself seems intended to provoke Catholics, too, and was criticized, such as in this article: review-of-heavenly-bodies-exhibition-at-the-met-the-fashion-of-this-world-passeth-away. For now I will remove all of it, and see if anyone objects.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!OlJa 19:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Move made without consensus

The move from "Proto-Protestantism" to "Pre-Reformation movements" was made without consensus.

In the explanation for the move you stated, "It seems that the term "Pre-Reformation" is closer to what Epinoia would prefer."

This is a misrepresentation as what I actually said was:

  • "I feel this article...should be called Proto-Protestantism"
  • "I don't see why the article needs to be renamed"
  • "my inclination is to leave the article as it is"
  • "my inclination is to keep Proto-Protestantism as the article title"
  • "Proto-Protestantism is the best description as it states most clearly and succinctly what the article is about" - Epinoia (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I understood that you preferred the proto- name, but this was my estimation as to what your second-best choice might be based on your comments to the other names I put out. I stand corrected on that. As for consensus, Daask and Rosguill both put out comments opposing the proto- name, which would make consensus three-to-one against it. I will message them and see if they approve of pre-Reformation movements. If the responses come back as a tie or a majority against, I will move it back to "proto-" myself. I will also message Dan and Grassynoel, who previously commented on the talk page, although their positions are unclear.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- please note that Wikipedia:Consensus says that consensus is not a vote - Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion states that, "decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule" - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY states, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy" and decisions are based on "consensus—not voting" - Epinoia (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Since I already messaged them, I'm going to wait and see what they say anyway.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Anthony Bliss for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anthony Bliss is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bliss (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TSventon (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Bliss

Hi Epiphyllumlover, I edited the article to keep the subject of the article as Anthony Bliss (died 1815) as I was unsure if there is any guidance on changing the subject of an article from one individual to another of the same name (or now two of the same name). The attached wikidata entry has date of death 1815. Incidentally, I am open to the possibility that either Anthony Bliss could prove to be notable, but I hope that the second discussion will be able to clear up the confusion from the first one.TSventon (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

While I (and others) were willing to overlook the first issue you created at Criticism of the Catholic Church, and scores of other articles, that you did similar twice—while evidencing in your WP:SPA contributions at Lutheranism and Lutheranism-related articles that you do know how to correctly create content on Wikipedia—indicates that you may have a WP:COI and should not be editing Catholic topics. I hope not to see this kind of problem again from you. Please review WP:COI, WP:LISTEN, and WP:DISRUPT, and consider whether you are able to edit neutrally or need help in avoiding pages where you cannot avoid COI or POV. The amount of cleanup work your blunt force abuse of templates has generated for others is unappreciated, and as someone who has been editing as long as I have, you should know better by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I spent a number of days waiting for consensus to split the page after you ignored the existing consensus and reverted it. Now you are ignoring it; but I suspect that because you are anti-social, the other editors who formed the previous consensus with me are staying away. Possibly you didn't give them a chance; quickly blanking a page an all that, I don't know.
I showed willingness to discuss individual issues to claim up whatever faults remained, as demonstrated yesterday on the talk page. As for POV, my main offense you cited on the other page was transcluding from other articles; you can't blame me for POV on that.
If you really believed in the rules you claim to represent, you would not frequently use ad hominem attacks, assume bad motives, (or WP:Hound as you did earlier this month on the Lutheranism page).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the WP:LISTEN part of WP:TEND. There was zero initial consensus; the first damage was yours and yours alone. On the second incident, repeating for the nth time, the problem is not that there was a split (although you did not have the consensus you claim to have had even for that split). The problem is your blunt force and irregular use of templates and piped links to spread a POV, which you clearly have as a Lutheran SPA.

Also, you have now issued a personal attack.

At any rate, the point is, please stop the disruptive editing, and I suggest you avoid Catholic topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yawn. Any admin can follow what is going on and can see who is attempting to obey WP policy and who is not.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I welcome improvements relating to Criticism of the Catholic Church. I would caution against attributing character traits to individual user accounts. Lots need to be improved, and contributions are welcome. About the split of said article, however, I'm not sure that makes things more accessible for the readers. Are we sure there was consensus for that? There seem to be some objections to this, isn't? PPEMES (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lutheran Indian Ministries (May 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This still requires significant coverage in reliable sources in order to establish notability. I'm not seeing that yet, either here or in what I can find online.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
– bradv🍁 05:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lutheran Indian Ministries (May 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MRD2014 was:
You did not change anything in the draft when you resubmitted it.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
— MRD2014 (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of the Catholic Church

Noted with thanks. I will keep monitoring this article MainBody (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Lord Jesus Christ, True Man and God) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Lord Jesus Christ, True Man and God.

User:Rosguill while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

For Template:R from alternative language, the parameter ordering is 1=redirect language, 2=target language

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Christliche Dogmatik.JPG

Notice

The file File:Christliche Dogmatik.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

It seems that you may be canvassing by notifying certain editors with whom you have a relationship of disputes on Talk Pages in which those users are otherwise not involved. You seem to have done this recently here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyperbolick#RfC_vote and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Display_name_99#Comment. The Wikipedia behavioral guideline states that you should only notify individual editors on their talk pages under the following circumstances:

  • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • Editors known for expertise in the field
  • Editors who have asked to be kept informed

Neither of the users you notified in the above links fit within the above categories. Please keep this behavioral guideline in mind going forward. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your statement "Neither of the users you notified in the above links fit within the above categories."--Hyperbolick is known for both the second and third of these, although with the third I was mistaken in retrospect and intend to remember it for future reference. Moreover, I would have been fine no matter what he voted for, nor did I know what to expect of him.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The notification to Display_name_99 was so that he could get a good idea of what bad behavior in this corner of WP looks like. I did not/do not expect that he will do anything with that article. Notice that I alerted him to an archive talk page, not an active discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

MastCell Talk 23:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Search boxes on templates

Reverted one and I see there are more going up. It seems like a lot of coding and work went into this, but I would think this major addition should be presented at the template guidelines page. And I guess I'm not understanding what it does, as each page of Wikipedia already includes a search box. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The topical search boxes are intended to help a reader find articles related only to a specific subject. They do not search the entire Wikipedia due to the pre-loaded text. Most of them use the deepcat function to search terms only from articles within a particular category, along with subcategories. Unfortunately, many categories are too big, with too many subcategories for the search engine to handle them all, or too small for a search feature to be more useful than just browsing. However, if the template is large enough the list of articles having a particular template can be used in lieu of the category. Yesterday I went searching for topics that could possibly work and added as many as I could. I got the idea from the template used here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Further_reading. This one uses a prefix to generate a list related to a specific topic. I have not found an appropriate place for that strategy on Wikipedia yet. I understand that this is a bit of an experiment as I learn how readers/editors use them (or not, if they are inappropriate). Several have already thanked me, you are the only one to have removed them so far.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I missed your answer. The best place to take this too might be Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. The change is so obtrusive to the look of the templates, and is probably not that helpful, that I for one would oppose your good faith idea. But talking it out there would get a good range of opinions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I also don't think this is how navboxes should work and it would be such a big change that it needs consensus. I've undone all search boxes (I think; my apologies for the notification spam). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
But see Template:Manual of Style for where the idea came from. I just reverted one of your reverts because the template creator and main editor supported the search box. For the others I intend to wait and see.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am assuming you are talking about this search box and this search box? if so, it's not something that should be in article space. luckily sidebars aren't viewable on mobile or this sort of crap would be clogging up mobile view as well. Frietjes (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Never seen it done before; assume there's a reason for that. Seems you'd want an RfC or like discussion to be sure. By the way, as now configured in the Deism template, doesn't seem to actually work. Clicking the button gets me a blank screen. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Yikes... I searched "Jefferson" on the old edit history of it. It returned nine results but also said "Deep category search SPARQL query failed". I'm not sure what it means, but this didn't happen when I tested it weeks ago. I support your revert, Hyperbolick, due to this. The reason you got no results is because you didn't type anything into it. deepcategory:"Deism"_ gives zero results, deepcategory:"Deism" gives 24 results (probably due to the error, I think previously it gave over 300 results). deepcategory:"Deism"_English gives 83 results --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Not useful results. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Today, deepcategory:"Deism"_English gives only 11 results. Clearly something is going on with the search engine. Same error message, too.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

John

I'd love John to return for your question, but doubt he will, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I looked because of your comment, and now I see the "retired" button.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ichthus July 2019


ICHTHUS

July 2019
The Top 6 Articles
By Stalinsunnykvj

A suicide attack on July 11th claimed by Islamic State (IS) near a church in the Syrian city of Qamishli shows that Christians remain a major target of the terror group. The Top 6 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:

    1. Henry VIII of England – King of England, He was an accomplished musician, author, and poet; his known piece of music is "Pastime with Good Company". He is often reputed to have written "Greensleeves" but probably did not. He had six marriages.
    2. Elena Cornaro Piscopia – was a Venetian philosopher of noble descent who in 1678 became one of the first women to receive an academic degree from a university, and the first to receive a Doctor of Philosophy degree. In 1669, she translated the Colloquy of Christ by Carthusian monk Lanspergius from Spanish into Italian.
    3. Mary, Queen of Scots – arrested for Reigning While Catholic (RWC), Mary was found guilty of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth I of England in 1586, and was beheaded the following year.
    4. Bob Dylan – American singer-songwriter, author, and visual artist.
      " Take care of all your memories. For you cannot relive them."
    5. Elizabeth I of England – The Virgin Queen, Elizabeth was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor who ushered in the Elizabethan Era, reversed re-establishment of Roman Catholicism by her half-sister.
    6. Billy Ray Cyrus – Having released 12 studio albums and 44 singles since 1992, he is best known for his number one single "Achy Breaky Heart", which became the first single ever to achieve triple Platinum status in Australia.
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
... that The Vision of Dorotheus is one of the earliest examples of Christian hexametric poetry?
Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
Eric and Leslie Ludy were 21 and 16 respectively when they first met, English professors suggest that older singles are unlikely to gather hope from their story.
Eric and Leslie Ludy were 21 and 16 respectively when they first met, English professors suggest that older singles are unlikely to gather hope from their story.

When God Writes Your Love Story: The Ultimate Approach to Guy/Girl Relationships is a 1999 book by Eric and Leslie Ludy, an American married couple. After becoming a bestseller on the Christian book market, the book was republished in 2004 and then revised and expanded in 2009. It tells the story of the authors' first meeting, courtship, and marriage. The authors advise single people not to be physically or emotionally intimate with others, but to wait for the spouse that God has planned for them.

The book is divided into five sections and sixteen chapters. Each chapter is written from the perspective of one of the two authors; nine are by Eric, while Leslie wrote seven, as well as the introduction. The Ludys argue that one's love life should be both guided by and subordinate to one's relationship with God. Leslie writes that God offers new beginnings to formerly unchaste or sexually abused individuals. (more...)

Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.


Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here
Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom • Unsubscribe here
Delivered: 12:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Maninhell.JPG

Notice

The file File:Maninhell.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

This is about the Theodore Edgar McCarrick article, where you recently contributed in an RfC. I know that you were not heavily involved in the dispute, but since you offered an opinion, I thought that I'd give you the opportunity to participate. Display name 99 (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Door County, Wisconsin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bethany Lutheran Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peterson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Peterson House and Peterson Farm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lutheran Indian Ministries (September 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by RoySmith were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I started looking through the references. #1 and #3 are to the church's own websites, so not WP:INDEPENDENT. #2 I can evaluate because it 404's. Rather than me trying to slog through the entire list, please point out the WP:THREE best to demonstrate WP:N.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
-- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lutheran Indian Ministries (December 4)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by RoySmith were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: On my talk page, the author noted the three best references, which I reviewed in detail.
  • The first one (sitnews.us) is mostly about the M/V Christian, and only peripherally about the ministry. It's also in a small-town newspaper. So, that fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD.
  • I'm not sure what to make of the second (http://www.virtueinthewasteland.com/). It's a 1.5 hour long audio podcast, which I didn't listen to. However, the descriptive text that goes along with it only mentions that one of the subjects (Tim Norton) "also serves with Lutheran Indian Ministries". That's what we call a passing mention, and doesn't add much weight.
  • The third one gets an error (www.mitchelladvocate.com redirected you too many times). I tried taking the slug in the URL and googling for the title that probably generated it, but didn't find anything.

My conclusion is that no sources exist which could meet WP:NORG. The general tone of this is also inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Detailed descriptions of the organization's teaching programs, etc, just isn't what an encyclopedia is for. I've thus rejected this draft, and suggest it not be resubmitted for further review. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

-- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ichthus December 2019

ICHTHUS

 WikiProject Christianity
December 2019
The Top 3 Articles

By Stalinsunnykvj

The Top 3 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:

    1. Dolly Parton - an American singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, record producer, actress, author, businesswoman, and humanitarian, known primarily for her work in country music. Quotations related to Dolly Parton at Wikiquote: " I just depend on a lot of prayer and meditation. I believe that without God I am nobody, but that with God, I can do anything."
    2. Harriet Tubman - an American abolitionist and political activist. Born into slavery, she escaped and made some missions to rescue enslaved people, using the network of antislavery activists and Underground Railroads. During the American Civil War, she served as an armed scout, spy for the Union Army.
    3. Henry VIII of England – King of England, He was an accomplished musician, author, and poet; his known piece of music is "Pastime with Good Company". He is often reputed to have written "Greensleeves" but probably did not. He had six marriages.
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
  • ... that St. Charles College in Louisiana was the first Jesuit college established in the southern United States?
  • ... that the ancient Jewish text of Perek Shirah asserts that spiders and rats praise God using verses from Psalm 150?
Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj

Being a Ghost Story of Christmas, commonly known as A Christmas Carol, is a novella by Charles Dickens, first published in London by Chapman & Hall in 1843 and illustrated by John Leech. The book is divided into five chapters, which Dickens titled "staves". A Christmas Carol recounts the story of Ebenezer Scrooge, an elderly miser who is visited by the ghost of his former business partner Jacob Marley and the spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come. After their visits, Scrooge is transformed into a kinder, gentler man. (more...)

Bible Verse

Romans 12:10 New King James Version (NKJV)

Help wanted

We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project or an issue that you'd like to highlight? Post your inquiries or submission here.

Quotes
" I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year."
Charles Dickens – British novelist, journalist, editor, illustrator and social critic.

Happy Holidays!

The end of the year is a time of year for remembrance. We take stock of where we came from, and have a moment to think about where we are going...

At this special time of year, we give thanks for editors like you who have made our Mission easier and our lives more fulfilling.

May your New Year be all that you hope for, and may it be sprinkled with love and friendship.

Best Wishes!


WikiProject Christianity
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity © Copyleft 2019
Questions • Discussions • Newsroom • Unsubscribe
Delivered: 16:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Door County, Wisconsin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barnstormer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ichthus January 2020

ICHTHUS

 WikiProject Christianity
January 2020
The Top 3 Articles

By Stalinsunnykvj

The Top 3 most-popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:

    1. Pope Benedict XVI – retired prelate of the Catholic Church who served as head of the Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 2005 until his resignation.
    2. Pope Francis – the head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State. Francis is the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas, the first from the Southern Hemisphere, and the first pope from outside Europe since the Syrian Gregory III, who reigned in the 8th century.
    3. Dolly Parton – an American singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, record producer, actress, author, businesswoman, and humanitarian, known primarily for her work in country music. Quotations related to Dolly Parton at Wikiquote: "I just depend on a lot of prayer and meditation. I believe that without God I am nobody, but that with God, I can do anything."
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
Сретение Господне ("The Meeting of the Lord"), a depiction of Simeon recognising Jesus at the Temple, from a fifteenth-century Novgorodskye School Russian icon.
Сретение Господне ("The Meeting of the Lord"), a depiction of Simeon recognising Jesus at the Temple, from a fifteenth-century Novgorodskye School Russian icon.

A Song for Simeon, is a 37-line poem written in 1928 by American-English poet T. S. Eliot (1888–1965). It is one of five poems that Eliot contributed to the Ariel poems series of 38 pamphlets by several authors published by Faber and Gwyer. "A Song for Simeon" was the sixteenth in the series and included an illustration by avant garde artist Edward McKnight Kauffer. The poem's narrative echoes the text of the Nunc dimittis, a liturgical prayer for Compline from the Gospel passage. Eliot introduces literary allusions to earlier writers Lancelot Andrewes, Dante Alighieri and St. John of the Cross. Critics have debated whether Eliot's depiction of Simeon is a negative portrayal of a Jewish figure and evidence of anti-Semitism on Eliot's part. (more...)

Bible Verse

Psalm 20:4 New King James Version (NKJV)

Help wanted

We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project or an issue that you'd like to highlight? Post your inquiries or submission here.

Quotes
"Faith lived in the incognito is one which is located outside the criticism coming from society, from politics, from history, for the very reason that it has itself the vocation to be a source of criticism. It is faith (lived in the incognito) which triggers the issues for the others, which causes everything seemingly established to be placed in doubt, which drives a wedge into the world of false assurances."
~ Jacques Ellul
French philosopher, sociologist, and professor who was a noted Christian anarchist.
Quotations related to Jacques Ellul at Wikiquote

Happy New Year!

At this special time of year, we give thanks for editors like you who have made our Mission easier and our lives more fulfilling.
May your New Year be all that you hope for, and may it be sprinkled with love and friendship.

Best Wishes!

WikiProject Christianity
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity © Copyleft 2020
Questions • Discussions • Newsroom • Unsubscribe
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD on archdeacon : Old sources

Greetings, Epiphyllumlover. In this AfD discussion, you stated that "the offline citations have not shown to be non-trivial, until someone goes and looks them up." Allow me to take exception to that remark since I did exactly that, i.e. look themn up, and addressed them this in my suggestion: "The offline citations, which are mostly lists and local obits, already in the article or out there, suggest [only] that our man of the cloth did indeed exist." The process is over and the article has been Kept. But I thought it's worthwhile to bring to your attention the reality about those sources. Take care. (You might be interested in a related discussion, taking place here.) -The Gnome (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You looked up the "Ireland. The Times (London, England), Monday, Mar 15, 1858; pg. 12; Issue 22941. Category: News" reference, too?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
This is available in full only offline but fortunately, we have a googlebooks link (here). Burke's work is simply a genealogical list of everyone who possessed estates at the time, compiled by a genealogist; not a historian. (See the relevant Wikipedia entry.) Possession of estate in previous centuries afforded various privileges, such as the exclusive right to vote in political chambers, among which was social notability. However, membership into the class of the landed gentry does not afford a person Wikinotability, as such. All we have is evidence our subject existed and led an otherwise unremarkable life (like most of us, it should be said). -The Gnome (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I checked it, and you are right--it doesn't prove notability. You may have noticed that in the followup discussion I agreed to the merger proposal on all but one article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocks bans and censorship etc

Hi again Epiphyllumlover. When I commented at the end of the recent partial blocks RFC, your !vote also caused me to read again my previous comment at Oldstone James' talk page. I understand that the message could be incomplete or unclear, it didn't point at policy, for instance. The confusion about who blocked or banned is not a huge deal and that has been clarified. Then I wondered if you confused between blocks and topic bans on Wikipedia (two different things, WP:BLOCK and WP:TBAN), but noticed that other than a topic ban on creationism, James also was under a temporary (apparently self-requested) block.

In any case, I'll try to explain what I meant back at the talk page: "It's a way to see it, that I don't necessarily reject" - I understand the frustration of not having our way, that of having wasted time, or that of perceived censorship (which was your concern then). "The encyclopedia can present beliefs but in the light of reliable sources" indeed when reliable independent sources cover a topic and the material is considered due for the article and cites it and summarizes it well, that's how topics are described on Wikipedia, for instance at Jehovah's witnesses citation-group 4 to support that it's millenarian, etc. There's an exception for religious identity where a group identifying itself as Christian can be described as such, no matter the opinion of other groups or sources about this (noone can decide for you that you're not "a true Christian"). This of course does not prevent criticism about a group if reliable sources include some. Primary sources should be used with care, etc. You may know all of this, sorry for stating the obvious if so.

Finally, in relation to free speech (this is the aspect I should have detailed in my post at the user's talk page): WP:FREESPEECH is an essay, but its essence is important. Free speech laws exist so that you for instance have the right to participate to a march and that government shouldn't interfere with free speech. Private entities may however have their own policies. If you're a librarian the library may have a policy on acceptable books to store. If you're part of a religious denomination that practices excommunication, these rights exist for them on the same ground. Editing on Wikipedia is not a right but a privilege, that may be suspended by policy. Other than needing to remain focused on the encyclopedia (and articles remain a fair summary of reliable sources as above), it also isn't a social network with its article talk pages subject to WP:NOTFORUM. Then there's of course the essence of WP:COI (and WP:INVOLVED for admins): people very involved on a topic may have difficulty to be objective.

So there are better venues than Wikipedia for advocacy or publishing other type of material, but then again that depends on where and what; social networks like Facebook also are private with their own policies, then there are other wikis... Ultimately someone may print pamphlets and tend a booth, run their own site, etc. Is a topic ban or block on Wikipedia censorship? Not legally, but editors may rightfully feel it is and find another venue. Is avoiding sources considered unreliable sources censorship? The same thing, although there's a venue to discuss them, the reliable sources noticeboard. I hope this message is less ambiguous than my old one. I didn't ping James as the drama seems to have waned and he's editing, but feel free to if you think it could be helpful. Happy editing, —PaleoNeonate – 03:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My biggest unanswered question is why didn't you fight for him back then? Or do you regret not fighting his disciplinary action back then?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I only knew of the topic ban after the fact, but it's difficult to tell if I'd have defended him or not (I sometimes opposed topic bans if I found that the issue was too narrow for a general topic ban, with no result so far; I remember voting in support of one that failed to gain consensus as well). Presumably, the topic ban occurs because of a problem, but it can be appealed, usually after six months, sometimes less. Like for blocks, it may not occur again for some editors, while others may create sockpuppets or violate the ban resulting in a block. I can't really control that other than trying to give advice. In this case I think it's great that he chose to still edit in other areas which seems promising, it might as well discourage editors who will of course leave the project not interested to help in other areas (WP:HERE)... Sorry for the reply delay, —PaleoNeonate – 16:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not mind your time delay at all. I understand what you mean by "HERE." Yet if you look at User:Oldstone_James#Religious_views you can tell that he is a pluralist rather than the sort of monist that those whom he offended appear to be. Given the circumstances, this should help answer the "HERE" question, if it needs to be answered. In no way I ask you to control such outcomes--but rather to explicitly withhold your approval and support of the outcome. The way the discussion reads right now shows you condoning the action against him. Now, back to User_talk:Oldstone_James#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_a_community_editing_restriction. Are you willing to post in that discussion that you are withholding your support for the action against him and extending conciliatory gesture in his direction? If you are willing, would also you entice EdChem & GoldenRing to do the same?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Re:Luther's Marian theology

Thank you for your message on my talk page User:Epiphyllumlover. I could support Lutheran Marian theology (my first preference), Lutheran Mariology (my second preference), and Lutheran views on Mary (my third preference). Lutheran Marian theology is more consistently high church with respect to the Blessed Virgin Mary than is Anglican Marian theology as classical Anglicanism is Reformed, with the exception of Anglo-Catholicism. If the title Anglican Marian theology is acceptable for the broad range of views expressed in Anglicanism (which are mostly Protestant), Lutheran Marian theology is appropriate for Lutheranism. I oppose keeping the article title as Luther's Marian theology or Luther's theology of Mary as the article reflects more than just Martin Luther's views on the BVM. It can additionally be expanded to include specific Lutheran denominational statements on the BVM. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Door County, Wisconsin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dolomite and Alewife (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Linking to sections

Please note that while the first character of a page title in a wikilink is case-insensitive, the first character of a section title (immediately following "#" in a wikilink) is not (i.e., it must be capitalized). - dcljr (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you should be pipelinking like this when the text is not about reproduction. Please be more careful with your pipelinks. And keep WP:EGG in mind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

And regarding stuff like this (followup note here) and this, please stop removing links to the Sexual intercourse article. At this rate, you will orphan the article. I get that you want readers to think of the meaning of "sexual intercourse" in terms of penile-vaginal sex and/or reproduction. But that article is already clear about the primary meaning of that term. And the Human reproduction#Copulation section notes it as the main article for what it is discussing anyway. The term "sexual intercourse" should not be pipelinked with "Human reproduction#Copulation." Furthermore, the reason that the Copulation (zoology) article exists is because the term "sexual intercourse" is used significantly more for humans than non-human-animals and may refer to non-reproductive sexual activities. So there is no need to pipelink "sexual intercourse" with "Copulation (zoology)" either. If the sexual text is about non-human animals in the reproductive sense (rather than animal sexual behavior more generally), simply linking to the Copulation (zoology) article and pipelinking it with the word "copulation" is enough. You did that with this edit, and that's obviously fine. If the text is about human reproduction, linking to the Human reproduction article is enough; readers shouldn't be led to think that they are going to an article about sexual intercourse when they aren't. If the content is like this (about vasocongestion), there is no need to change the link away from the Sexual intercourse article to "Human reproduction#Copulation." As an alternative in that case, you can simply link "vaginal intercourse." But I'm sure that readers will understand that "sexual intercourse" in that case is referring to penile-vaginal sex.

Anyway, thus far, the vast majority of your "copulation" edits, which overwhelmingly concern non-human animals, are improvements.

If you reply to me on any of this, I ask that you reply here on your talk page (not on mine) to keep the discussion centralized; see WP:TALKCENT. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I got the sense there was a change in the redirect on the Copulation article, where the article was turned into a redirect to Sexual Intercourse, but then the cleanup that should have been performed at that time never happened. In their current forms, the Copulation (zooology) article and the Human reproduction#Copulation articles carry the same biological-oriented content for animals and humans respectively, while the Sexual Intercourse article is more social and less biological in character. It is also less focused topically as you noted, but it seemed that the biological/social dimension was the primary factor determining which link ought to go where. I figured that even though I wasn't the most-informed editor to do the cleanup, since nobody else was doing it I ought to. At the same time the page listing the redirects contained some links to Sexual Intercourse that were really more about Copulation (zooology) and Human reproduction#Copulation than Sexual Intercourse, so I also worked on those.
Also, (to dcljr), I am sorry for the mistakes and I will remember your explanation of how to wikilink correctly--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
While the Sexual intercourse article does address non-reproductive acts because the term can also refer to such, it is clear that the primary meaning of the term is penile-vaginal sex for sexual pleasure and/or reproduction. This is also clear from sections such as the Prevalence section that acknowledges that penile-vaginal sex is the primary focus when it comes to the term "sexual intercourse." Again, I understand wanting to link to reproduction-focused content when the text is about reproduction, but cases such as the aforementioned vasocongestion one and this one I reverted are not about reproduction. The text for that latter part is focused on "abrasion or slight trauma caused by intercourse", not "abrasion or slight trauma caused by reproduction." Also, in addition to pointing readers to "Human reproduction#Copulation", another option is to point them to Sexual intercourse#Reproduction. Pipelinking "sexual intercourse" with "Sexual intercourse#Reproduction" when the sexual text regarding humans is about reproduction is fine. Pipelinking the term "sexual intercourse" with "Human reproduction#Copulation" is not. If readers are expecting to go to the Sexual intercourse article, which they will be if seeing the sexual intercourse link, they should not be taken to a section in the Human reproduction article instead; that is per WP:EGG.
The Copulation (zoology) article was created after much discussion seen here. A lot of the links in non-human animal articles that use "copulation" weren't updated to now point to the Copulation (zoology) article. Many were, but many weren't. So thank you for updating those. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
As for your statement, "Pipelinking the term "sexual intercourse" with "Human reproduction#Copulation" is not" my response is, "it depends"--mostly you are right, but there could be exceptions, especially in biologically-related articles where a precise meaning is intended. The problem is that there are different definitions to "sexual intercourse."--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
On the topic of exceptions... I mentioned that pipelinking "sexual intercourse" with "Sexual intercourse#Reproduction" should be the route taken. That section is pretty much the same as the "Human reproduction#Copulation" section. There is no good reason to point readers to "Human reproduction#Copulation" with the term "sexual intercourse" as a pipelink. However one looks at it, it would be sending readers to an article they did not expect to land on. And this is obviously because sexual intercourse and reproduction are two different topics. Otherwise, the Sexual intercourse, Reproduction and Human reproduction articles would be merged. The vast majority of terms have more than one definition, but they also usually have a primary definition. Readers get the primary definition of sexual intercourse from the very first sentence in the Sexual intercourse article and lower in the lead and lower in the article (for example, the definitions section). Similarly, anal sex has more than one definition, but the first sentence/first paragraph in the lead of the Anal sex article is clear about what the primary definition is. And it's what the article is mainly about. As seen in discussions like this one, editors do generally take the Sexual intercourse to have a primary focus on penile-vaginal sex. Although it's not uncommon for anal and oral sex (especially anal sex) to be considered forms of sexual intercourse by sources, the term "sexual intercourse" is not usually used to refer to anal sex, oral sex, and/or non-penetrative sex. I mean, for example, that a source usually will not state "sexual intercourse" when it means anal sex. When sources and laypeople want readers to know that they are referring to anal sex, oral sex, and/or non-penetrative sex, they use those terms. And, again, when something is about human reproduction, it is easy enough to just state "human reproduction" or "reproduction" instead of "sexual intercourse." Anyway, I don't see that we need to keep discussing this. I just wanted to point out an issue. I was clear that the vast majority of your "copulation" edits, which overwhelmingly concern non-human animals, are improvements. And I thank you again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand that is your opinion, but its a big encyclopedia and I'm not convinced it is as cut and dried as you say.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
When adhering to the WP:EGG guideline, I'm not going by my personal opinion. I'm also speaking on the matter from experience, including having been involved in different WP:EGG discussions. But we can agree to disagree on what WP:EGG states or on our interpretations of it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Lutheran devotions

Dear User:Epiphyllumlover, I hope you are doing well. Would you consider creating an article on Lutheran devotions modeled on Anglican devotions? Such an article would benefit the project. I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, if you have time, a section on Lutheranism would be wonderful here. Thanks for your consideration! AnupamTalk 08:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I will think about it. I wrote a paragraph or so on devotions for the Lutheranism article. It is located in the Liturgy subsection. The high church Lutheranism is similar to the Anglican, the low church practice would be the use of the small daily devotionals, or just Bible reading and hymn singing. Or listening to Christian radio, usually Evangelical. The trouble with Lutheranism and devotions is that Lutherans tend to be ashamed to admit that they do them, because a high level of piety is equated in a popular sense with bigotry, sectarianism, and factionalism. An exception to this though might be listening to Christian radio of another denomination--it is okay to admit you do that without appearing to be a bigot, except of course to the more strict sort of Lutherans who then will think you are being a bad Lutheran and too Evangelical. In contrast a pious Catholic or Anglican is just thought to be a good Catholic or Anglican. So in comparing denominations, a drawback to Lutheranism is its inability to be openly pious.
As for burials, there is a current controversy over cremation where some say it is a sin. A mass is never done that I know of. I think it would be easier write this section than the above article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Epiphyllumlover

Thank you for creating Censorship of the Bible.

User:Csgir, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Kindly take a look at the Reference section; there are a lot of errors.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Csgir}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Csgir (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I am relying on the error notices to fix them, they only show up when it is in article space as opposed to as a userpage draft.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Censorship of the Bible, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Given your AfD comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester you may also want to post your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester. Thanks for your attention.Djflem (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Order of Saint Francis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Order of Saint Francis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Saint Francis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Template

It's not even an example of the contrary though. It's an example of a totally unrelated subject. Richard75 (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It is an example of what drove the Catholic Church to push for and be pleased with Separation of Church and State. Having Church and State commingled was all fine and dandy until they got the short end of the stick. After that, religious freedom sounded good.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for the help with Luis Miguel Romero Fernández…

"Fight the Good Fight Every Moment"

Roberto221 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Censorship of the Bible

On 4 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Censorship of the Bible, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Presbyterian–Catholic New Testament in Taiwanese Hokkien was confiscated by the government in 1975 for using the Latin alphabet instead of Chinese characters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Censorship of the Bible. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Censorship of the Bible), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hymn tunes

The idea of music to hymn tunes in external links is fine. Only - I listened to Es ist genug: they seem to be exactly the same organ, just different titles. I changed that one to reduce reader frustration ;) - Kindly take care of the others. Better perhaps would be a section about the hymns in English (written by whom, published where when), if not full articles about them. + redirects! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but they are different lengths because the hymns have different numbers of verses. Only a few of them have multiple text for just one tune. I am hoping you will consider changing it back.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I won't because without the context of those stanzas, how would a reader appreciate any of it? - They are borderline not interesting at all, unless in an article about a specific hymn which has the text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I listened now to "Gelobt sei Gott", it seems even worde: the different stanzas sound all the same to me, no? - These files may be good to be played where there is no organ, but don't add much to understanding the hymn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Could you pick the longest file to keep, and scrap the shorter ones?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I get it, - I'd choose the shortest, - I don't believe anybody will listen to more than two stanzas, noticing that they all the same. - I went over the German-language hymn, moving the mp3 to the last position (they should not come before free scores, or the commonscat!), collapsing navboes on the way, and removing a few. Please take care of the rest. It was a good exercise on a Sunday morning to go over the hymns, but I have a GA review and other tasks waiting. - "Hymns and songs based on Latin models" might be an idea, such as "Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr" on the Gloria, and "Großer Gott, wir loben dich" on the Te Deum", some Nunc dimittis, many by Luther on Gregorian chants, including "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland" which even takes the tune from the chant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
They are mostly useful for people who do not read music well and are trying to learn the hymn texts or just want to sing. No--it isn't listening music, rather it is for singing. As for mp3s of artistic merit that could be added, see this list of 274 Bach organ works by James Kibbie, all free to download. As for why the longest ones are better, it is so the file doesn't stop playing until you finished singing--the longer ones will also work for shorter hymns of the same tune, you just have to stop your music player when you are done singing.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

How Firm a Foundation

Hello. In this edit [1] you said "WP policy on disambig pages is not to use them when there are only two possibilities. The hatnote suffices. Changing to a redirect towards the more common use of the phrase". Yes, but this applies where there is a primary topic — WP:ONEOTHER. In this case it's clear the hymn is a primary topic (see [2]) so we need to move the primary topic article to the base name to replace the disambiguation page (and delete the redirect How Firm a Foundation (disambiguation)). I've now done this. Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Photos

Please take a moment to read Help:Pictures and MOS:IMAGES. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The distant-focus ones showing broad landscapes aren't too bad. If there were better photos available on commons I would use them in a heartbeat.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
If you had used a better camera, we'd have better pictures. If all that's available is poor-quality pictures, we don't add pictures. This isn't the dollar store. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yawn.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Three V Crossing (low-water crossing)

Sure, what would you like me to do for you? bibliomaniac15 21:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I was asked to seek your approval, but I don't think I will need you to do anything.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's best if you try rewriting from scratch based on the sources you know, perhaps in your sandbox first. bibliomaniac15 22:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Door County, Wisconsin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi. I wanted to clarify that my comment at the Teahouse regarding "punish" was primarily for the benefit of the large number of newbies that read the page. I realize you're an experienced user and that it may have come off as condescending. Sorry about that . —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There is much I am inexperienced about because it is a big website; I am not offended. Today I confused someone else before being explained what Media Viewer was.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Door County, Wisconsin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock Island State Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion: Miraculous plague cure of 1522

The article Miraculous plague cure of 1522 has been nominated for deletion here. NightHeron (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of AFPSLAI

A tag has been placed on AFPSLAI requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Abratacus

I understand that you were looking for an editor who knows Coptic to help with this article, but User:Lothar von Richthofen doesn't list Coptic among his languages at User:Lothar von Richthofen/About. See Category:User cop for the (two) editors who do claim some level of knowledge of Coptic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; I went ahead and contacted both of them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Auxiliary Bishop

Sorry to impose but I need your voice again on this one:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey S. Grob

Roberto221 (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Note to other readers of the above comment. Given my strong history with comments regarding the WP:NBISHOP policy, it was very likely I would have voted on this AfD comment without the notice above. As such this should not be construed as canvassing.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Major county trunk highways articles?

I'm deciding on whether or not I should create a Wikipedia article on a heavily used county trunk highway in Wisconsin (Waukesha County Road O [Moorland Road]). I feel like it does meet some criteria, but it's lacking others. What's your opinion? SigmaJosh (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Supreme Court of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attrition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Music of the Reformation era

Template:Music of the Reformation era has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aza24 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of COVID-19 pandemic in Door County, Wisconsin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article COVID-19 pandemic in Door County, Wisconsin, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic in Door County, Wisconsin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

See also

I am not sure what to think of the large "See also" sections in Lutheran hymnals. Shouldn't such things go to a navbox, such as {{Lutheran hymnody}}? Please enlighten me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Most of the hymnals are not Lutheran, so they don't belong in a Lutheran navbox. They are all 16th century Protestant hymnals. There are some overlapping characteristics, mostly in the common form of metrical psalms. Also, the Ausbund includes Luther's Aus Tiefer Not.
In English speaking hymnals many hymns are translated; it follows that most English speaking Protestants who are interested in a particular 16th century European hymnal will probably be interested in other such hymnals.
The difficulty with putting them in a navbox is that some will be deleted. The difficulty with putting them in a category is that some are only sections to a larger article. The See also section is a good place to list them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ACE questions

Dude, your questions have gotten more and more bizarre. Maybe you should stick to asking things directly relevant to arbcom. Natureium (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know-Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
See User:Epiphyllumlover/ACE_2020 for a brief overview derived from my questions.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping you would have gotten a better sense of how Wikipedia works by now :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

A meta question

If eleven people all do their best to answer your questions, and one person says he's not going to, which one has displayed the least groupthink? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

DRV

FYI its really bad form to start a DRV without even pretending to discuss the close with the closer. Simple mistakes and errors are easy to sort out at that stage, and frankly, it just comes over as rude not to do that. Spartaz Humbug! 07:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. This is a first for me.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and Happy New year

Hello! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous 2021 on the behalf of Christmas task force of WikiProject Holidays.

"Christmas is not a time nor a season, but a state of mind. To cherish peace and goodwill, to be plenteous in mercy, is to have the real spirit of Christmas!"
-Calvin Coolidge
Quotations related to Calvin Coolidge at Wikiquote
Sent by Path slopu (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Holidays, WikiProject Christianity and their related projects. © Copyleft 2020

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Yule Ranch at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Yule Ranch

On 25 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yule Ranch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Theodore Roosevelt conducted one of his last bison hunting excursions at Yule Ranch? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yule Ranch. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Yule Ranch), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Post birth abortion" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Post birth abortion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 17#Post birth abortion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ★Trekker (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"Post-birth abortion" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Post-birth abortion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 17#Post-birth abortion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ★Trekker (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan

Are you going to un-break all that you broke in your page move? The interactive map is now broken. Archiving on the talk page is now broken. The KML file is unlinked. It's not a matter of just moving the page, because there's several other pages involved. Imzadi 1979 → 00:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hog Island (Wisconsin), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Synopsis and Submerge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

ACE2021

Thank you for your participation in this year's election process. Your Voter Guide received some comment here. You may also be interested in the election analysis here. Best, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Hog Island (Wisconsin)

On 13 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hog Island (Wisconsin), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two voyageur canoes capsized off of Hog Island in 1976? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hog Island (Wisconsin). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hog Island (Wisconsin)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your ongoing interest in islands of the Great Lakes area. Bigturtle (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Information icon Hello, I'm FormalDude. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2021 United States Capitol attack seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 21:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, your edit was mistake, –FormalDude. The article cited a demographic analysis by NPR, which was independently examined by two third party organizations and found wanting. You can look it up by checking the edit summary url.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy and paste of the followup discussion on FormalDude's talk page:

Yes, your edit was a mistake. Please self revert: [3] (ADL), [4] (Daily Caller), and page 15 of [5] (George Washington University). The article cited a demographic analysis by NPR, which is found to be wanting in these three sources. I removed the analysis, and I think these three sources will persuade you that the NPR demographic analysis does not belong in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover: Daily Caller and the Federalist are not reliable sources. ADL and Geourge Washington University are. If you want to add content from either of those sources please do so, but I don't believe they directly contradict the NPR claim. ––FormalDude talk 22:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The sources I linked to in the comment were linked to from the Federalist url in the comment history. ADL also discusses another figure which is close, but not quite what NPR found. The issue ADL and the other sources have with the NPR claim is not the percentage of participation, but the standard of comparison. It is actually evidence against an undue military-related participation in what happened. The text I removed stated, "An analysis by National Public Radio showed that nearly 20% of defendants charged in relation to the attack served in the military; in the general population, 7% of all American adults are veterans." It was misleading for them to compare military participation to the general population. The wikitext I removed still should be removed from the article. I left the article as is, for you to self-revert.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover: This is reason to remove the comparison then, not the statistic. So are you okay changing it to just "An analysis by National Public Radio showed that nearly 20% of defendants charged in relation to the attack served in the military"? ––FormalDude talk 22:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Between the ADL and the university, which do you prefer? You could keep the NPR source for a truncated statement similar to this suggestion, and also add to it in the same sentence or a second sentence that the military percentage was comparable to an ordinary sampling of adult men.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover: I prefer the ADL since it's greenlighted at WP:RSP and secondary, and also mentions the university source.
It seems NPR and the ADL are making different claims though. NPR refers to those charges, while ADL refers to those participating. So there is a potential for discrepancy, which it seems there is, and theoretically, we should include both. Something like "Nearly 20% of defendants charged in relation to the attack and about 12% of the participants in general were reported to have served in the military." ––FormalDude talk 22:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
It is acceptable to report both figures; will you also include a discussion comparing it to the expected percentage from adult men in general?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover: I've updated the article to include both. Not sure of the best way to include the comparison, maybe you can add that part. ––FormalDude talk 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I went and did that. I will copy and paste this discussion to my talk page for reference.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Looks like you've received these notices before, and it's likely that you're already aware of DS in these areas. Apologies for the repeats, but unfortunately your formal 'awareness' expired a year after the last notices. Firefangledfeathers 22:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alexander Sergeevich Klishin (March 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Entire sections completely unreferenced. Also promotional in tone. --
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Color corrections

Hey, saw your mention at Pppery's talk page. I did upload the color-corrected full version to File:North America on April 16, 1972, cropped from AS16-118-18879.png. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

And you had already done it days ago, before I asked. It definitely helps show the ice. I saw your note about doing a histogram stretch, so I looked up how to do it in GIMP. Previously I had been using the the "Shadows-Highlights" tool; I just used the "White Balance" histogram stretch on another satellite photo which I just uploaded. It has a stronger effect than Shadows-Highlights.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Roe v Wade

I posted on the talk page of Roe v Wade that I wanted to seek a 3rd opinion and I wanted to notify you here as well. I have laid my issues out on the Roe V Wade talk page and am happy to continue any discussion there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbilli (talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you familiar with this?

It is recommended that the filing editor notifies the second editor about the post here. If the second editor disagrees with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a third opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the second editor is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to.

--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Nixon

I got pinged about Nixon, so wrote a reply, but deleted that reply a few hours later. Wikipedia topic-banned me from abortion-related articles, and later from all post-1932 American politics, so I probably was doubly prohibited from responding to your ping. What I said is true, in my humble opinion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry. Next time I see a similar reverted talk page comment from anyone, I will be better and definitely not link to it in an edit summary so as to not draw attention to it. Earlier on I've seen censorship as a reason for topic banning. That topic banning is done for censorship is a rather open secret on Wikipedia.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI discussion closed

Hi Epiphyllumlover, I have closed the ANI discussion finding a consensus for a community-imposed topic ban from abortion related pages and discussions, broadly construed. I saw your most recent question, and also included the clarification that, yes, this does include sockpuppet investigations. The ban is indefinite since I didn't see a length discussed, and you may appeal at WP:AN or WP:ANI to have this restriction removed in the future (though you should usually wait at least 6 months). I see no reason to partially block at this time as I believe you can abide by this restriction without technical enforcement. If in doubt about something, feel free to ask me for clarification on my talk page. I wish I came with happier news, but I look forward to your helpful contributions to the rest of the encyclopedia. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Epiphyllumlover! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, trying to anchor a reference and it won't anchor, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Not about numerology or conspiracy

The 23 enigma, I mean.

The number is a number, of course, so there's spillover into the numerologist's tent, but no more than it seeps into the banker's ballpit, bleeds across the sportswriter's booth or manifests itself in the mailroom (honey). And yes, the same pseudoscientific intangible voltage that drives nutbars like a young Hulk to less-than-demonstrable hypotheses and conclusions does spur this current generation of alternative history buffs to assume even worse. But, as I now understand it, this enigma's something of a riddle, more like a mystery and above all a story.

There are other nouns I could link, believe you me, but the main article does an arguably decent job of that and I don't want to come across as some sort of psychologically preachy pervert, you know? Bad enough I used to be a little boy. Anyway, it was nice running into you, and good luck fixing Hitler! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Kbabej (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk page spamming

Umm, Epiphyllumlover, WikiProjects are one thing, specific users' talk pages are another. Could you please stop? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I figured I should notify everyone who edited Respect for Marriage Act during the period in question. I am notifying both people who I think might advocate for and against me, and people who may have witnessed the events in question, but did not participate directly in the discussions or edits.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not questioning your good intentions, but I'm not sure if you're helping your cause. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it is a lost cause, but you never know.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Depends on what the cause is. 🙂 I mean, really. If I understand correctly, your main concern is getting a fair discussion, not influenced too much by single editors with their personal opinions. The WikiProject notifications may have been helpful in achieving this. The user talk page notifications may rather make people complain about "canvassing" where none was intended, leading to (I guess) a wrong impression from the notified users before they even read the AN thread. Making people jump into the AN thread with a biased impression of "I have been the target of canvassing" doesn't help anyone, I think. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I mean that I'm going to be topic banned; that seems like a lost cause.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Stop the canvassing now. Cullen328 (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Without weighing in on everything that led to it, FWIW I don't think I'd call this canvassing. I don't know E's motivations for leaving the usertalk messages, but based on the extent of our fairly limited interactions, I would really struggle to believe E notified me because they thought I'd leap to their defense on this. Notifying individuals absolutely gives the impression of canvassing, which is damaging in its own right, but I don't think this is actually canvassing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces (Talk and User talk) for a period of 12 hours for Excessive cross-posting, done with best intentions but without hope of being stopped in any other way. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Perry County, TN...again!

I've done quite a bit of work on the Perry County, Tennessee page that you were kind enough to help review and edit a couple of months back. I'm about to put it up for GA review, would appreciate you taking another look at it before that and providing any additional feedback you can think of! Still wish I had more history from the mid 20th century, but I'm afraid there's just not a lot out there. nf utvol (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Epiphyllumlover/Archive_1&oldid=1102594805"