Jump to content

User talk:Wesley

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

This page is more than 32 kB long. If your browser has trouble with that, please update your browser. Thank you. -- The Management.



Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up! 16:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]






CheeseDreams has just filed a complaint against me asking I be banned from any articles involving Judeo-Christian topics [1]. If you think there would be any value at this early stage to your commenting on the ArbCom page or talk page I'd appreciate it -- or, if it is okay with you, I can just keep you posted. Thanks, Slrubenstein 23:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why, it hasn't been accepted yet. CheeseDreams 19:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weley, CD has been banned for a few days for violating the AC decision. But look at these: [2] edits by a friend of CHeeseDreams. the changes to the Cultural and historical etc. article were ludicrous and I reverted. But s/he also worked on other Christianity related articles. I suggest you take a look -- I do not know the material, or history of these articles, well enough to know whether these edits are reasonable and valid, or if this is just Cheese Dreams violating the ruling. Slrubenstein 19:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, so many things keep changing -- she seems to have an infinite supply of sock-puppets and I know others keep following her trail trying to clean up. Maybe what I was referring to got lost in the process. Anyway, just be aware that she loves sock puppets and that she is targeting articles pertaining to Christianity (or anything she can use concerning gnosticism or ancient near eastern religions that can also be a platform for her views on christianity) Slrubenstein 23:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was hoping she might show some respect for the ArbCom's decision instead of looking for ways to bypass it though. Oh well. Wesley 16:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I invite you to sign in as a participant to the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses project and add that page to your watchlist. Tom Haws 21:04, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I say your comment on the Jehovah's Witnesses project page - I think that this organization was a but premature for them, and the structure is a concern. I wonder if the idea was a bit forced rather than natural like other projects.

It could be. Your concern is well founded. Time will tell. As you know, I was suggesting it. We will see whether the editors can support it. Tom Haws 19:15, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement


I have been increasinly concerned with this project's (and simlar projects) credibility. If JWProject is modeled after the LDSM one, we have work to do. I think Latter Day Saint editors are doing a much better job in staying NPOV, and with the addition of Non-Latter Day Saint editors such as User:Alai have helped balance articles even further. We are heading in the right direction, but don't want to be accused of bloc POV edits and "groupthink."

I left a note (including a comment about you) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Cool_Project_.2F_Good_Group that explains some of my thoughts/concerns. We'll need more non-Mormon editors to make the project a success. Since other Latter Day Saint editors look up to you so much because of you (usually ;))unbiased approach, and with how many people watch your edits on religious topics your addition to the project would be a welcome step, bring other Non-Mormon editors to the project and would be much appreciated. I hope you'll join the project. If you can't join/don't want to, could you suggest editors who would be appropriate to invite? -Visorstuff 17:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'll try to take a look, but lately have had more and more difficulty finding time for wikipedia. Wesley 17:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat as far as time. However, your presence alone would make a difference. You have great influence on this corner of the Wiki. Just your high level thoughts on the project page and some direction to make sure we go in the right direction would be helpful. -Visorstuff 18:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Precisely my feeling. We don't really need a whole lot of your time or energy at the moment, but your presence and occasional oversight would be valuable. In addition, Watching the WP:LDS page could be an economical way for you to have input to that area of the Wikipedia. Tom Haws 19:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Wesley, just dropping by to say keep up the good work. I saw your comments in the merge request re mormons & christianity, on balance I think I agree that it's a separte topic form anti-mormonism and criticisms of mormonism (which may or may not be good candidates for a merge, depending on viewpoint). I'm not really qualified to venture an opinion beyond that, being an inetrested spectator and little more, but respect to you (and the others) for the work done in keeping the articles objective. And informative, which is above all what we're here for. --Just zis Guy, you know? 16:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, basically, I'm about to go through it and start ripping out all unsourced material. Also am going to take out all inaccurate information (see talk page). - Ta bu shi da yu 23:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bible chapters


Not only do I believe every Bible chapter deserves and article, I believe every Bible verse does. As a pilot project to see if the idea is feasible I have created articles on John 20:15,16, and 17. The articles are not great, I am no Biblical scholar, but I personally feel that at least for the Gospels there is enough material for an article per verse. Others disagree with me and the matter is currently being debated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20:16 and Talk:John 20:16 - SimonP 22:03, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Request for your assistance


Could I get some help with The Two Babylons? If we can fill in the blanks here, then we can improve the Historicity of Jesus article! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "fill in the blanks" in this case. I'm not sure why you think we need an extensive blow by blow of this little pamphlet or why I should work on that instead of something else. I don't mean that in an unkind way, it just seems that I must be missing something that's obvious to you. Wesley 05:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christo-Islamic tradition


Don't know if you're still watching this page, but the topic is of great interest to me, and I've left a note on the talk page there. Eager to hear your thoughts. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 17:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* - the saga continues


Thanks for the heads-up, Slrubenstein 20:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)



Dear Wesley,

I just ran across your user page on Wikipedia and wanted to invite you to help us over at OrthodoxWiki.org. May God bless you! - Fr. John

Personal attacks


If I want to teach somebody a lesson in tolerance, I will. There is nothing you say that will stop me from holding somebody to their own ideal, when it comes to them persecuting other people. Learn more about why things are said, not merely what is said. You seem to need some of this lesson in tolerance as well. I at least defend people who are mobbed, because I care about disadvantaged people. Do you really care? Borderer 05:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I care about people. That's why I at least try to be very careful to attack ideas rather than people. Further, Wikipedia has official policies in place that forbid personal attacks. I wanted to make sure you were aware of this. If you ignore the policy and decide to flout it, then other corrective action might become necessary, which I'd honestly rather avoid. Wesley 18:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Borderer banned


I've blocked User:Borderer indefinitely, since he is an alias for banned user Kenneth Alan. -- Decumanus 04:13, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)



There are proposals posted for the Human article, if you'd like to support one. --Goethean 23:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see that you are an Orthodox Christian who has at some point been interested in the Hypatia article. I wondered if you could shed some light on a query I have about the article (see Talk:Hypatia of Alexandria#Use of the word "dogma"). I see that "dogmatic" was used as a substitute for "fundamentalist" after some debate but I am not certain that the people who decided on use of the word "dogma" quite understand its theological meaning, especially in the Orthodox tradition. I don't completely understand it myself, but I did attend a lecture by the (largely anti-Christian) religious scholar Karen Armstrong who roundly condemned the use of "dogmatic" as a term of abuse and stated her conclusion that, particularly in the Othodox understanding of it, dogma is actually a very good thing. She argued that its negative connotations had emerged partly because it was used by analogy on people (e.g. politicians) who acted in a blind, unthinking and uncritical belief and partly because less and less people understand the theological meaning. AFAICS, if an anti-Christian scholar is saying that dogma is good and dogmatic shouldn't be used to carry negative connotations, people ought to be wary of applying it, especially to Christians (for whom it holds a particular religious meaning distinct from the meaning of popular understanding) and also particularly to people who lived before it acquired its current connotations! You seem to be a fairly logical person to ask to see if I am barking up the wrong tree or not :) Any feedback would be appreciated, but if you really don't know/don't care it's no problem. Sorry to bother you! VivaEmilyDavies 18:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! What was really bothering me about "dogma" is that although it clearly represents something that from the viewpoint of the religion is certain, is it coupled with the recognition that from the outside of the religion, it may appear fundamentally uncertain, and that it is ultimately acknowledged to require a "leap of faith"? Also, does "dogmatic" make (theological) sense as a way to refer to people with beliefs that might now be characterised as a "fundamentalist", particularly rigid literalism and a tendency to try to see all things (including philosophical and scientific topics) through the prism of scripture? I know that "dogmatic" in standard English can have this connotation, but it is at heart a theological term, and clearly the instigators of "dogma" and "dogmatic" as a term didn't intend it as a form of abuse! (I am also suspicious that Karen Armstrong mischaracterised the Orthodox approach to dogma: her presentation of it as a form of acknowledgement that ultimately belief in certain things requires an act of faith, and therefore is an acceptance of the limit of human knowledge of theological affairs, suits her own views on how religions should refrain from attempting reasoned, absolute proofs for themselves, but she doesn't seem to escape the fact that "dogma", whether it requires faith or reason, still represents a firmly held belief, rejection of which may be seen as heretical...) VivaEmilyDavies 06:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please consider helping us welcome a new user


Hi, Wesley. We have a new user User:Vegasbright at the WP:LDS project who is absolutely sure all of us True Believing Mormons at the project are out to squelch him. We'd really like to groom him as an important POV addition to the project (like you, Alai, John Hamer, and now Sam Spade), and I would personally hate to lose him. But he seems impatient and pessimistic about the whole thing, and he is having a hard time understanding that this is not a blog site, that we have to use our best writing. I suggested he should rub shoulders more with you and the other non-LDS project participants, but I guess it hasn't happened. Anyway, if you drop by at his user page and his personal blog you will get an idea of where he is coming from and perhaps you will think of somehow you can put an arm around him and help him scheme against all of us closed-minded True Believing Mormons. Thanks beforehand. Cc:Alai and Sam Spade. Tom Haws 05:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a line and say hello. I have been working with Tom and visorstuff a great deal and they reccomended I take a look at your style. So hello, I can be a bit sarcastic but I am trying to stick to the NPOV guidelines, but having a difficult time finding it in the pro-LDS camp. Advice? Criticism? All would be helpful. --Vegasbright 07:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by, Vegasbright. I won't be writing much between now and May 1, as starting tomorrow I have church services at least once a day leading up to Pascha; we Orthodox use a different calculation for the date of Easter, and it truly is the most significant time of our liturgical year. I'll have more time after that. But if you think the LDS are protectionist, try editing pages that cover the Jehovah's Witnesses, or try suggesting that a human might be more than just a bag of bones. Also, let me say that the people that I started out arguing the most with on wikipedia, have turned out to be some of the best friends on wikipedia that I have now. Sometimes you have to let the other person be wrong; they may be kind enough to extend you the same courtesy. ;-) Wesley 03:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to report several incidents of vandalism on the page for Sacrament. I fixed the page; they were minor things. It seems, however, that the user has a history of vandalism. Perhaps a warning or a blocking might be in order. That's your call. Thanks. KHM03 02:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report. Sorry I haven't been active the last few days. Looks like several others have given that ip a warning; additional vandalism will result in a temporary block. Wesley 03:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] has vandalized Sacrament again. The vandalism has been fixed, but I suggest a block. If not, then whatever you think best. Thanks. KHM03 11:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] has vandalized Sacrament yet again. The vandalism has been fixed. KHM03 11:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for 24 hours. It looked like all their recent contributions were vandalism. Wesley 03:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Wesley, you know I have always respected you and your work to ensure that the history of Christianity is represented accurately, and that the Christian point of view is represented fairly. Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [3], [4]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. I know how committed you are to your views, but I also trust your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Username


Just wanted to let you know that I chose a different username but am going to keep the Jesus is the Christ User page and talk page as my pages through a redirect. Your comments re the difficulty in addressing me with that username and the impersonation that someone did of me convinced me that I should change it. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 16:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been invoked in the midst of a debate; thought you'd like to review and, if led to do so, add your two cents. KHM03 17:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been listed on vfd. Your thoughts on this and/or your help expanding the article to more than a dictionary definition would be appreciated. In XC, JHCC 13:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox churches involvement in World Council of Churches and National Council of Churches


Hi Wesley, as a somewhat left wing Christian of ecumenical bent I have neen trying to strengthen the WCC & NCC articles. I would appreciate any comments/additions on Orthodox perspectives. I know enough to know it is different. (This is seperate from a discussion I am having over Christian right criticism.) Paul foord 10:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These pages sure could use some help, perhaps you're interested?

Christian Expertise


It appears that you have some expertise in Christianity, having tried out a number of denominations. It is unusual to go from protestantism to orthodox, mostly because there a comparatively few churches (except for Greek Orthodox). I was curious, did you marry someone who was Orthodox? Also, would appreciate your assistance on maintaining the general Christian POV when the article specifically asks for it, as in Abraham or Ishmael. --Noitall 13:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

No, my wife's parents were Protestant missionaries, and at this time they are both ordained, each pastoring their own Protestant church. My wife also attended several different denominations, and since we married, we tried the Free Methodist Church and the Mennonites (Conservative Mennonite Conference) first. We deliberately chose to convert, and to join the Eastern Orthodox Church as embodied by the Orthodox Church in America. In a nutshell, I was grieving the abrupt deaths of my parents and sister, and found it difficult to worship in churches that insist I "rejoice in the Lord" and basically believed that my emotions were the measure of my spiritual condition, and that the way to worship God or draw closer to God was to change my emotions. Not helpful for someone struggling with depression. The Orthodox church allows me to come and pray, and allows me to feel whatever I happen to be feeling at the time, without prescribing a certain emotional response. The appeal for my wife was in having a consistent hermeneutic, or method for interpreting the Bible. She went to a protestant seminary and got an M.Div., but realized in the process that she was being trained to interpret the Bible any way she wanted; or to put it another way, she acquired the tools to believe and preach almost anything and find a way to make the Bible justify it. The remedy for this is apostolic tradition: what has the Church throughout time and places taught about God? How have they used the Bible? In the years since, we have continued to worship God together, to seek to do his will, to repent, etc., together with our parish and the rest of the body of Christ, under the direction of a spiritual father, rather than going it alone, making stuff up and finding Bible proof texts to justify it, or picking and choosing catchy titles at the local Christian bookstore. Wesley \

I noticed your remark here, when browsing my watchlist. I appreciate how pointedly the account of your experience illustrates an important failing of the common Protestant concept of worship, Wesley: "the way to worship God or draw closer to God was to change my emotions". How true. Church-shoppers would judge a congregation "dead" if it did not reduce worship in this way, to an adjustment of emotions. How deadly. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for asking! As for maintaining a general Christian POV when an article asks for it, I think this is generally the case only on articles that are very narrowly about Christianity, like Christology or the Trinity. Abraham is a bit more general as he is also significant in Judaism and Islam, so in that case the different religious perspectives need to be balanced by each other and expressed neutrally, don't you think?

Wesley 16:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope, and assume, that you support maintaining a Christian POV also in sections of articles, where those sections are very narrowly about Christianity. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You assume correctly; same principle would apply. :-) By the way, is there a trick to getting the (Talk) link in your signature automatically that I haven't learned yet? Wesley 16:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes :-) My preferences for nickname reads ]][[User Talk:Mkmcconn| <small>(Talk)</small> Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely interesting story Wesley. In the times that I went to Orthodox churches, I can certainly see your points. Protestantism is really local, totally dependant on the views and perspectives of the local congregation. That means a lot of church shopping, and maybe a lack of success. On the part of NPOV for religious articles, I think that articles that touch on all 3 major religions ought to accurately state their general beliefs. Trying to include some narrow edit for the other person's religion because it supports the beliefs of one of the other 3 religions is done for a POV. That is also why I made it my express policy on these articles not to edit the other 2 major religions. I feel that it is impossible to remove your POV if you edit in the other religions. Religion goes beyond politics or other controversial topics where I believe neutrality is impossible between the 3 major religions. I do not see this happening within denominations within one of the 3 religions. Anyhow, those are my thoughts. Obviously certain others, mostly in one of the other major religions, feel that their strong religious POV should not stop them from editing elsewhere. --Noitall 23:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that editing outside one's own religion is necessarily a bad thing, as long as the edits are factual and the writer is sufficiently knowledgable, or does proper research. It is a problem when a religion is misrepresented, whether the misrepresentation is done by a member of that religion or another religion. I have seen instances of both. Wesley 16:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship


...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes on pages he and I both edit.

You and I worked productively on the Christo-Islamic article, and it occurred to me that you might wish to share your thoughts.

Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

JW comment needed


Wesley, could you take a look at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses? Somebody has decided to split the artile on POV lines, citing the Latter Day Saint articles as an example. This is bad practice, and I would rather root it out than propagate it. Tom Haws 15:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


Wesley, sorry if this isn't really your thing, but could you offer some advice on external links. There seems to be a lot of link spamming going on, all over the place. I've been doing some work on the Christadelphian, and despite doing a bit of a link clean-up and explaining my reason for doing so, we still seem to get a few people whose main purpose seems to be to add links of minimal relevance. I've read through the external links guidelines a couple of times, but would welcome a second opinion. Thanks. RJB

Regrets from Tom


Hi, Wesley. I feel personal concern and ownership of the suspicion you continue to express toward JWs and Mormons. I respect you so highly and feel I have depended on you so much for assistance from time to time that it causes me grief to find myself feeling unable to express myself adequately to you. Am I approaching this wrong? What barriers stand in the way of my being able to communicate effectively with you about these matters? It would be personally valuable to me if you are willing to explore this here or by e-mail. My ears are open. Tom Haws 18:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I've certainly enjoyed the positive work we've been able to accomplish together on a number of articles. I certainly regard you as valuable editor, who works hard to find common ground with others. And believe it or not, I do respect your faith, and while it's impossible for one person to know another person's heart for certain, I'm inclined to think that you are devout and sincere in the religious beliefs you hold. I just think they're wrong, as I'm sure you think my own beliefs are wrong. We should be able to acknowledge this and continue working together. Wesley \
Now, as to communication, I have two basic concerns with how JW's and Mormons present their beliefs. First, it bothers me when they use standard theological terminology in non-standard ways, but it bothers me even more when they object to adding the additional observation that the terminology is being used in a non-standard way. I'll grant that you might not be aware of how certain terms are used outside your church, and this might not be a deliberate attempt at deception. It's not my place to judge your motives or anyone else's. But I do believe that the effect of using theological terminology this way is misleading at best, at least to people who are more used to the usual meaning of words. Wesley \
The other thing that really puzzles me is why JW's and Mormons try so hard to identify themselves with Christianity, instead of just saying Christianity as we know it went very wrong very early in its history, they all need to join the JW's or LDS church now. This is essentially Islam's stance, which acknowledges its history and basis in Christianity and Judaism, but also makes no bones about being a separate religion based on what they think is the fullest revelation from God. They have a different view of who God is and what He's like, and they don't pretend to be the same as Christians, much less Jews. Why doesn't the LDS church take this kind of stance? That's really a rhetorical question, but it's something that puzzles me very greatly about these two religions; they seem to be very nearly as different from 'traditional Christianity' as Islam, but don't like to acknowledge it for some unknown reason(s). Wesley 16:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is a very remarkable difference though, speaking in general, and from experience on Wikipedia. Although I wouldn't want to trick myself into thinking that work on Wikipedia is a reliable predictor for the meat and bones world, it's got to be taken as an indicator for some purposes. JWs are not often seen here looking beyond the boundaries of their official worldview. In that view, for example, they are not descended from Adventism - similarities are coincidental. They see their religion as being productive of open, warm and generous folk - not slippery, paranoid, and angry. They are not Arians in any important respect, or like anyone else either, for that matter; only, they are Christians. Etc., etc. It makes no difference how the rest of Christendom and the secular world sees them; regardless, they disown it because, evidently, it does not fit the official story. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
Compare that to the LDS contributors - it is a very obvious difference. They not only entertain criticisms productively, they work deftly with alien views, understanding them much more insightfully, capable of seeing why people see them as they do. Don't you think that this exposes a difference in the temperaments, not just of the contributors (which varies as would be expected), but of the respective religious communities? JWs remind me of debates with Islam -- a spiritual quality, dark, hard to identify: "No exposure == no compromise" might sum it up. There is something very ironically open and familiar about Mormonism, that has nothing obviously to do with their rejection of all familiar doctrine, their several blasphemous beliefs, or even their secretive ceremonies. Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) \
Another nice thing about working with the Mormons is, they probably won't like me talking this way about the JWs (or them, either - the "blasphemous" thing I just added, for example). If theirs was a rigorously logical religion, they should be the most intolerant people on earth. They are not. Far from it. And I find that very much worth noting. Mkmcconn (Talk) 09:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wow, gentlemen! I am having a hard time finding words to express my awe at the place we have come in our ability to express and discuss these things. Wesley's statements are so poignant that I believe the best course will be for me to print them out, hang them on my wall, and cogitate for a while. And Mk's are very insighful too (not to mention temptingly complimentary). I hope we can all be present to continue this discussion in the long term. Thank you so much for sincerely trying to help me find the answers to my questions. Tom Haws July 5, 2005 18:26 (UTC)
Incidentally, one reason for the different in terminology of Mormons and others is the isolation of nearly a half a century in Utah - this isolation caused terms to be used in differing ways. Also, I don't think most temple-attending Mormons consider those outside their faith "wrong," or even misguided - but consider those not of their faith not to have the same holistic understanding or "fullness" of truth. Not wrong, but not as complete. Not sure if this makes sense, but is interesting. Very good discussion above. -Visorstuff 5 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)
Wesley, you gave me three very good self-contained paragraphs, and I will try to respond in the same format. While the first paragraph is the one that most directly addresses my plea, the other two are interesting and worth continuing. Tom Haws
My question was about barriers. You responded with respect and included the words "I just think they're wrong, as I'm sure you think my beliefs are wrong." This begins to scratch at the issue, I think. 1) My first observation is that it is indeed (as you point out) hard to know just what you or I believe, even if you say "I'm a trinitarian" and I say "I'm a Latter-day Saint". And if it is hard for me to know what you believe, then it is equally hard for me to know if you are wrong. And I can't just assume you are wrong; good manners demand that I assume you are right. 2) My second observation is that in fact Latter-day Saints are not theologically demanding. As Joseph Smith reported to have heard in his First Vision, "Their creeds are an abomination in my sight", we shy from placing high importance on pinning down definitions of God, who is in any case beyond the comprehension of the natural mind. Instead, we say, "Follow Christ and seek the Father." We simply trust that every soul who seeks will find. And I trust so of you, me, and every other soul who seeks his Creator. Based on 1) and 2), you see that I am concerned perhaps you think I am wrong in a deep way I can scarecly dare fathom. And so with the help of your response, I can reformulate the "barrier" in terms of our mutual estimation of one another's standing before God and prospects for eternal joy. I sense that, while I a) have not a second thought about the eternal joy that awaits you based on your trinitarianism and b) rejoice in your participation in your church, you feel certain a) I walk in spiritual darkness due to my rejection of the creeds and b) I have little hope but to suffer in hell due to my understanding of the who, what, and why of Jesus Christ. Am I when all is said and done nothing but a nice man who says nice things on Wikipedia, but who's eternal fate is hellfire? Please say it isn't so or give me some hope (if you can in all sincerity, or explain further if you can't)! Tom Haws
Good comments and questions; thank you for giving me a chance to explain further instead of assuming the worst about what I said. To come to the point rather bluntly, when I say "you are wrong" I do *not* mean or equate that with the claim "you are damned." They are two very different things. By "you are wrong" I mean simply that some of your theological beliefs are in error; I'm really referring to those beliefs, not to you personally. By itself that does not mean you are necessarily condemned, for several reasons. First, no man can judge another's salvation; that judgment is reserved for God. Second, I don't think a person's salvation necessarily hinges on intellectually affirming all the right things. That would leave no hope for the intellectually incompetent, and fail to take into account instance where a person affirms one set of beliefs but lives as though they believe something quite different. Salvation is ultimately about restored relationship and communion with God. I should also point out that I don't take my own salvation entirely for granted, in keeping with Paul's many exhortations to "stand firm to the end;" many Orthodox prayers intended for both corporate and private use carry an implicit assumption that our salvation is never so secure that we lose the freedom to reject God, and so that remains a possibility. There are stories of revered saints still begging God's forgiveness and asking for more time to repent, even on their deathbed surrounded by disciples who could not imagine what their spiritual father could have left to confess or repent of. So basically, I try very hard not to make assumptions about my own salvation or anyone else's. My priest tells us that those who truly want God will find Him, while those who truly do not want to be with God will also get what they wish for. Wesley
Having said that, I do think that creeds and doctrine matter, inasmuch as they help or hinder us from knowing God. We cannot know anything about God unless He reveals it; therefore, we hold fast to what He has revealed, and try to avoid saying too much or speculating in areas that God has not revealed. I think that right doctrine truly leads us most assuredly to union with God, the author of life, while falsehood leads to separation from God, separation from life. You see this in the writings of Paul and the epistles of John in the New Testament, and in the writings of Ignatius and other early church fathers when they talked about false teachings and false teachers. They used metaphors like "poison" for false teachings because they lead to spiritual sickness. This is why I don't think that pluralism is very kind at all. If we did away with medical degrees and pharmacy degrees and let anyone prescribe any treatment or drug they wanted, our medical system would be a lot less snobbish and exclusive. There would be many more people offering medical care, in all styles, all levels of expense, etc. But a lot of it would be wrong, many people would die, and many more people would not die but remain in worse health than they could be if they received competent care. The Orthodox Church has long been describe as a hospital, in which the doctors (clergy) themselves are also sick and in need of healing. Wesley
So ultimately, I think that to the extent you embrace Mormonism you are experiencing some darkness. I also am confident that I'm embracing some heresies that I'm not even aware of yet; and I know that at times my actions show that have yet to fully believe what I profess. I think we both have a better chance of seeking and finding God in the company of the Orthodox Church (which has somehow preserved God's revelation through the years by God's grace, and not by any virtue of its members) than anywhere else, although I won't presume to know what God's final judgment will be for either of us. The parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25) indicates to me that judgment day will be a day of surprises for many, in both directions. May God show us His mercy and lovingkindness, and not remember our many sins! Amen. Wesley 7 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)
Wow! This is beautiful. I find it both surprising and heartening, and I think we see eye to eye. Thank you Wesley. I will be on extended Wikiholiday. Best wishes. Tom Haws 14:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Your second paragraph was about words and meanings. I think your concern is essentially valid. You allowed for the possibility of innocence, and you requested that we allow the inclusion of explanations that the terminology is being use in a non-standard way. I think it is only fair, given the dwarfing dominance of Catholicism, that word meanings be referenced to Catholic usage. You may count me as an ally in your concerns and desires here. Do you feel any qualms about that declaration? Tom Haws
Your third paragraph was about Christianity and religious classification. I think it is obvious that both JWs and Mormons are Jesus-based (and debatably Jesus-centered) religions, and for that sole reason refuse to quit claim to the label "Christian". Were it not for the person of Jesus Christ, God the Son, I feel certain both JWs and Mormons would be all too glad to sever all symbolic ties with the rest of Christianity. To my knowledge they both call themselves different religions, and they self-classify as neither Catholic nor Protestant. Do you object to their refusing to quit claim on the name of the Redeemer? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't detect that either JWs or Mormons try hard to identify themselves with Christianity. Rather, in the case of Mormons, I detect that they try very hard to remind the public that they identify with The Hope of Mankind. Is there something I am not seeing? Tom Haws July 6, 2005 19:33 (UTC)

Visit Talk:Nontrinitarianism, please. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)



I notice that at Talk:John 21 you state that Wikipedia should not be a bible commentary. In this case, you would probably have an opinion concerning Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)

You may find this interesting and may want to chime in (if you wish). KHM03 2 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

Statement for your tweakage


Good friend, you need to archive this monster of a page! How about this for a statement on the Jehovah's Witnesses page (if it's not an exercise in futility to think about this):

"Trinitarians often compare the Jehovah's Witnesses' unbelief in the Trinity to that of the ancient Arians - not because their beliefs are equivalent, but to point out that the ancient councils of the catholic bishops, the creeds produced by them to counteract the Arians, and the prayers in churches following that tradition which rejected Arianism, all contradict the Jehovah's Witnesses on some of the same points of faith."

What do you think? Mkmcconn (Talk)

Please see Talk:Christianity#Pointless.2C_POV_paragraph_under_.22Early_Church.22 for the latest goings on. Thanks. KHM03 5 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)


Please see the intro to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I added content that I think has been sorely missing. A discussion may ensue. p.s. Sorry I didn't respond to the section above.  :-) Tom Haws July 5, 2005 18:15 (UTC)

Good News!


There is now a stub template for Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related articles in need of expansion. Please add {{orthodoxy-stub}} to articles. You can also go to the Category page for Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related stubs and click the "watch this page" link in the sidebar, so that you can see new stub articles as they appear. Spread the word! JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)




you recently voted to delete at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to consider Uncle G's proposal and make a vote at the new VfD - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)



You might like to watch over the edits of SimonP - [5]

~~~~ 16:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Teachings of Mormonism


Wesley, today I saw an edit you made on the secret teachings of Mormonism; I think the words were, to the effect, "those who were previously Mormon, learned these secret, publically unknown teachings in Mormon temples". Given that anyone who searches Google for Mormon Temples will find a plethora of references for all the ceremonies that are in Mormon temples. I find it an impossibility that there could be anything SECRET about Mormon temple ceremonies and thus impossible to have any "secret" teachings. Generally, I consider these types of quotes the product of rank anti-mormonism (they simply have no basis in fact, but they can sure stir up the anti-cultists. I would request that you delete it. I trust you to a high degree of objectivity, but I don't have the same confidence in other editors that frequent Mormon sites. If I changed it, I suspect it would be reverted. If you feel differently about what you wrote I would like to gain a better understanding of your thinging. Thanks. Storm Rider 04:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote was that some former Mormons claimed to have learned "secret teachings" in Mormon temples that are not publicized. I don't know whether these claims are true, as I have no way of verifying them, but the claims are made. I tried to write it as just that, that these claims are out there, without any kind of insisting that they are true. I have heard a couple such claims first hand from former mormons, and have heard second hand "hearsay" claims as well from people who say they heard them from former Mormons. So I stand by what I wrote, but I'm open to phrasing it differently. If the article is about the phenomenon of anti-mormonism, I think those claims are worth including. I believe that according to that same article, Mormons acknowledge that some things in the temple are private and sacred and therefore not talked about publicly; is that not true? Wesley 15:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Private and sacred, yes, but not hidden, unreferenceable, or undocumented to those who want to research what happens on the inside. I think the edit is justifiable, appropriate for the article and should remain (in some form), I can understand Storm Rider's point that with the high amount on the temple and the church teachingss that are out there on the Internet, we still come across strange claims that are so unfamiliar Latter-day Saints it is laughable - and how the phrase is written leads the reader to believe that it is likely true, when it is not even documentable - it is only hearsay. It is a belief of many uninformed that secret teachings happen, but it should reflect that information is available for those who really want to find it out. I'm not sure I have an opinion on if the phrase should remain or be removed, but definitely could be improved. I'll let ya'll sort it out, but that is my 2 cents. -Visorstuff 20:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wesley, I went back to the article and have been studying and I keep coming up without an acceptable fix without deleting your statment. The paragraph centers on the allegation that Anti-Mormons will allege that the hierachy of the LDS church believes something different than the general membership. Your statement states that members who go to the temple learn secret teachings. I think your statement addresses the "secretness/sacredness" of temple ceremonies when the paragarph is about secret teachings of the leadership. Your statement does not really belong in the paragraph.

Going back to your previous response, LDS members who go to the temple covenant to maintain the sacredness of their covenants by not revealing them to anyone outside of the temple...member and non-member alike. You are correct that the vast majority of LDS members simply do not discuss the temple except in the broadest of descriptions. However, there really are no secret Mormon temple teachings given the advent of the internet and the willingness of those who have covenanted with God to keep "it" sacred openly discuss it. I have found everything that is taught in Mormon temples on the internet. That is another reason why it is difficult for those who have gone to the temple and now find themselves outside of the church, or those who seek its demise, to state there is some "unknown" teachings going go. Anyone who wants to know what goes on, can.

Please go back and read the paragraph in question and see if my proposal that your comments don't fit makes sense. Thanks. Storm Rider 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Based on what you said, I decided to google for "mormon temple teachings" and quickly found 20 Temple Questions from True-Believing Mormon. After the questions, the unnamed author has this comment: "Members are taught that the temple is too sacred to discuss outside of the temple. But I suspect the real reason we Mormons don't ever discuss the temple endowment is because it's too non-sensical to explain. How convenient that the General Authorities never have to answer for what the temple teachings are all about." If the first part of that quote is true, that these things are not supposed to be discussed outside the temple, then they are at least "officially" secret, even if that's not so in practice. But you are correct in that there does appear to be a lot of information about these practices on the internet. What would you say to including more details of Temple teachings and practices in the LDS related articles? Wesley 16:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exellent question. two parts to my response - When I went through the temple, I did not make a covenent not to discuss the temple, but rather not to divulge the "signs and tokens" taught there (see Brigham Young's statement at Endowment (Mormonism). I would agree that most Mormons do not discuss the temple in detail, because the process of going to the temple is very personal - regardless of what is presented, it is the individual communion with God that is sacred and not discussed. You've had spiritual experiences in your life, Wesley, and you probably don't discuss them with everyone. Same thing.
Second, as for what is "presented" most of that is already discussed in Wikipedia at various places including Endowment (Mormonism), Temple garment (Mormonism), Washing_and_anointing, Sealing (Mormonism), and Prayer_circle (in generalities as each Mormonism sect that practices temple rites (FLDS, T&LCOJCOLDS, etc) have their own way of presenting the ordinances. In this way, however, the full text is not included, as that would not be the point of wikipedia - however, there are links to the text of the LDS version of the endowment, and all the ordinances in the external link section. It is quite anti-clamatic to most who read it. Nothing that you can't read about in the bible or other gnostic texts.
That said, I think culturally Mormons are taught "that the temple is too sacred to discuss outside of the temple," but that is cultural. I do not discuss it, as to fully understand, you have to experience - in the same way you cannot explain a spiritual experience to someone, such as feeling benefit of the atonement - to understand, one must experience. My experience in the temple is different every time I go, even if the presentations are the same - because of the communion with God is at a different level or differnt angle each time I go. But the presentations given and the ordinances are pretty much found in the scriptures and other ancient texts. Nothing too mind-blowing as I'm sure you know already. -Visorstuff 16:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you're saying here. There are certainly spiritual experiences I've had that I don't share with everyone, but that's mostly because I try not to bore people to tears. Our priest often says, and I agree with him, that if you want to learn about Orthodox Christianity, the best way is to come and pray with us, take part in the services and so on. There are lots of books and web sites about it, but they can only take you so far. Our vestments and incense and candles and icons are probably at least as "weird looking" as what goes on in a Mormon temple. In that I think we may be quite similar. The difference is that you're welcome to come visit any Orthodox parish any time to see and hear what is said and done, but I can't do the same at a Mormon temple without converting to Mormonism. That I think is what at least gives the impression of an exceptional amount of secrecy in Mormonism.
On top of that, I have heard second hand accounts that certain questions about doctrine could only be asked and answered in a certain room in the Mormon temple. I presume that the question must have been something beyond what's in the endowment ceremony, or else a question asking for more details about the meaning of that or one of the other ceremonies you mentioned. I suppose I ought to see if any ex-mormons have actually published anything about running into this sort of information barrier before including that in the article. But I can see already that if such a published documentable allegation exists, the source will be discredited because the person revealing it would be breaking a promise not to reveal it. At least that's the feeling I get from the 'former members' section of the Opposition to Mormonism article.
Thanks for your openness and willingness to discuss this. I trust that neither of us is in danger of having our throats slit as a result, thanks to the 1990 revisions in some of the temple ceremonies. ;-)

Wesley 21:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent comments - I can understand what you are saying about not being allowed into the Mormon temples - how I think about it, is similar to how Anabaptists treat baptism and most Christians treat communion With anabaptists, children are not baptized until they understand and believe, with most Christians (including the Orthodox church I attended) communion is only given to the penitent confirmed believers. In the same way, the Temple is seen as a conduit for revelation. Only those are properly prepared can recieve that communion with God that is experienced there. In my opinion most who go to the temple get too caught up in the forms of the ordinaces rather than the communion and revelation that can come as you are close to God, as it is. But people tend to be closer to God when they adhere by certain teachings - such as not being immoral or drunk. Even those who attend could be more prepared, but leaders decided to draw the line at ten questions that determine "worthiness" which include a relationship with and belief in God, Faith in Christ, a belief in the restoration of the Gospel and continuing revelation, living a moral life, not smoking, drinking or the like, keeping legal obligations paying child support or alimony, keeping covenants with God, paying tithing and attending church meetings, living within the laws of your locale, and being honest. Nothing that other churches don't teach, but righteous living is seen as a prerequisite to have a certain level of communion with God.

I've never heard about "certain questions about doctrine could only be asked and answered in a certain room in the Mormon temple." But then I've only been a temple-attending mormon for nearly 15 years. :^) No, that is not true to my knowledge. I'd love to see evidence to the contrary if you can find it, but doubt it exists. I know that you are encouraged to talk to the temple president in his office or in the Celestial room if you have questions about the symbolism of the presentation of the ordinances, rather than in the hallways or outside the temple (again more of a cultural one-on-one learning thing). I'd be interested if you do find anything on it. The issue with some former Mormons sensational claims is that they aren't substantiated anywhere (examples I heard on my mission were that sex was had on temple alters, incidentlally which are only about a foot wide, or that the devil was worshipped there). Even the most obscure and strange mormon teachings are well documented in historical record and is pretty widely available. One of the "strange" things about Mormonism is that Joseph Smith received a revelation that records were to be kept of doctrine, teachings, minutes and so forth, so it is. And one can go to the church archives and request council of the twelve minutes or diaries outlining how the temple ordinances were recorded, or journals of those who detail their most sacred experiences. The church has a very open book historically. More recenly, many of the more recent records are not shown when requested (and some older ones), specifically if they are about someone who is still living (think U.S. privacy laws). In fact, the last time I went to the Church historical office, I saw that Jerald and Sandra Tanner, well-known anti-Mormons (who have been heralded for preserving in public some of the most obscure LDS historical records), had signed into the library to do research as well (and ran into her while there). Most of the older records that they would not allow you to have is because they are fragile, or in a few cases contain information (such as temple rites) that they would rather not have widely available (however you can access them at BYU special collections without a problem) - but that is a more recent policy, and the Tanners published most of those documents before the rule was enforced. All I'm saying is that I've not seen evidence of "secret teachings" or "document supression" by the church, but on the contrary, a very open book for those inquiring minds who want to know, and even for known enemies of the church who want historical data to back up their claims. I'd be interested if you do find anything that can be substantiated. -Visorstuff 23:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had actually thought about the analogy between being allowed into a Mormon temple and being allowed to receive the Eucharist in an Orthodox church, and it is a decent comparison up to a point. Like the Mormons, Orthodox believe in being properly prepared before receiving the Eucharist; this generally includes having made recent confession (the "sacrament of repentance"), having attended Great Vespers the night before, and a strict fast (no food or water) from midnight that Sunday morning up until the time the person receives the Eucharist; exact guidelines vary, but it's not unusual for a number of members in generally good standing to not receive the Eucharist if it's been a while since their last confession, or one reason or another. (Presumably that would cover the "righteous living" sort of stuff.) And of course before becoming a member, there's the whole going through catechism, asking to become a member and being received process. The main distinction in terms of this discussion is that even though you're not a member, you would be allowed to observe a Divine Liturgy and stand within a few feet of the folks who are receiving the Eucharist. The sanctuary (area around the altar) behind the iconostasis would be off limits to you and to most of the congregation, but in many parishes (including mine) the iconostasis is not completely solid and one can see what goes on behind it without that much difficulty. Anyone can come and pray with us or just observe what goes on, regardless of their spiritual readiness or preparation. It's like if you think of the different areas of the Jewish temple and who was allowed where, in Orthodoxy everyone gets to go about one step further in than they could before, because the Jerusalem Temple veil was torn in two according to Matthew.
That aside, I'll see if I can track down the source of that "this is only answered in this one room" story. What you say about the current "open book" policy sounds plausible enough that I think I'm willing to take it at face value; especially with your frank acknowledgment that it wasn't always this way. It's the same consideration I would want if we were discussing dubious or odd Orthodox practices. I've long thought that what the Mormons teach publicly is wacky enough that there's not that much need to worry about what they might or might not teach privately. ;-) Oh and about what you said about people getting too caught up in the outward form of the rituals, we have that problem in spades in Orthodoxy, with the added "benefit" of having developed and refined the precise rubrics for centuries, with some variances between the Greek, Russian, Syrian etc. traditions, but none all that significant, and people can still "follow along" if they visit a parish from another tradition. It's all good as long as it helps you pray instead of distracting from prayer. Lord have mercy! Wesley 03:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting insights - this gives me much to think about. I'm now fascinated to go back and re-read many claims of secrecy and track down the primary documents and provide answers to the claims for myself. Plus, I think that if the various religions' teachings didn't look strange to others, then we'd all be the same religion. That said, don't misunderstand that Mormons generally discuss what happens in the temple, but rather it is kept - as you state with similar examples above - sacred and special. Not because of the form (which may or may not change by time or sect), but because of the result (the revelation and communion). Look forward to uf you can track down the source. Would love to understand and read it. Thanks for provoking these thoughts. Questions like these should be raised more frequently among myopic groups, like both of our religions (no offense intended, but we both seem very in-wardly focused as being "right"). -Visorstuff 20:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't been able to participate in this conversation as much as I would have. The Mormon temples are not typical places of worship; we do that at our ward buildings. The temple is a place where individuals make covenants with God. We also commune with our Father in Heaven there, but that is a secondary to covenant making. Further, because we believe so firmly that there are required ordinances that mortals must obtain (i.e. baptism), we feel obligated to perform those ordinances on behalf of our ancestors. In this manner, all might be saved.

It is true that from any outsider's perspective, both of our religions would look whacky, wierd, strange, or even bizarre. However, given my numerous conversations with Catholic priests I have found great similarities. Our expressions of faith may differ slightly, but we have far more in common than what separates.

I suspect the language you use about about learning in one room of the temple is a misquote from language used in the temple. Wesley, do some reserach in the bible on new names. In the OT, new names were given to kings. Revelations would also be a good place to look as to who would receive a new name. Honestly, I don't know why we are asked to keep our temple experience sacred. Yes, spiritual experiences are to be valued as pearls and not shared inappropriately. What I do know is that it is enough for me to be asked not to, I will strive to be obiedient and honor that covenant. I appreciate your willingness to ask and hope you will continue to seek an understanding of temples; both from today and from yesterday. In doing so, you will gain an even greater understanding of some orthodox teachings. Storm Rider 18:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I respect your sincerity and your honest good intentions. And yes, the more I learn the more similarities I see between some Mormon and Orthodox practices. I still think that the theological differences between the two religions are vast, however. We don't agree on how many gods there are, whether God the Father has a physical body, and what the nature of theosis is, among other things. There's a lot we don't know about God, but we greatly disagree about what *has* been revealed.
I'm not sure why you bring up the subject of new names. As it happens, I did receive a new name when I was chrismated (sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit); that name is Theophan. Some people use their "chrismation" / "church" / "Christian" names more than others; I tend to use mine within church functions just so that I'm not excessively associated with John Wesley, but it's not a huge secret that will grant you any magical power over me if I share it online. Regarding temples, I am trying to learn more about them, yesterday and today; our small parish is getting ready to build its first permanent building, so we're just beginning to study all those sorts of questions, theological and practical. In return, I'd suggest that you study the history of the Jewish temple, Jewish synagogues, and early church practices and buildings. I think you'll find a great deal of historical continuity from those sources up to the present day.
Joseph Smith was at least partly right in identifying some of the problems in the Protestant churches of his day, as were the Protestant reformers in identifying some problems in the Roman Catholic Church of 16th century Europe. In both cases, I still think a better solution is a return to the Orthodox Church, rather than inventing something brand new. The Reformers tried contacting the Orthodox, but discussions between them quickly deteriorated and bore little fruit. I doubt whether Joseph Smith was even aware of Orthodoxy when he began talking about his visions. What if his dating of the Great Apostasy was a few centuries too early? Wesley 22:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the new name in anticipation of future questions. It is my experience when those outside the church (and some within the chruch prior to attending the temple the first time) learn of being issued a "new name", it is perceived as one of those "whacky" Mormon things. Scripture is a wonderful teacher. Mormons teach few if any novel ideas or concepts; they are all found in scripture. The new name offers no magical power to those who know it; although LDS do not share their new name except between man and wife. Even then, I know of no magic except the love between spouses. The new name is between God and the individual.
I have studied the ancient Hebrew temples to a significant degree and hope to continue to learn about all temple cermonies. At the end of the day, I believe there is one God that has authored all that is truth upon the earth regardless of religion. I am as comfortable learning truth in the Koran, the Four Books and Five Classics, or the writings of the early Catholic Church Fathers as I am reading the Bible or Book of Mormon. I respect every religion because I believe there is truth in every religion.
I think we should be careful describing other religions as whacky as a result of our own inexperience. I cannot imagine what a non-Chritian thinks the first time he hears of some Christians drinking the blood and eating the flesh of their God. It must initially be an overwhelming shocking concept and yet to those partake of communion it is as natural as breathing. It is all a matter of perspective. Continued blessings in the building of a new place of worship. Storm Rider 07:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I want to address our similarities. Those things you see as vast differences, but focused on: the physical body of God, the number of gods, and the nature of Theosis. The first two are secondary and neither is pertinent to salvation. I often think of a Bull's eye we use when teaching archery. Hitting the target is great, but the center is true objective. It is most important. These truths are not of absolute importance to one's personal salvation. I do think it is important to remember that Mormons worship one God, the Father through the mediation of the Son, Jesus Christ.
Agreed, Theosis is viewed somewhat differently. However, I find great joy in St. Athanasius' teachings. I firmly believe in Christ's promise that all that He has may be ours, that we are children of God and He will teach us to be like Him. The Fall was required that we might be; without it we would not have had the opportunity to come to earth and live as mortals. The LDS people have far more in common with Catholicism than you might think.
What I believe is imperative is that one comes to know the Savior and what He personally taught while on the earth; that His blood was shed that we might live again, His blood cleanses us from sin through repentance and baptism, and that His example is eternal and that we all strive to be like Him. Storm Rider 07:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some differences are relatively trivial, while other differences are vast. And there is an important distinction between cultural differences and real doctrinal differences. The practice with the new name you mentioned, I don't have any trouble with the way you described it. I don't mind finding truth in other religions, and yes every religion has some. However, I also believe that the fullness of truth about God was revealed in Jesus Christ, entrusted by Him to his apostles, and has been faithfully preserved by the Church, the Body of Christ, from then until this day. The differences are great enough, and clear enough, that I fail to see how Mormons and Orthodox Christians could possibly be worshipping the same God. If somehow we both enjoy eternal communion and union with God, we'll both learn a lot that we could never have known before, but one of us is going to have more to unlearn than the other.
As explained to me, the Mormon worldview has matter and all people being essentially eternal and uncreated, although people and gods are somehow created or put together out of this pre-existing matter. The Christian worldview has God and God alone as eternal and uncreated; He is the absolute creator and cause of everything else that exists, all other angels, demons and any other kind of spirit, all people, all planets, stars, rocks, animals, you name it. If other universes exist, the one God made them too; He is an absolute and ultimate Creator, not a Creature possibly made by some other god as the Mormons allow. This one God exists eternally in three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Only the Son has ever and will ever have flesh, and that only in his humanity. The Mormon view has a man becoming God ("as man is God once was..."), whereas Christianity has God becoming a man (while remaining God of course), as spelled out in Philippians 2. Paul warned the Galatians (I think) not to believe any other gospel, even if it were preached to them by Paul himself or an angel in Heaven.
I'm reminded of a call I heard years ago on Dr. Laura Schlessinger's radio talk show. She's a family therapist who happens to be an Orthodox Jew. The caller was I think Catholic, her husband was a Jew, or else vice versa, and they were wondering whether they could raise their son to be both Catholic and Jewish. Dr. Laura laughed and said of course not; either Jesus is God or he isn't, but you can't have it both ways. It's fine to pay lip service to Athanasius, the Muslims, and whoever else you want to pay lip service to, but the truth is that Mormonism calls Athanasius an apostate (at least implicitly) and denies the truths he affirmed when he wrote On the Incarnation and spent his life defending. If you need to be a Mormon to worship God, that's fine, but don't pretend you can also be part of all these other religions, or that all religions are equally true or that their differences don't matter. In the end, the only way to make the differences truly not matter is for all the religions to be equally wrong, and that in my view would leave us with no god at all. Wesley 04:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do enjoy this quality of conversation; thank you. However, let me be clear; I respect, admire, and seek truth where ever it is found and regardless of the religion in which I find it. I am a Latter-day Saint because I have been a student of religion for the vast majority of my life. The differences between the fullness of the gospel in Mormonism and other religions, for me, is like eating meat versus drinking milk. They both feed and sustain, but one is simply more complete.

The mysteries the Mormonism attempts to address are just that. As you stated, the God/Man progression thing so often quoted, is just that a mystery. For me, I believe there is one Eternal God, our Father in Heaven. I personally don't believe he had a beginning and will not have an end. The principle being taught is that we are the creation of God and we have a purpose. We are meant to follow Christ, strive to become like Him, His spirit in our heart daily and manifest that Spirit in our choicese and actions. We are not meant to pass through this life, gain a set of wings, and then sing praises to God for eternity. That picture is belittling to God (It still boggles my mind when talking with some that they feel God created us for that purpose! Surely, He is not so insecure). He is God whether we worship him or not. There is more to eternity than I find taught in the majority of religions.

It is true that Mormons take God at His word; all mortals are His children and He wants us to return to Him. I would never say that the God that hears both our prayers is different. I only know of one God; there is no other. Wesley, I dare say that each of us, John Paul II and any prophet that has ever lived, learned a great deal more when they came before the Savior. If our knowledge has no affect on our actions it is of little value. Who has to learn more is of little concern to me; that does not mean that we all should not be students of truth and seek it out. For me, I will continue to do as much work for the dead as possible to ensure that all are able to enter His kingdom. I am not content to rest while others perish as a result of my inaction. Thank you again, I really do enjoy reading your comments. You have a wonderful faith in Christ. Storm Rider 04:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we clearly agree that the notion of just getting through life to gain our wings and maybe heart and then sit around singing to God for eternity sounds a bit lacking; if we say that God needs it, then it would be belittling to God. Of course He is God with or without us. Part of the teaching of the Trinity is that God did not need to create humans in order for there to be someone for God to love or to have fellowship with; He already enjoyed perfect love and fellowship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God loves us, but God does not need anything from us or anyone or anything else.
I agree that who has more to learn or unlearn when we meet the Saviour is of little concern. Of course we should all seek out the truth, and of course we should act on the truth we have. I respect and admire the action you are taking based on what you have learned and received; in fact I admit to sensing a bit of kinship, as a fellow pilgrim. In that spirit, I would implore you to seek out an Eastern Orthodox parish and acquaint yourself more closely with the Church of Athanasius and Anthony and Basil and all the other saints through the centuries. (You knew I'm not Roman Catholic, right?) You spoke earlier of meat and milk; my own experience is that Orthodoxy has more meat, more depth of teaching and more depth of love than I will ever be able to fathom in my lifetime. Its connection with the Church Christ founded is real, both historically "on paper" and experientially, spiritually. If indeed we are seeking and worshiping the same God, then I invite you to also join the same Church and drink from the same Cup. You spoke of your concern for the dead; we also pray for the dead at various times and in various ways, without specifying what the exact benefit or mechanism for helping the dead may be. No Purgatory, no guarantees, but also no hopelessness either. We as a church have been praying for the dead far longer, and have more fully developed prayers and theology for the practice; you may be surprised how much you feel at home. Come on home. :-) Wesley 05:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And a missionary to boot! I think I will have to provide you with a white shirt and name tag; Elder Wesley. The mystical side of Eastern Orthodoxy is both admired and, in fact, treasured. I have always appreciated both EO and C devotion to those who have already passed through this life. The LDS is view is that Baptism is a requirement; baptism for the dead is the avenue provided to offer that ordinance to those who have passed. It does not insure their salvation, only ensure that should they accept Christ in spirit prison as described in 1 Peter 3:19, the ordinance is done. I still believe in the Apostasy; were it not real so, there would not be the number of Christian churches we have today. It is true that I see no leg for any of the Protestant chruches to stand; they are all the creation of man. They have no authority. That does not mean that I do not value their many contributions to faith and grace.

As I lived in France for a few years, I took great pleasure in worshiping with Catholic congregations on occaision. I have no doubt that I would also feel a similar Spirit in an EO congregation. The Holy Sacrament is something of great worth to me. I look forward to each Sunday to partake of the bread and water as a way of renewing my committment to Christ and His gospel. I suspect that I believe the vast majority of which you believe, I just believe in more. Let's us continue to seek truth and recognize it where ever we find it. Storm Rider 19:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Thank you for the compliment, though I am still far from being worthy to be called an Elder. (In Orthodoxy that would be equivalent to a presbyter or priest, while I'm just a reader. ;-) You mention the Holy Sacrament, which I presume correlates to the Eucharist. You might not be aware that as an Orthodox Priest prepares for the Divine Liturgy, he commemorates and prays for a list of people, both living and dead, each time. Portions of the list are fixed of course, but the priest is free to add more names and typically does. For each person, he cuts a small piece or particle from the bread representing that person, and later in the service all these pieces are placed into the Cup, together with the other portions of bread. While this isn't identical to "baptism for the dead," it's probably the closest analog to it in Orthodoxy. (I have no idea whether Roman Catholicism does anything similar.) This link describes the practice in more detail and how it may benefit those for whom it is done, as well as other particular prayers that are made for the dead.
I also recall reading that during the first centuries of the church during great persecutions, there were times when someone would confess their faith in Christ and be martyred very soon afterward, before there was time to be baptised. Sometimes this would be a soldier who witnessed or was the cause of other martyrdoms, and became a Christian on the spot seeing their faith. In these cases, I believe that many church fathers said that the martyrs had no need of a water baptism, having been baptized by their own blood. Something similar is said for infants who are stillborn or who die before they can be baptized. Baptism is good and necessary, but it is not a legalistic requirement by which God is bound; His grace is able to save even if such formalities are not strictly observed. This avoidance of legalism is one thing that I feel distinguishes Orthodoxy from most of "Western Christianity." Peace, 17:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bible


Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SimonP (the creator of the 100 or so gospel verse articles) has tried to claim that the votes for the "only notable verses" section would include most of the 30,000 verses of the bible because he sees them as notable. To avoid such a POV twisting of the votes, I have added a new section - [6] - for voting on whether the number of notable verses is more like 30,000, or more like 30. Would you care to vote there as well? ~~~~ 00:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry, but I don't have the time or energy to keep up with these votes, surveys, discussions, and on and on. It's important, but I'm going to sit this one out and focus what little wikitime I have elsewhere. However, I do appreciate your bringing this to my attention, and I am certainly interested in the eventual outcome. Wesley 03:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit of the Holy Spirit


Hey, I just stumbled on this, and tried to cleanup and NPOV it. I saw your comment in the discussion. While I believe it is a salvageable article, I agree that there is not much meat there, and I wouldn't mind a merge to Holy Spirit...feel free to VfD if the Spirit (hehe) so moves you. --MikeJ9919 05:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the issue, but that entire article has an anti-Albanian slant. Is it still even that relevant in historical terms? Perhaps it could me merged into a history of Kosovo or something related to the UN mandate. Tfine80 02:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the writers tried to portray accurately what happened there, but if you see a way to remove bias without sacrificing accuracy and factuality, then go for it. I don't think it would make sense to move it to something related to the UN mandate, since they were barely involved at all; the most remarkable thing is their inaction really. Merging it with history of kosovo would make more sense; at that point the main concern becomes overall length of the article. Wesley 16:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]



You may be interested in participating in this vote. KHM03 15:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this project should be a more general Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity? This project is considered inactive at the moment as far as the header shows, and there are projects for other religions, but not Christianity... so I believe that this project would be more effective as one for the whole of Christianity or at least moved into a subproject. I will give this message to all the present membership list of this WikiProject. -- EmperorBMA|話す 20:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Woodrow


This is up for deletion. I would like to have it kept as he is a significant critic of The Two Babylons. Would you care to vote on the VfD? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]



User:LucaviX vandalized my user page...I asked him to cease and desist but thought it best to also let some administrators know about it. Just FYI. Thanks. KHM03 09:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be busy, lately; but I wonder if you have some advice on how to resolve the dispute over the use of the "Myth" category and sub-categories to describe Biblical accounts. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the current discussion in Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises#A_new_suggestion would be much appreciated. Thanks. JHCC (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks for the heads up. I am out of the country and will in transit for another nine days. If I can find a better internet cafe from which to work I´ll look at what is going on, otherwise it may have to wait a bit but do let me know how I can be useful, SR

It seems as though at least a few of the edits are for no other purpose than to annoy. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Wesley! What can we do against this anty-Icon anonimous vandal on the icon page? I'm not very informed about Wikipedia policy possibilities (earlier everything was Much more pleasant, polite and nice). Maybe you know? And, what's also a problem, I don't feel I have anough time to argue with a fanatic and to de-vandalize the page again and again. And, finally, my English isn't so good to make a general revision of the page. I think such a revision may help: if we move some topics into sub-articles (the main article is really extremely long now). I think we should also create sub-entries for "Icon for Eastern Orthodox" and "Icon for protestants". It is better to have 2 positions separated then to have only one position =) Just for the case: my email is khakhalin @ gmail.com. If you want to talk, please, you're welcome! Arseni 08:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arseni. Regarding the vandalism, there are various possibilities such as polling editors of a page for what the consensus of wikipedians should be, protecting the page for a cooling off period during which no one edits it, requesting help from a mediator, etc. If the Anonymous One continues to refuse to collaborate, there are measures that can be taken to prevent that as well, although I truly hope that won't be necessary. If you want to conserve your time, I would suggest checking on the article again a few weeks from now to see whether it has settled down. I'm sure you have some valuable things to add to the article.
As far as the article's length, I think the first thing to do is to move most of the rest of the iconoclasm section to the iconoclasm article, and bring theh edit war to an end somehow. Then we can start to think about how to organize the article best. I don't think that splitting it into "POV sections" is a very good solution, but I could well be wrong about that. Thanks for your contributions! Wesley 16:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicts are so much harder to deal with, when an anonymous editor is involved. I'm sorry I haven't paid closer attention - I'll try to rectify that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I helped or not. It seems that I had a hand in giving Anon a reason to shake the dust off his sandals, which frankly, I'm not happy about. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I'm glad to be working with you on this article and of course the iconoclasm one. Ordinarily I'd be sorry to him (her?) go as well, but given his continuing rudeness and blunt insults, and apparent difficulty in collaborating even with you when you were sympathetic to his position... I have to admit I'm not too sorry to see him go. The ironic thing about the timing is that I think I can live with his last edit regarding icons and religious images in the New Testament. Perhaps he won't really leave just yet. Wesley 04:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Just wanted to let you know that your User page wasn't vandalized. I am trying to help clean up the Wikipedians/Kentucky subpage. It has been replaced by Category:Wikipedians in Kentucky. Thanks! Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 20:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Can you please check the edits (since 29 August) on Theotokos? I am unsure whether valid information was removed. Thanks. +MATIA 14:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was wondering about the definition, I guess it's ok. +MATIA 18:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]



User: has done some pretty brutal vandalism at Jesus; just one to watch I think. KHM03 11:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at Binitarianism, which makes some interesting comparisons between this heresy and Eastern Orthodoxy. KHM03 18:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay KHM03 12:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benzone, bute, phenylbutazone


That is a good job done

Ekklesia katholike


So you belong to the universal church :) (I'm tempted to say, "too" but that might bring much controversy). I should have known--though at first I was thinking you were Popish, as I am. In any case, with a name like Wesley, though...Haha--is it a nod to your denominational past? Sorry to be cryptic, I saw you on Talk:Christianity. I agree with "historic"... Pax et bonum, --Dpr 03:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, he might be one... I suggest that we don't add this category however. No current theologian or Christian leader will get in to that category (no matter what they do or say) because of their supporters and because of misinformed outsiders. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mostly right, but hypothetically speaking, if someone were formally charged and convicted of heresy within the rules or guidelines of their denomination, I think the category might well be supportable. Such is not the case with Spong, and apparently isn't likely to be, allowing him to continue as he is without serious reproach or discipline. Wesley 16:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You had some good things to say on the Jesus page. What do you think of my compromise for hte second paragraph? The other is intent on cluttering up the paragraph with every possible argument, but I think saying "arguably" fairly covers it without having to actually make the arguments. Your thoughts would be appreciated.Gator (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: your request for a serious scholar on the topic of does the NT call Jesus God? Raymond E. Brown In Theological Studies #26 (1965) p.545-73 he wrote the article entitled "Does the NT call Jesus God?" which can be summarized as follows: Mk10:18, Lk18:19, Mt19:17, Mk15:34, Mt27:46, Jn20:17, Eph1:17, 2Cor1:3, 1Pt1:3, Jn17:3, 1Cor8:6, Eph4:4-6, 1Cor12:4-6, 2Cor13:14, 1Tm2:5, Jn14:28, Mk13:32, Ph2:5-10, 1Cor15:24-28 are "texts that seem to imply that the title God was not used for Jesus" and are "negative evidence which is often somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject." Also: "Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like Mk 10:18 would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in any epistle written before 58." And "The slow development of the usage of the title God for Jesus requires explanation. Not only is there the factor that Jesus is not called God in the earlier strata of New Testament material, but also there are passages, cited in the first series of texts above, that by implication reserve the title God for the Father. Moreover, even in the New Testament works that speak of Jesus as God, there are also passages that seem to militate against such a usage - a study of these texts will show that this is true of the Pastorals and the Johannine literature. The most plausible explanation is that in the earliest stage of Christianity the Old Testament heritage dominated the use of the title God; hence, God was a title too narrow to be applied to Jesus. It referred strictly to the Father of Jesus, to the God whom he prayed. Gradually, (in the 50's and 60's?) in the development of Christian thought God was understood to be a broader term. It was seen that God had revealed so much of Himself in Jesus that God had to be able to include both Father and Son." 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding with the citation. A careful reading of it, however, I believe substantiates my own point. Quoting your quote, Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in any epistle written before 58. My argument all along is that the gospels, and New Testament in their present form as we have them today do include the claim that Jesus is God. Brown does not truly dispute this, but rather he argues essentially that some verses claim Jesus is God, other verses claim that he is not, and he suggests that the verses that claim Jesus is God were added later than the earlier verses. Wesley 12:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Wesley, I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stup of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. When you have time, would you go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation you think necessary? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you know other editors who are very knowledgable about Christianity, could you ask them to look at the section on love? I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 1 Corinthians 13 passage is well chosen and representative. Rather than add something off the cuff, let me take a couple days and find something worth citing. What's there now isn't bad at all though. Thanks for asking. Wesley 17:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wesley. I am glad I made an appropriate choice. However, I have added even more content on the Jewish notion of love and I think that more on the Christian notion is necessary to provide balance. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, take your time but I am glad you are considering adding more. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox noticeboard?


Is there anything like that? Or only the wiki portal (I don't remember the portal's wiki-link right now, but I've seen it somewhere). I'm looking for someone to help me at Talk:Theotokos#IN_NEED_OF_TRANSLATION. Thanks. +MATIA 19:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's Portal:Eastern_Christianity, but I don't know of an Orthodox notice board. If there is one, I never look at it. I'll take a look at Theotokos though. Wesley 12:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article that was started (not by me!) in relation to Criticism of Christianity. When you have an opportunity, please take a look at it and give your take on the article talk page or make edits. I had redirected it to the "Criticism" page, but the original author didn't seem to care for that option. Any help would be great...thanks...KHM03 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I became aware of this user after he left a somewhat aggressive message on Doc glasgow's talk page; I immediately noticed that the user may be engaged in other overly aggressive behavior, anti-Semitism, and vandalism. I'm not asking for any action, but I might suggest this user be watched a bit. Thanks...KHM03 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



You're most welcome. Enjoy!  :) —Preost talk contribs 01:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas


I pray you have a very merry Christmas and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at the fracas that's surrounded this article of late? It's finally been addressed in the talk page there, but there seems to be an unwillingness to do anything but continually re-add a massive pile of content (after it being reverted by multiple editors) without discussing it first. —Preost talk contribs 03:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks for directing me to those; trying to fix Ancient Egyptian artiles is one of my main goals here. Most of the articles need a lot of work, a lot of the data is hopelessly obsolete, and in many cases erroneous like the Herrud thing. In the Osiris and Isis articles however, while the links to Jesus and Mary are a bit overemphasized, the articles are generally accurate. There are some very visible parallels between certain aspects of Egyptian and Christian deities. There just needs to be some NPOV there trying to present a bigger picture, which I'll try to add when I get a chance. Flyboy Will 05:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



I'm wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Str1977 11:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a lengthy suggestion at Talk:Mythology#Etymology and usage — some analysis and a suggestion. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. JHCC (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Additions


Dear Wesley, I hope you had a good start into 2006. If you are free, could you have a look into the recent addition to Christianity by "". Thanks, Str1977 14:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

A.J.A. 22:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is a-brewin' thereabouts and with many other articles edited by Nrgdocadams, who seems to have some deeply inaccurate ideas that he insists on visiting upon various theological articles, accompanied by quite a lot of use of ALL CAPS and such on Talk pages. Any chance you'd be willing to take a look? —Preost talk contribs 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannonizatin vs. Glorification


Wesley, I was reading the "Saint" article and became a bit confused. In the Orthodox section it spoke of Glorification, but then used the term cannonization. Is that term interchangable among the EO? I would appreciate your thoughts, thanks and may our Father continue to bless you, Michael/Storm Rider 04:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to me


You wrote a message to me lecturing me on ettiquette, but you failed to notice that i had, in fact, provided copious, verifiable references (which were not original research of mine) for the author whose erroneous work I was criticizing.

Nrgdocadams 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams.[reply]

Please take a look at the discussion going on here when you have a chance. I'm trying to work with a new editor who doesn't seem like he wants to work with me, regarding a particular link. Any help is welcome...feel free to let me know if I've acted inappropriately. Thanks...KHM03 01:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my RfA


Hi, Wesley.

We have worked together on Icon article, maybe you can look into my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev? abakharev 12:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this when you can; it could use a touch of the East. Thanks...KHM03 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 14 Christianity's origins I am sorry, KHM03, that I have to contact you again but there's something brewing on Christianity, as exemplified in this edit: [1]. Currently, I reverted it again, but he will certainly return to reintroduce "fact". So please keep an eye on it. Cheers, Str1977 10:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity's origins


I am sorry, Wesley, that I have to contact you again but there's something brewing on Christianity, as exemplified in this edit: [7]. Currently, I reverted it again, but he will certainly return to reintroduce "fact". So please keep an eye on it. Cheers, Str1977 10:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I have real concerns that User: and User: are the same person as User: There's not enough evidence for a charge, but I thought I'd voice my concern to you...just keep your eyes wide. KHM03 11:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. WikiThanks.
Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 10:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Since yours was the most recent comment on the Donatism article I thought it might be of interest to you, an article in Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 56(1): 56-74, entitled Six Constantinian Documents (EUS. H.E. 10, 5-7), that relate to the disposition of the Empire to the fledgling Church as well as to "the Donatist question." Thank you. L Hamm 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Thought you'd be interested in this. KHM03 02:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Based on ROHA's past behavior, it is my belief that he intentionally refuses to create an account so that he cannot be blocked effectively for 3RR violations. (See the history of both Adolf Hitler and Talk:Adolf Hitler, as well as other issues that he's caused elsewhere -- most notably, at Bob Dylan.) --Nlu (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to look at it. And it's very nice to have you drop by. Long time no see. Tom Haws 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filioque question


Dear Wesley, thanks for asking. And you don't sound confrontational at all.

In the union negottiations between the Pope and the Eastern Church many issues were discussed: sabbath fasting, the make-up of the bread for the Eucharist etc. Most of these were matters of the rite and could be dealt differently in different parts of the world. This principle is the basis for the modern Eastern rite Churches. However, the issue of papal primacy could not be subject to such diversity, as cannot have and have not the a supreme jurisdiction invested with the Pope. The remaining issue is the Filioque.

As I have said, this had been gradually adopted in the West, based on different renderings of the Nicaean creed. The Pope had accepted it after the year 1000, but Photius of Constantinople had used it as a weapon in his fight against the Pope. Photius wanted to counter the notion, developed in the East, that the Roman Church had never erred and will never err - the basis of Papal infallibility; Photius wanted to provide one instance where indeed a Pope had erred and resorted to the Filioque, blowing it out of proportion and claiming that the Fq was heretical. (And he was quite succesful in this endeavour, to the detriment of unity).

Of course, in the union talks in the 13th and the 15th centuries the Pope could not possibly accept this view and hence he always insisted on the doctrinal correctness of the Fq. That didn't maan any judgment on whether it had been right and proper to include it, and it didn't mean that the creed without the Fq was deemed heretical (and hence the Eastern rites speak the creed without the Fq). What the Pope demanded of the Easterners was to accept the Fq as a non-heretical variation on the Nicaean creed. Photius had provided "who proceeds from the Father through the Son" as the opposing view to the Fq (without ammending the creed, of course). Now, the Easterners were asked to accept the equivalence of "through the Son" and "and the Son". The bishops at Lyons and at Florence did this, albeit out of political motivations, but the anti-Latin enmity created by Photius and of course increased by the sack of Constantinople 1204 had sunken so deep into Eastern sensibilities that the East wouldn't accept this agreement. Emperor and Patriarch were slain during the fall of Constantinople 1453 and the Turkish sultan appointed one of the agreement's opponents as the new Patriarch, sponsoring the anti-Western enmity among the Orthodox Christians.

So, to sum up, it's not that the Popes have insisted that the creed with the Fq is orthodox and the creed without is not. They have (and do) insist only on that the creed with the Fq is just as orthodox as the creed without it.

Papal jurisdiction is another factor of the division (and IMHO the real dividing factor), but it is another matter. The Fq, as a dogmatic-theological question, has always been much more suitable to raise controversies, as in such a question there can be no compromise.

Cheers, Str1977 11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see someone actually took the plunge and added this to the article. I think this was becoming the main view of the discussion. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user


Please take a look at User:John1838 to see if it's all appropriate. Thanks...KHM03 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's now mentioned me on his userpage. What are my options? KHM03 00:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John1838 reversed the blanking of his uerpage...just FYI. I listed the issue at WP:AN. KHM03 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AND...he's now relocated the whole ball of wax to User:J1838. KHM03 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Please?


I am doing a run off of 2000 articles from WP for a free download and want to include christianity but have hit the disputed notice. I am inclined to go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&oldid=4704059 the old featured article form which was good but is there a more recent uncontencious version you would recommend? --BozMo[[user_talk:BozMo|talk]] 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks --BozMo[[user_talk:BozMo|talk]] 14:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your help requested


I was asked to help Christianity with it's discussions on becoming NPOV... there is a debate on Talk:Hermeticism#Reason_for_reverting_Infinitysnake's_changes_2/22/06 on whether it should be stated that some scholars believed Hermes Trismegistus to be a real man. In my arguments I have noted the Christianity article, and I feel that the contributors of it may be able to give some view on how a religion article should be NPOV. I don't know if you will agree with me or not, but your help is requested.

KV 06:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox view of sin


Last January, you added an NPOV tag to Eastern Orthodox view of sin. I think at least some of your concerns have been addressed since then. Would you mind stopping by and commenting on what still needs to be addressed before removing the NPOV flag, if anything? Thanks, Wesley 13:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that while the article would benefit from a good deal of expansion, it no longer suffers from pov problems. However, I would like to see the bit about legalism or a judicial view of sin expanded, as it is not entirely clear to the layperson, as it were. --Zantastik talk 20:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Favor?


Hi Wesley, wondering if I can ask a favor. Things have gotten quite heated at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. between User:Bcatt and a number of Mormon editors (we have moved a portion of the discussion to my talk page). I've tried to step in and help guide the discussion, but because I am a Latter-day Saint adherent, I am being accused of treating her differently than Mormon editors and abusing my administrative status (see my talk page) - both which I take very seriously.

Whenever I've tried to guide the discussion (which I have not been a part of for the bulk, except to try to help guide), she seems to have blown up at me, as if I am mastermining and encouraging discrimination about her. For example, a few months ago I suggested that she and Storm Rider work out their uncivility and take a break from the page, but she though I was being harsher on her than him (he took a break, she didn't). When I suggested we find out who the sock puppet is on the JS Jr, she said that I was holding double standards for LDS editors, and "engaging in questionable practices due to [my] bias." I don't know what I did to make her over-react like that, as my interaction with her was very limited up until that point, although she does have a history of controversy and antagonism towards personal beliefs (ie politics, philosophy and religion)(see her user boxes). As a non-Mormon admin who is trusted in the Wikipedia community, could you go to the talk page, read through and offer suggestions? In addition, and personally, I'd appreciate a critique of my handling of the situation and her. I do take these accusations seriously, as you know. Thanks in advance. -Visorstuff 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for checking out the pages in question. I look forward to your help and feedback. I've responded to your note on my talk page. -Visorstuff 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I saw some of the things thou writest on wikipedia, and I thought thee to be the 1st neutral Eastern-Orth wikipedian I found. I am writing articles upon liturgy on Romanian-, French- and Waloon-speaking wikies. Personally I am Anglican (of Lutheran soteriology and high liturgy), through Eastern-Orth, Armenian, and Byzantine-Cath backgrounds. I would maybe to talk with thee. Prithee, send me an e-mail to gandul_curat[@}yahoo.com. Thankful, Waelsch (George) 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Dear Wes, could you please have a look into this request [8] ? Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 14:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you


Dear Wesley,

Thank you for your welcome. I look forward to contributing. I appreciate your reason for removing my link on the Jesus Prayer as it appears as a blog when viewed from the front page. May I ask you to reconsider? I'm suggesting this because the core of the site is not a personal blog, but information on how to make a prayer cord and pray the Jesus Prayer. My experience is that this is information which many people value, as, unless they are firmly located within the Eastern Orthodox tradition, this information is very hard to find. Others outside the tradition value the cultural adapatation of the knotted prayer cord as an option alternative to the Chotki.

I've therefore re-inserted the link avoiding the blog, and with a clear entry page to information about the Jesus Prayer and knotted prayer cords, and the blog page now being only one button among the others focussing on the Jesus Prayer. I trust this is in keeping with the spirit and aims of Wikipedia. Best wishes, Andrew Goodmanco 23:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC) (goodmanco) (If this is the wrong place for this message, please forgive me and delete.)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Jr.


A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joseph Smith, Jr., and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —This unsigned comment was added by Visorstuff (talkcontribs).

Sigh. Thanks for letting me know, Visorstuff. Wesley 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that statement was directed to Freedominthought. Sorry for the confusion. : ) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Nsandwhich and the rest of us are aware of OrthodoxWiki, and have in fact imported several articles under the terms of the GFDL license. Ditto Theopedia, AnglicanWiki and, of course, Wikipedia. If you know of others, though, it might help. Thanks for taking the time to write. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 22:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (Still known on CKB as "Archola."[reply]

Why do some edits show up in red


Sorry for the silly question, but why do some of my edits show up as red letter, those with square brackets and most show up blue after being saved? I would prefer they all show up as blue and have not red edits, but I don't recognize anything that I am doing that causes it; it just seems to be random occurence.

Btw, Strang is not looked upon as a resource because he was a only a recent convert at the time of Smith's death (just over a year). Strang latter provided a letter purportedly from Joseph that said he was to be the next prophet. The problem is that it was proven to be a forgery. He did have some high profile members that intially followed, but most fell away rather quickly. Having said this, the statement you have found is acceptable to reference. However, I think it should be a qualified reference.

I feel like my behavior interacting with Bcatt has greatly harmed our WIKI relationship. If I have lost your confidence, I apologize. I did not treat her well nor was my behavior in keeping with one who strives to be a disciple of Christ. That is my cross to bear and obviously shows my lack of discipline. I hope a warmer interaction can be returned. God's blessings be upon you. Storm Rider (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section in this article called Origins of Christian mythology which I have been trying to find out why it is there. It seems to be a particular theory about the origins of Christianity rather than Christian mythology. I noticed you edited the section - do you have any idea why it is there, or of there is somewhere better it could go? DJ Clayworth 17:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Wikiproject


I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints.

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

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 18:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Seems the page has been posted to an exmormon bulletin board, which has generated a lot of interest from exmormons (which is good - you know I've tried to recruit some in the past to help edit those pages). It seems they have many issues with the info added in by previous exmormons and by the Mormon editors. Wondering if you can help guide discussion as an editor from a different religion?

They've made some good progress, but its all ancedotal, and studies don't back up all of what they are saying (The internet exmo community is tight-knit, but not large or representative of the majority of those who leave the church. Some studies say that as high as 1-3 percent of those who leave fit this mold, of the 8-12 percent who either want nothing more to do with the church or officially leave it). Right now, they exmormons don't want a reference section [9] [10], [11] about themselves and I can't seem to add in any referenced material to the text without it being deleted, and can't seem to include references from the reference section into the article [12]. My fear is that it will end up only ancedotal information.

Last thing, is from your point of view, how should we approach them about the difference between Mormonism, the LDS Church, and the Latter Day Saint movement, per the academic naming conventions we've adopted here on the wiki? They've already removed every reference to other Mormon denominations...They equate Mormonism with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and academically, they are very different things. Can you help? -Visorstuff 19:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Wiki



Just wanted to let you know about a christianity wiki that was recently started and has now moved to it's own server. Because of your interest, I think you would be a valuable member of our team and I'd love to have your contributions.

We are just about ready to go live!

As soon as we finalize the CPOV policy, I think we're ready to "go public" with this project and invite the world! We can submit to DMOZ and Google and start getting some real active hits on that site.

Please take a look and see if this project is something you would like to get behind. the URL is: ChristWiki

-- nsandwich 04:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation; I really do appreciate it. For the record, the one Christian wiki I might work on occasionally would be the OrthodoxWiki. Wesley 17:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you so much for your work on the Jesus-Myth page. I've been reluctant to touch it as I was afraid the next strike would be an AfD. Your NPOV editing is much appreciated and is an example to others! Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 17:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Dear Wesley,

It has been a long time since we last communicated. I am now retired from Wikipedia, and have left a farewell message at my old user page.

There are very few people on WP whom I would definitely want to be sure had read this message; you are one of them.

In Christ,


Mormonism and Christianity


I am a relative newbie on Wiki. As my username suggests, I am interested in Religious History. I have made major edits to the article named above. As you were one of the major contributors (and you also voted to oppose it as a featured article), I'd like to ask you to take a look at it now. You can compare it with the version when you last edited it (last month). Your opinion is welcome. Thanks. RelHistBuff 11:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I recommend that you archive your talk page, as its gotten very long. --TBC 02:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may eventually archive it again. In the meantime, I'd suggest you follow the suggestion at the top of this Talk page and update your browser if the length of the page is causing you any problems. Wesley 16:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual virginity Calvin cites



I've added some comments over on Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus concerning Calvin's view. If you have any further input, I'd welcome it!

Grace and peace, jrcagle 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Codex Sinaiticus has angered me, something I regret. But he has accused me of suppressing Christianity, which deeply offends me. Do you share this view? I as you honstly and as someone I consider a friend. Would you mind commenting here [13]? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion


Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking into the Diocese of Sourozh article? There's an anonymous editor who doesn't quite seem to get the point of NPOV. —Preost talk contribs 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me here again. I've got a concern on this same article regarding unsourced claims being added by the previously anonymous editor (who now has a WP account). Would you mind taking another look in? —Preost talk contribs 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an addendum for background on this situation, I recently added the standard welcome message to the other user's talk page, and he interpreted it in my own talk page as a personal attack on him. I'm rather at a loss as to what may be done. —Preost talk contribs 16:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further addendum: You'll probably need to look at the history of Maxim662's talk page, because he keeps blanking out my comments there. (Sorry to annoy you with this.) —Preost talk contribs 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments are misleading as Dn Damick does not make clear the context in which he added the welcome message to my user page. The context was dispute over the Diocese of Sourozh page.
As the history and discussion of the page shows, this dispute between Dn Damick and myself began with his repeated unilateral and aggressive deletion of a long-standing piece of text on the Diocese of Sourozh page. At first Dn Damick did not provide justification for this deletion. Then he provided different justifications (some of which were clearly bogus or illegitimate by Wikipedia standards [e.g. basing his arguments upon what his friends had told him]), but refused to work positively towards the achievement of conensus. The typical pattern was: I would respond to his criticism, inviting further discussion, and then Dn Damick would simply delete again the text from the article, with a simple negative rejection of whatever I said, and usually one which did not engage in any way with the substance of what I said. The repeated deletion and the avoidance of synergeia to the end of arriving at consensus were particularly aggravating. Throughout, I have emphasised that I am not absolutely insistent upon the inclusion of a particular piece of text, but that I wish to be provided with a legitimate reason for removing it, and that I wish always to work together to achieve consensus.
As regards the welcome note. Dn Damick added it to my user page, 'for reference', on the grounds (so he told me on the Sourozh discussion page) that he suspected I was not familiar with Wikipedia policy. (See his comment timed 15:31, 24 July 2006.) It was quite clearly a rhetorical move aimed at points-scoring in the context of my dispute with him over the Diocese of Sourozh page. As such, it was aggressive and annoying. Similarly, he added a subsequent comment my user page of similar content. I removed both on the grounds that they were not placed in good faith, but as inflammatory point-scoring mechanisms.
I am further concerned with Dn Damick's recent 'request for assistance' on the Eastern Orthodox WikiProject. This appears to be an attempt to muster support for himself in his dispute with me. I find this also to be inappropriate, as he has consistently avoided any serious attempt to work to a consensus with me.
Despite all this, I desire consensus with the Dn Damick on the Sourozh page, and retain a good will towards doing so.
With kind regards,Maxim662 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Rider


I'm thinking of nominating User:Storm Rider for Adminship. He's done a good job at keeping a level-headed conversation going on controversial religious topics, I believe. He would be a good asset to the religious corner of the wiki. Would you support that action based on your work with him? Please let me know on my talk page. -Visorstuff 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous P2P


I just wanted you to check out Anonymous_P2P#Views_on_the_desirability_of_anonymous_P2P and see if you had anything to add. rearden9

Veneration of Pilate


Hi, I was looking through the article on Pontius Pilate and I'm trying to find sources for his being venerated in the Coptic and Ethiopian churches. Quickly perusing the page history, it looks like you added that. I believe you, I just want something to verify it, as one of my friends doesn't really believe it, and I want something more than an unsourced WP statement for it. Thanks! Carl.bunderson 06:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are great, thanks a bunch. Have a good day :) Carl.bunderson 17:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —Preost talk contribs 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology for Eucharistic species in Orthodox Church


Hi, Wesley. Some time ago, I had trouble with a very aggressive edit warrior, who was finally banned for six months after an arbitration case, and who didn't come back when his ban expired. The problem related to the reporting of a case where a dying Catholic woman was given Holy Communion for the last time. She was unable to receive a particle of the Host, as her mouth was too dry. (I'm talking of Terri Schiavo, whose feeding tube was removed.) So the priest placed a drop of the Precious Blood on her tongue.

When I came to the article, over a year ago, it said that she couldn't be given bread, so the priest put a drop of wine on her tongue. I changed that to "host", and "consecrated wine". In real life, I avoid speaking even of "consecrated wine", as it carries an implication that it's still just wine, even though it's "holy" wine. Generally Catholics, even orthodox ones, are uncomfortable talking about "the Blood" or "the Precious Blood", so they get round it by saying "received from the Chalice". Anyway, "from the Chalice" wasn't appropriate in the case of Terri Schiavo, and "Precious Blood" would have been completely POV. My aim was to find a wording that would not affirm or deny Catholic doctrine. So I just left it as "consecrated wine", which is capable of an orthodox interpretation. I was a relatively new user, and my change was accepted without question.

Some months later, after I had had various disagreements with this user (not directly, but by siding with other people with whom he was in dispute), an anon came along, put "bread" into the article, and disappeared. I reverted, and the editor, now realizing that I had objections to "bread" put it back again and again and again, saying that it was not at Catholic encyclopaedia. He insisted that we needed to have it, because people wouldn't know what "host" meant, so I created the article Host (Holy Communion), and wiki-linked the word. He kept on reverting, saying that a wikilink wasn't enough, even though that article had a lot of very technical words wikilinked (defibrillated, intubated, tracheotomy, anoxia, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and thalamic stimulator, etc.) with no definition given in the article itself. I insisted that I was not trying to affirm Catholic doctrine on Wikipedia, by saying that she was given the "Precious Blood" since her tongue was too dry to receive the "Body of Christ". I felt "host" was neutral, since it doesn't imply that transubstantiation does or does not really happen. Eventually, other people arrived with input, we reached a compromise, and that editor was banned from Wikipedia.

Having been through that, I want to tread carefully. I've just seen lots of "bread"s and "wine"s in the article Coeliac disease. I fixed the Catholic part, and after some hesitation did a little bit of changing of the Eastern Orthodox part, but I wonder would you mind taking a look. As far as I know, Orthodox Christians don't use the word "host", which refers to a small, round, flat bread, usually with a cross on it, probably completely different from what you would use. For an NPOV wording, the article shouldn't deny or affirm any religion. Keep in mind that even if Orthodox Christians allow the use of the words "bread" and "wine" after consecration despite their belief in the Real Presence — and I don't know if they do use those words — it would still contradict Catholic teaching to use the word "wine" when referring to the consecrated species at an Orthodox liturgy, as Catholics believe that Orthodox have a valid Eucharist. Cheers. AnnH 10:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editing request


Wesley could you check out SIL International, edit and offer some recommendations. Rearden9 15:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to want it. Care to comment? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 09:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33 proposal


Thanks, Wesley, for your thoughtful response to my question on terminology for the Eucharist. On a different matter, I thought I would direct you to new discussion about Giovanni, in case you have missed it. Jayjg has now confirmed through checkuser that Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks are all sockpuppets of Giovanni33.[14] [15] Giovanni has now come as close as I think he can come (without losing face) to admitting sockpuppetry. He has agreed here that it doesn't pay, and has asked to be unblocked on certain conditions which, if enforced, would make the use of sockpuppets completely futile. I've made a proposal here, at the Incidents Noticeboard. Also, this section of Danny's talk page gives a summary of this history and contains links to all or nearly all the places where it has been discussed. The blocking admin has indicated that he will consider unblocking early, and I'd be happy with that, but I think we need to work out the conditions that Giovanni agrees to first. Assuming that the sockpuppetry stops, I'd also be happy with removing the puppeteer tag from his own user page, in order to help him to make a clean start, free from any unnecessary humiliation. Don't feel you have to get involved, but if you have time, a comment at the noticeboard would be welcome. I'm hoping to have this sorted out as soon as possible, because I need to go on wiki-break to finish some writing. Cheers. AnnH 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you


Wesley, thank you for coming to help on the Christianity page regarding mercy. I always appreciate your contributions. God bless you. Storm Rider (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance is requested


Wesley, please look at the Christianity talk page. You know my thoughts on historical Christianity and I hope you know of my deep abiding respect for both the Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church, but I am Latter-day Saint by the direction of our Father. My claim to be a disciple of Christ, weak though I am, is sacred to me. I reject any group to deny the label of Christian to any other group regardless of how backwards we might feel of their respective doctrine. Your measured and wise counsel would be helpful. Storm Rider (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on adding full Eastern Orthodox Project to your watchlist


This is a note for members of the Eastern Orthodox Project: Since the project's main page has been converted to a portal-style box format, each of the boxes is actually its own page (you can see the page outside its box by clicking the 'Edit' link on any often the section boxes on the project page, which takes you to the edit page for its contents). Because of this, updates to individual box contents will not necessarily show up on editors' watchlists, if you've only got the main project page watched.

In order to keep up to date with all updates to the Project and its pages, I'd recommend adding each subpage to your watchlists. These are:

If you add all of the above pages to your watchlist, you should be informed whenever any part of the WikiProject Eastern Christianity is edited/updated. To discuss this, please see the relavent section of the Project's talk page. —Antonios Aigyptostalk 09:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity article


Wesley, I have missed your comments of late. Where have you gone? If you have the time, please review the comments about cults on the Talk:Christianity article. I firmly believe the article is best served by simply addressing the beliefs and doctrines within Christianity. I resist the need to place judgements on the groups outside the mainstream. You have aided in this discussion in the past, I look forward to it again if at all possible.

I read a fabulous quote recently by John Calvin; I hope you appreciate it as much as I did:

“He deigns to consecrate the mouths and tongues of men to his service, making his own voice to be heard in them. Whenever God is pleased to bless their labor, he makes their doctrine efficacious by the power of his Spirit; and the voice, which is in itself mortal, is made an instrument to communicate eternal life”

A wonderful thought. Peace, Storm Rider (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review Ebionites Article


Loremaster and I would appreciate it if you would look over the Ebionites article and provide suggestions to get it ready for nomination as a featured article. We recently finished incorporating the suggestions of Slrubenstein from peer review. Slrub suggested you would be a good person to work with to further improve the article and get a diverse perspective. Ovadyah 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review


Ebionites article passed GA. We are having a 2nd round of peer review to get it ready for FA nomination. Your perspective on changes needed to make it FA quality would be appreciated. Ovadyah 16:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you deal appropriately with this guy? He is a vandal. Rearden9 17:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wesley, I think you've exaggerated the analogy between Mormon and Orthodox attitudes toward tradition, don't you? I fail to see how Mormons attribute any authority to tradition whatever - even their own. For Mormons, where on-going revelation ceased there was no longer authority. This is what Mormons mean by "apostasy": that there is no prophet leading the Orthodox church, but only councils of ecclesiastical rulers deciding things by bickering with one another. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints


It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Wesley, can I get your input on some external links at Shunning and Excommunication at Talk:Shunning#External_links. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note on the Eastern Orthodoxy Portal noteboard that this article is suffused with the church's POV and comes across as the private project of a HOCNA priest who appears to believe that he owns the page and can remove anything which does not fit that POV. Collaboration from others could improve the article immensely; please feel free to jump in or alert others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Things getting out of hand. Recent Example to the orthodox wikiproject articles to only have people by consensus deny history- documented -truth and Greek cultural words and heritage under the guise of consensus to be allowed to hijack,steal and pervert/corrupt. There is no excuse for abusing people's cultural heritage. Please help me with the revert warring on the article icon. The bias and abuse is really getting outrageous and out of hand around here. Another example- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_persecution_by_atheism Wikipedia has decided that people like Nobel peace prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn are liars engaged in anti-atheistic bigotry. This is getting really really out of hand. LoveMonkey 03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unhappy with your decision to undelete this article. Wikipedia should not have copyrighted material hanging around. There is nothing to stop the article's creator (or anyone else) from using that source to create a new article that is not a copyvio. Speedy deletion of copyvios is completely in accordance with process. I would prefer it in future if you would contact me on my talkpage first before undoing my deletion of pages. Failing that, deletion review is available as a forum for opinion from other Wikipedians. WjBscribe 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article was a copy and paste job. I have since rewrote the content in my own words to avoid the verbatim copying. It wasn't terribly hard to do, so expecting an experienced editor to do what I did isn't unreasonable. Urging the contributing editor to slow down and try to start the article again without the verbatim copying would have been better than restoring the copyvio content (IMO). As to the specifics you made on my talkpage: the CIA factbook comparison is not valid, because the CIA factbook, as a work from the government, is not copyright protected. On the other hand, the page that LoveMonkey copy and pasted explicitly had a copyright on the top of the page. If the material was so easy to convert to a stub (like what I did) why didn't you do that yourself, instead of restoring the copyright infringement? -Andrew c 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're unhappy with my decision. After reviewing WP:Speedy deletion, it appeared from the second paragraph of the intro to the policy that that procedure should not be used if the material can be converted to a stub instead, and it also advised against deleting pages too quickly after their creation. I agree that the text as it was appeared to be a copyvio, but I also thought the contributing editor would likely correct that before long. Perhaps in the future we should both be less hasty. Wesley 03:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would have like to have actually written the six or seven articles but Andrew repeatedly keeps blanket deleting my content. I added the articles again today 4/2/07 and surprise Andrew c deleted them. As for copyright the articles I created had dates and location information that was the extent of my copy and paste they weren't even up 5 minutes before they got deleted. Tag as them as copyright -sure but give me time to rewrite them.
LoveMonkey 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wes the only info I copied was the name and date given to the papyrus as well as the measurements. It's discovery location, none of that information can be copyrighted. It was a skeleton article. As for being sensitive to copyright check out some of my recent articles that I created on the ancient churches and monasteries in Asia Minor, Turkey. Unlike Andrew c who's last creation seems to be [16] LoveMonkey 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites nominated for FA


The Ebionites article has been nominated for Featured Article. You are invited to show your support or suggest further improvements to the article. Ovadyah 08:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Christian?


I ahve interacted with you enough to understand your position and trust me I know you were not saying you thought JW's are Christian. Personally I don't beliee any other religion claiming to be Christian (other than JW's) espouses true Christian beliefs and fell that their doctrines are dangerous and heretical. SO we are at an impasse with regard to faith. However we do share the desire to be objective (I think) when dealing with people of other faiths. That is why I support an inclusiveness to the article. If I were not being objective I would argue that only JW's could be considered Christian. George 23:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I on the other hand don't take such a soft view: I don't take kindly to people I know being called heretics.
This I copy from the current Nontrinitarian talkpage:

Does anyone want to take a stab at addeding this in the article. It is rough and needs links to the Scriptures, but can make a good point. If no one wants to, I will attempt to do more.

Jesus prays to God, John 17: 1-3
has faith in God, Hebrews 2:17, 18,Hebrews 3:2
is a Servant of God, Acts 3:13; 4:27,30
does not know things God knows, Mark 13:32; Rev1:1
holy spirit does not know either is taught by the Father, John 8:27
worships God, John 4:22
calls God his God Rev 3:12
is in subjection to God, 1 Cor 15: 28
has God for his head, 1 Cor 11:1
is exalted by God, Acts 5:31; Phil 2:9
is given authority by God, John 17:2,3
is given life by the Father, John 6:57; John 5:26
is given kingship by God, Luke 1:32,33
is given judgment by the Father, John 5:27; Acts 10:42
is given lordship by God, Acts 2:36
has reverent submission, fear, of God Hebrews 5:7-10
and is made high priest by God Hebrews 5:10
Johanneum 05:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent reference list! But you forgot an important one:
The schizophrenic trinity god talks to himself, or God spoke to Jesus in the company of witnesses (John 12:28,29).
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wesley. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Nuvola Firefox icon.png) was found at the following location: User:Wesley. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Nice to have you watching and contributing at Hebrew Bible. I think progress is really happening there. Dovi is thoughtful and polite. I am learning a lot about the Jewish perspective on things while discussing matters with him. Please feel free to disagree with me at the page if you think I'm misrepresenting Christianity. I'm trying to be very neutral and academic about things. Alastair Haines 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Wesley, it is good to see you editing again. How have things been? Hope all is well. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Norman A. Beck, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=1102. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Norman A. Beck

A tag has been placed on Norman A. Beck, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g12.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Blair - Speak to me 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance


Wesley, please spend a few moments review the article, Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and make a comment on the title. I am looking for an objective party to comment. Thank you. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new article


Would you consider contributing to this? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! It is good to hear from you, and happy New Year, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on this discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binding of Isaac article name change


Thanks for your comments and contributions at Binding of Isaac. About 3 weeks ago, I proposed to change the name of the article to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article, but so far haven't seen any response. I plan to go ahead and rename the article on March 20, 2008 unless there are objections. I invite you to visit the article and submit any comments you have on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five editors have responded to the proposal described above. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Wesley, I would appreciate your attention to the discussion concerning Mary that's taking place on Mormonism and Christianity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help


Hello, I have created the Theos Kyrios and Christos anesti pages as I thought they should exist in Wikipedia, can you help me (or contact any other Orthodox in Wikipedia - I'm new here so I don't know any other users) so we could expand them? Moreover, I've linked some references to these pages but I can't find any other articles that mention them, so I'd be glad if you could help me there, too. --K kokkinos (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

- Tinucherian (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your edit to the Launchpad article today. There's some information about the Soyuz component at:

Sladen (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark article


Would you mind checking the St. Mark article? I saw you made initial entry and I cannot find sources for the traditions you wrote about. I've searched, but can't find any sources (my library is mainly Roman Catholic). If you have any sources for these traditions, could you please insert them. I put "Citation needed" flags on these traditions. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. I know it's been a long time since you started this article, but could you please check out the Traditions section? Thanks very much. Jason3777 (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and Nicene Creed


Hi, I think there was considerable discussion as to how to represent Christian views at the Jesus article; just wanted to make sure you know about this recent edit. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]



I've just proposed merging Unification Church and antisemitism (which you worked on) into Divine Principle. Please join in the discussion, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page


I found your old user page while checking out some old edits. I have history merged it, so that all edits are in one place. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 11:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also history merged your talk page. Graham87 11:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley, I am a new user and have uploaded my first page on Ian McCormack. Immediately it was tagged for deletion, despite having numerous sources and plenty of links. I have addressed many of the issues brought against it (many of them good points) but the steam roller seems to be going on. If you could take a look at it and see what you think - if there is anything that ought to be changed, etc. If you think it is a reasonable article would you please supposrt it. Thanks, ChildrenOfLight (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas.


The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012



January 2012

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Happy Adminship Anniversary


Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism


You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism#Edit_request_on_7_December_2012 to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. I am messaging you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nitro (web framework) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

6-year old article, mostly unreferenced, with no assertion of notability; development ended 4 years ago; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment


Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity


Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity


Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Hi. You are now listed as missing. Should you ever return or choose not to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas greetings from WikiProject Holidays!

Merry Christmas and Happy New year

Hello! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous 2020 on the behalf of Christmas task force of WikiProject Holidays.

It is a time for forgetting the past and celebrate a new start. May every day of the forthcoming year glow with good cheers and happiness!

Sent by Path slopu (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Holidays and its related projects. © Copyleft 2019
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Eugene VioletÞ2DcTheocracy" listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Eugene VioletÞ2DcTheocracy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#Eugene VioletÞ2DcTheocracy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]