User talk:Carolynparrishfan/Archive 2

Anglican Coalition in Canada.
I've removed some contested and unsourced info from there, please read Verifiability (and Help:Edit summary). Hopefully the article can be unstubbed again. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-02t15:09z

Protestant PMs
Just for future reference, Lester Pearson was a Methodist and I think Kim Campbell was an Anglican. Don't worry about it, though, we all make mistakes. Habsfan|t 18:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, after the Church Union in 1925 Edwin Pearson, Mike's father, was a United Church of Canada minister. So I guess in Canadian terms he continued to be a Methodist (the United Church entered into protracted litigation after 1925 with the non-concurring Presbyterians as to who had the right to be called the "Presbyerian Church in Canada"). But at this late stage it might not be entirely useful to get back into all that, eh. Masalai (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Book of Alternative Services
You said, "...and one [service of the Eucharist] more in line with the language of the 1962 Prayer Book. The latter text is sometimes known as the "Toronto Rite" and is a bone of contention amongst Prayer Book Anglicans." Could you elaborate? This is an interesting point. I wonder what the nature of their objection is. It could go into the article to clarify the observation. Thanks. Masalai 16:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed interesting, and the Prayer Book Society, who sometimes come across as rather eccentric old fuddy duddies even to those who are not out of sympathy with them, so have a point about the contemporary language eucharist in the BAS. I think the article could do with actually briefly stating what their objections are, rather than merely referring to that paper, which could well disappear from the Net in due course. Do you agree? I'm happy to provide a couple of sentences if you would rather not. My compliments, incidentally, on your contributions generally: I've long been an admirer of your work. Masalai 03:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Michaëlle Jean
Hey, I noticed you are a regular contributor to many Canadian articles. It also seems that you are the sort of "type" that would know this :-) How is Michaëlle Jean pronounced? If you know, could you please add it to her vanity page. Thanks ! - Abscissa 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
I've added a response to your question at Talk:Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland --PeterR 18:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Diocese of Niagara
I deleted the same-sex unions discussion topics because I didn't think it defined the Diocese of Niagara, nor did it flow with the article (in terms of being placed in the history section). I'm not trying to deny it happened; in fact I think it speaks volumes about the diocese, but didn't think it fit within the current layout of the article. Mouswj 02:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggested expanding the article to include a fuller history; and section pertainting to newsworthy items relating to the Diocese (there have been several).

Anglican sacraments
Regarding your addition to the definition of Holy Matrimony, the definition I provided is that currently accepted by the Anglican Communion. In other words, it is describes what Holy Matrimony is, not what it could be. While I fervently pray that the definition will be expanded to a more inclusive one, there is at the moment no question that Holy Matrimony in every diocese of the Anglican Communion is defined as the union between a man and a woman. I think that a useful discussion might be included in Christian views on marriage, but I want to seek your agreement to revert your edit on the grounds that the article should describe what the sacraments are, not what they theoretically could or should be. You thoughts? Cheers, Fishhead64 21:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Months later, and we still disagree!
Hi, CFP. I hope all is well with you. We haven't been involved in editing the same articles for a while now &mdash; but I note that as soon as we do, we disagree! Hope you can accept "disputed". I'm trying for a wording that doesn't imply that one Church (even if it's mine!) is "right" and that the other is "wrong". By the way, I want to thank you for a thoughtful post that you left on my talk page a few months ago, and to apologize for not having responded. I meant to, but I suddenly got caught up in other things, and eventually archived your post. Maybe sometime I still might respond, as I have it in one of my talk page archives. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anglican Eucharistic theology
I've finally gotten around to expanding and editing this. If you have a moment several hours, look it over and let me know how I did. Cheers, Fishhead64 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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 21:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Shifted Sydney Anglicans
Hey! I noticed you shifted the Sydney Anglicans article. I was wondering why? There was an existing discussion on the talk page regarding the article name. Journeyman 07:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. You're right, articles should have consistent names. I would take exception though at your comment that "Sydney is largely Anglican in-name-only". We are not anglican in-name only, we are anglicans by history and theology - we stand in the reformed origin of the church of England... Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, Foxe, Ryle, the Clapham Sect, etc. We hold strongly to the theology of the BCP and 39 articles, particularly the inspiration and authority of scripture.


 * Given my knee-jerk reply above, oops :) I should definitely join WP:Anglicans. Cheers! Journeyman 23:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * re: your comment on my talk page that "classical Anglicanism is both Reformed 'and' Catholic". In my limited understanding catholicism (popery? ;) ) only came back into Anglicanism under the influence of the Tractarians in the nineteenth century. Anglicanism was consistuted around a return to the biblical, apostolic faith and a rejection of salvation by works, the real presence and the other 'pernicious' doctrines of Rome (sola fidei, sola scripture, soli deo gloria, etc.). Thus by returning to Rome, anglo-catholicism is a rejection of the biblical apostolic faith. Journeyman 05:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper's church

 * For one, where is your citation, and for second, he was raised in a presbyterian church, not the United Church of Canada. SFrank85 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it came right from his mouth, but he is not a member of the UCC. SFrank85 01:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Priesthood of all believers
Regardless of how "Evangelical" this concept may be, it simply doesn't work in a diocese in which women are not permitted to preach and teach. Believe me, in Sydney the notion of the "priesthood of all believers" is not something that is broadly subscribed to.

I have listened to many long and tiresome sermons from a Sydney Evangelical who constantly hammered the notion of the "Apostolic Succession" and the special role of the ordained priest. The only reason why this lay presidency thing is a possibility is because of the relative lack of importance in Sydney of the Eucharist.

I don't know where you are living, but judging by your list of contributions, it is not Sydney but Canada. Please don't imagine that Sydney Evangelicals are like people from other places that call themselves Evangelicals. Dean Phillip Jensen would be quick to tell you that everyone wants to hop on the band-waggon and call themselves Evangelicals. But few of them actually ARE. At least, they're not true proper Evangelicals, whatever they might think! (Yes I read the interview in which he said something like this, I think it's at the Anglican Church League website.)

So, whatever Evangelicalism is like in Canada, then it is NOT like that here! The notion of the term "Priesthood of all believers" being associated in any way with the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is to me, as a female Sydney Anglican, really offensive. And there are about 150 of my friends and associates who would be equally offended. --Amandajm 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Carolyn, I understand and subscribe to the notion of "a priesthood of all believers" but if the term is used in relation to Sydney, then I am just going to keep removing it. Believe me, I live in the diocese. It is not an appropriate term to include when you are talking about SYDNEY Evangelicalism. Please don't put it back. --Amandajm 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Carolynparrishfan! Just looked down your ID list. Another Aspie..... so am I. Maybe most people who write for Wiki fall into that boat. Please take seriously what I am saying about Sydney being different. Can I suggest that if you have not yet done so, you look up all the media references that are cited in the article? It makes inetersting reading. Have a little explore on the various websites, look for quotes from the Dean, for example.

--Amandajm 23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've written something to the effect of Carolynparrishfan's comment on the Sydney Diocese talk page. It's a difference in the greek between presbyter and priest. Presbyters are ordained by the church, priests are not. Journeyman 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglican Diocese of Saint David's
Hi there! Was there a reason why you moved Diocese of Saint David's to Anglican Diocese of Saint David's? The former is now just a redirect to the latter. All the other dioceses of the Church in Wales are simply called Diocese of X. If there's no particular reason, can I move it back? Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I understand that it is important that when two or more churches call their diocese or bishop by the same title that it is importan to disambiguate between them fairly. The historical situation in England and Wales, however, is that only four of each of the Anglican and Roman Catholic dioceses have the same name. In Liverpool, the simple solution is that we have the Archdiocese of Liverpool, which is Catholic, and the Diocese of Liverpool, which is Anglican (we have the same situation with the Archdiocese of Southwark/Diocese of Southwark and Archdiocese of Birmingham/Diocese of Birmingham). Things break down with the Diocese of Portsmouth, which is the name of the article on Anglican diocese, whereas the older, Catholic diocese is at Catholic diocese of Portsmouth — I thing this is a clear case for disambiguation. I noticed that all Church in Wales dioceses were under Diocese of X except the Anglican Diocese of Saint David's.I found this strange because no Catholic diocese has the same name as an English one in Wales — the Diocese of Menevia is the Catholic diocese nearest to St David's. Perhaps we should take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism for a wider consensus. — Gareth Hughes 11:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Party
Hello,

Could you please add Saskatchewan Party to your watchlist (and revert the current version, if someone hasn't already done so). Two SP partisans seem to have a very limited grasp of NPOV. CJCurrie 23:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church
Dear Carolynparrishfan,

I was saddened to read your note on my talk page. With sincerity I am saddened by your personal experience in the Church that has made you feel forced out. Even without knowlegde of your situation, I believe I can still say that anyone is welcome as a member of the Church and to practice the faith according to their situation. I would hope that if you had a pastoral relationship with someone in the Church's ministry, you would be accepted as a person and treated with compassion.

As I have indicated on the Anglicanism talk page, I regret the harsh things I have said on WP about Anglicans and others. I allowed months of frustration to build up and vented it in a poor fashion. For that I am sorry.

As you know we disagree on the naming of the Catholic Church on WP. As an encyclopedia, WP should be committed to facts that are verifiable. The fact is that the Catholic Church has a name which is verifiable. "Roman" is what many others would like the Church's name to be for a variety of arguably good reasons.

What the Church means by Catholic Church: historical continuity with the early church based on apostolicity in general and Petrine apostolicity in particular.

What the Church does not mean by Catholic Church: an exclusive right to "Catholicity." This is verifiable. The Church recognizes the the Old Catholic Church and others. The Church in Lumen Gentium and Ut Unum Sint and other documents has recognized the means of salvation in other Christian churches and has said that we share a real though imperfect "communion." The Church takes those words seriously and continues to refer to them and draw from them in its relationship with other churches.

Neither the Church nor I see the name of the Catholic Church as a denial of anyone else's Catholicity. It simply is the name of the institution. Anglicans and others have chosen to infer from the name that it is somehow a denial of their nature. For the Catholic Church, there are problems with Anglican history, but it's name is not a reflection of those problems. The Church's name has nothing to do with Anglicans or anyone else,

The Orthodox Churches do not have an exclusive right to "orthodoxy," nor do the Baptists have an exlusive right to Baptism. Historically, the Church could have adopted the name "Apostolic Church" or any of another of names. If it had, we would likely be arguing about those terms instead of over "Catholic."

As for my solipsism. It is the Anglicans and now others who are obsessed with changing the name of the Catholic Church. This change has not come from Rome. This change has not been made and will not be. But, again, this has nothing to do with other churches. It is not a matter of defiance or anything else. It is simply verifiable historical fact.

On another personal note. As I reflect on it, where I went wrong in letting my emotions get out of hand on WP was to associate all my personal experiences of maltreatment at the hands of Episcopalians with my frustrations over what is essentially an intellectual argument (or at least should be).

You might also know that I have been as angry with your reverts and article moves as I have been with yours.

I hope we can find a way to peace and a way to report the facts in question in a way that is fair to accuracy and satisfactory to all of us.

Vaquero100 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Carolynparrishfan. I should also remind you that you were the first person to make an illegal move on the Catholic spirituality article. You did so without prior discussion. Vaquero100 23:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry for not responding to your earlier request for assistance. Could you show me where the discussions between you and Vaquero over content and naming have taken place so that I can try to understand the basis of the dispuite between the two of you? Thanks. Ground Zero | t 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is obviously a lot of history here. I am trying to catch up on it before I intervene. I'll do what I can, but this is not an easy issue. There are two questions: (1) which should Wikipedia use, "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic", and (2) has Vaquero's behaviour contravened Wikiepdia policies and guidelines. Ground Zero | t 12:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for great and tireless work on Anglican articles, in particular Canadian Anglo-Catholicism. Good job sir! Anthropax 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Morning Prayer
Notice you've been doing a bit of editting on this recently. i started having a go at it in my user space a while back user:David Underdown/Morning Prayer, but haven't really had the time to progress it much, take a look and see what you think. David Underdown 10:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Disparaging comments not helpful
It is not relevant to share the insults one church makes of another. There is no reason why, for example, I should share the names thrown at the ELCA by LCMS people on their page. It provides no light, raises blood pressures and does not lead towards understanding on anyone's part. So it does not belong in the article anymore than unsourced negative comments belong in an article on a living person.

Can you explain why the insults one group makes of another has any place in an encyclopedia? If an ELCA person were to say something similar about me, it would be considered a personal attack in Wikipedia.

Now, if you want to explain the official position of the ELCA towards Close(d) communiion practices and theology, please feel free to do so and cite it. If you even want to express the views of some ELCA folk (I personally know a fair number of ELCA members, some of whom actually agree with the LCMS at this point), please do so and cite it. But please put it in the section where the doctrine is discussed and not in a place where it could be construed as an attempt to defame the LCMS. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe such has a place at all in articles about a religious organization and I seriously question its place on wikipedia at all. It only inflames passions, encourages antagonisms and makes it very difficult to keep civil dialog going. I do not see how it adds anything at all to a casual reader's understanding of the LCMS. This is the kind of thing most people think of as vandalism.

At the very least, the same care should be taken here as in articles on living people. People die for their religions, and, while I would not expect that level of response here, you invite vitriol when you take them on. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your willingness to bend on this one. FYI, having surveyed the other articles you've cited, I don't think the comments belong there either. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD
AfD is all about dialogue if you ask me. It's true that I don't think you did a particularly great job of WP:AGF in your comment, and I mentioned it. We got to the point where you were chanting connotation, so I chanted AGF. It was meant to be humorous but to also suggest that it would be best not to jump to the negative meaning if there is another option. I offer my comments as food for thought. Call that an argument if you wish, but I have no hard feelings. Erechtheus 18:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Welcoming Congregation" restructuring
Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

l'Église Episcopale du Canada
A propos of your insertion of the detail that the ACC initially adopted this French form of its name and later changed it to "l'Église anglicane du Canada," do you have any documented references to the discussions that led to this change? Certainly I know from personal conversation during the '80s that francophone Canadians were extremely puzzled by the "episcopale" name and when it was explained, would exclaim, "Ah! Anglicane!" But obviously that won't do as an encyclopædia explanation for the change.Masalai 11:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

ACC article
Hi CPF. The ACC article is lacking any discussion of the doctrine of the denomination: obviously, it goes without saying,

(a) the ACC generally falls into line with the more liberal constituency of the world-wide Anglican Communion (and has historically had a considerably more influential voice in its councils than the ACC’s smallish numbers might have indicated) and this is somewhat implied in the article overall and

(b) there is ample discussion in other Wikipedia articles of Anglican doctrine in a general.

But the article could profit by some discussion of the wider background of Anglican doctrine and the particular ethos of the ACC, I think. Do you agree? Care to take a stab at a first draft of such a section for the article? You always have a uniquely insightful take on such things and it would be interesting to see what you might have to propose in this regard. Masalai 09:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

image deletion
Hi Carolyn. It was deleted under I3 of the speedy criteria, basically because it had no tags indicating copyright. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, images uploaded without tags get auto-tagged as I3, and get put in the speedy delete queue. --Fang Aili talk 18:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Evangelical Church of the Deaf
I've added the "prod" template to the article Evangelical Church of the Deaf, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Evangelical Church of the Deaf. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ioannes Pragensis 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or rather, in my own words, I am unsure whether it is notable or not. Please, add some links to important media, if possible. Merry Christmas!--Ioannes Pragensis 20:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism COTM
The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Black Narcissus
Rumer Godden specifically didn't mention any Church in the book, and neither did Powell & Pressburger in the film. The intention was not to associate them with any Church so that no Church could claim to be misrepresented. They both just referred to them as being of an Anglican order. They could have been associated with a Free Church or any other group that describes itself as Anglican but remains outside the Church of England. -- SteveCrook 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:LGBT Coordinator Election Notice
This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of &quot;Coordinator&quot; for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. --
 * }

LGBT WikiProject newsletter
SatyrBot 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Lutheranism
The WikiProject Lutheranism Collaboration Project is under way. Please help improve this month's article, or make a suggestion for next month's article. To add the collaboration banner to your userpage or talk page, use Lutheran COTM. -- Pastordavid 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Till Death Us Do Part
If you examine the prayer books, you will see that, in fact, the BCP does not contain the words "Till Death Do Us Part". This is true for every version I checked. Accordingly, I have reverted your change to Book of Common Prayer; if you wish to add it back, please identify the BCP which contains those words. This is a common misquote. Tb 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As an interested party I wonder if the tendency among WP editors to add extraneous information which adds nothing to the substance of an article could be curbed. I notice too many articles which have not had the benefit of a blue pencil. Roger Arguile 08:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter
This month's project newsletter (hand delivered as SatyrTN and Dev920 are away). Best wishes, WjBscribe 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars
Please stop by and give your opinion on the two proposed barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David † (Review) 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Evangelical Church of the Deaf
A "" template has been added to the article Evangelical Church of the Deaf, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.144.174.202 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!


Hello,, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! --Thw1309 11:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Anglican collaboration of the month
Wassupwestcoast 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Lutheran Calendar
The "point" was to explain why the LBW (and, consequently, ELW) do not commemorate Old Testament persons on a single day of the year. The context of the discussion was in the United States between the LCMS and the ELCA predecessor churches, with specific references to the proposed '79 BCP. That I am aware of, no notice was taken of the practice of the Anglican Church of Canada. The relationship of the ELCIC is important specifically because they use/d the LBW and ELW. In addition, reference to the Anglican Church of Australia, which is situated in a country that has a very miniscule Lutheran population, makes no impact whatsoever.

That being said, the reason I deleted your reference to the ACC and the ACA is because their specific practices did not make a recognizable impact on the calendar of North American Lutheranism. I referred to your deleting the comment about TEC as vandalism because you did so with, from what I took in your rationale, hostility and frustration that you had been told your addition was irrelevant. To summarize, to describe the practices of church which have made no impact on the subject is pointless and to delete relevant information about the practices of a church that did make an impact on the subject is frivolous and seems to me to be an example of Blanking, which is Vandalism as per Wikipedia policy, thus I am not throwing the term around lightly, even if you may resent having it used in reference to you. In the future, if you are unsure as to why someone has undone an edit you have made, it may be helpful to ask them for their rationale rather than simply eliminating similar portions of an article. -- jackturner3 16:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How else shall I explain it? The situation in the Anglican Church of Australia is entirely irrelevant because it has in no way influenced the creation of the LBW or the ELW.  Certainly you can admit that.  While it is true that the Anglican Church of Canada has a close relationship with the ELCIC, the creation of the LBW was, by and large an initiative of Lutherans in the United States, in so far as I'm aware.  The model directly looked at was that of The Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and this is borne out by statements in the official records of the ILCW and the Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship.  As far as I can tell, the LBW made little if any reference to the BCP used by the ACC since it was not currently under revision like the US BCP was.  That is why parallel development of the US BCP is relevant but the current practice of the Anglican Church of Canada is not.
 * However, to more explicitly bring out the point, I have altered the paragraph to highlight the interrelationship between the liturgical revisions in TEC and the ILCW.
 * I also don't consider it to be "assuming good faith" by insinuating that I have not done so.
 * jackturner3 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But there’s the thing: while the Canadian BCP is, in its current redaction, essentially the US BCP, at the time of the development of the LBW (1978), the BCP used in the Anglican Church of Canada (1962 revision) was most closely related to the attempted 1928 revision of the English BCP. That being said, it bore little influence on the work of the ILCW.  That’s why its calendar is irrelevant to the development of a calendar in North America.  To analogize the situation, it would be pointless to discuss the opinion of John Wilkes Booth’s brother on Lincoln’s policies concerning Reconstruction.  Booth and his brother are closely related, as the various BCP are, but that does not, in and of itself, indicate either relevance or appropriate contextualization.
 * For my part, I’m not certain how I should have reacted to your edit summary. While this is a text based medium, it is true, things such as voice and tone do come across.  “Fine then, we'll mention none of the Anglican churches” sounds a lot like someone who’s saying, in essence, “it’s my ball and I’m going home.”  Frankly, had you asked me why I considered mentioning the ACC and the ACA practices in regards to the commemoration of Old Testament persons to not be appropriate, I would have gladly explained my rationale.  By not doing that, but rather by deleting text in what I assume was frustration with my opinion, you don’t show yourself to be assuming good faith.  For me to detect hostility is not grossly unfair, it simply is my reaction, fair or otherwise.  But if gross unfairness is the concern, how much more grossly unfair is it of you to not only insinuate bad faith on my part, but then to proceed to lecture me on the subject and substance of my reactions?  I would advise you to consider your own conduct in this matter and to carefully evaluate whether or not your actions are as grossly unfair as you accuse mine of being.
 * In my case, I apologize for hurt feelings that I have clearly caused you and in advance extend my pardon the wrongs I percieve you to have committed against me.
 * jackturner3 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not shuttering aside the "Canadian perspective" since there is neither a US or Canadian perspective to this article. The whole issue is over the inclusion of a single date to commemorate Old Testament persons on the Lutheran Liturgical Calendar in North America and what effect, if any, other efforts at liturgical revision in North America. Only TEC was concurrently undergoing liturgical revision and asking the same question when the ILCW was doing its work; the Anglican Church of Canada was not engaged in such work or questions to the best of my knowledge at the time.  That is why the rejection of a commemoration of all Old Testament saints in TEC is appropriate to the article but mention of the current practice of the Anglican Churches of Canada and Australia are not.  To insist that material in an article be directly related to the subject is not systemic anti-Canadian bias, it's just basic practice of good writing.  Perhaps you are so concerned with anti-Canadian bias you're willing to see it anywhere, even where it isn't present, and are willing to rectify perceived bias by inserting notes on Canada wherever you can, even when they aren't especially relevant to the article at hand.
 * If you can demonstrate why the current practice of the ACC is relevant, despite the fact that it had not effect on the development of the North American calendar, then I would be willing to assent to let the inclusion of the current practice of the ACC being inserted into the calendar. Since you haven't provided any real, substantive justification, I see no reason why this is an example of shuttering the Canadian perspective in any way.
 * Furthermore, accusations on your part that I'm contributing to the shuttering of Canadian perspective is yet another example of bad faith on your part. This goes far beyond the "melodrama" of the article itself and moves into the realm of personal attack.  I don't appreciate that.  I attempted to make peace with you because I felt that was my responsibility.  It's too bad that not only are you unwilling to accept that, but you go forward with smearing me in negative motivations.  I truly do not appreciate that.
 * jackturner3 14:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CC9966; text-align: center;" |The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter  {| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue XI - November 1, 2007
 * style="border: solid 1px purple;"|
 * style="border: solid 1px purple;"|
 * colspan="2" valign="middle" style="width: 60%; border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; background: #ffe4e1" |
 * valign="top" style="border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; width: 75%; " |
 * valign="top" style="border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; width: 75%; " |

Hey, Peeps, it's that time of the month again (no not that time &mdash; get your mind out of the gutter): time for another monthly edition of the LGBT Project's Love Boat newsletter from your cruise director Miss Julie. So much has been happening this month and I just can't wait to tell you all about it!!!

{| style="font-size: 90%;"
 * valign="top" |
 * valign="top" |

Alice and her harasser
Let's start with some good news: Alice and the project lost the bothersome sock puppet who had been disrupting many articles we monitor, and now most of us can edit in relative peace. Congratulations, Alice, for being able to come out of semi-retirement. Benjiboi, on the other hand, has gained an anonymous IP stalker who seems to be more Catholic than the Pope and who has a hard-on for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. We seem to have a sort of Yin and Yang thing going on here, which helps both to keep us in balance and on our toes.

Harry Potter and his homosexual teacher
Albus Dumbledore got outed this month, and was immediately adopted by our project. The international brouhaha surrounding this disclosure reached all the way to Wikiland, and his article was briefly locked due to homophobic vandalism (as well as well meaning editors who just couldn't believe that that nice man could possibly be gay). This is a wonderful article to add to your watchlist, and will surely give you hours of reverting fun on cold winter days.

"My Fellow Americans"
On a more serious note, Fireplace has suggested a new article series about LGBT rights in the United States, state by state. This ambitious topic will surely require many editors and a lot of research, but has the potential to add further prestige to our already prestigious project.

Same name, same sexuality: a riddle for the ages
Francis Bacon (not the new gay one, but the old gay one ... though they're actually both dead, now that I think about it) has also aroused passions here on Wikipedia, with editors opposing his sexuality being disclosed in his biography. The always helpful Haiduc has thoughtfully provided any number of sources, but it is slow going getting his point across. Anyone want to lend a hand?

Beat writer arouses Irish guy
And speaking of passions, Jack Kerouac has inflamed the senses once again with editors, including administrator Irishguy, mounting a spirited defense to keep him as heterosexual as possible for Wikipedia purposes. Why? I don't know. Perhaps some of you can drop by the talk page and ask your questions there. I feel certain a stimulating debate will ensue that will be enjoyed by all.

Love those Texas Longhorns
Did you know that one of our Featured articles, Lawrence v. Texas, lost its shiny gold star? That was a shocker. It has been suggested that we turn our attention to it in an effort to restore it to its former glory. I took a peek, and it does need our help badly. For our American editors, it would seem almost a civic duty to edit it (not that I'm hinting....).

Point and Counterpoint
Though it was far too intellectual a debate for a mere cruise director like myself to take part in, Intersexuality was certainly a hot topic a week or two ago. The thrust of the debate was over inclusion in our project. Lots of good editors had lots of good opinions. For those too lazy to check out the discussion, we decided to leave it out for now.

Drudgery on offer
Peer review is, as always, short staffed and seemingly unloved. Wouldn't you feel better about yourself and the world in general if you took a few minutes to read one of the listed articles and offer some helpful advice? I know I'd feel better if you did.
 * valign="top" |

"My Fellow Americans" redux
The article LGBT movements in the United States certainly raised eyebrows last week, especially when it was discovered that copyrighted content had been added to our article. Tragedy was averted at the last minute, though, when the original hosts of the article where the material had been pilfered agreed to make it free to everyone. Our thanks to them, whoever they are. Busy Bee that I am, I haven't had time to read it, but I'm sure it's sensational.

This month's Wiki stars
Lesbian pulp fiction (a genre close to my heart, I must confess) writer Ann Bannon has decided to spice up the featured articles candidates list this month. Why not drop by and make your opinion heard? Joining her in this lofty aspiration are the articles But I'm a Cheerleader and Conversion therapy. I'm sure their main editors would welcome any comments (well, helpful ones, anyway) on the talk pages or the FAC discussions. And lest we forget, the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sd-Si became a Featured list!! Rah rah, siskumbah! Go, team, GO!!!!

And the Oscar goes to...
Not content to run for Best Actress, plucky Bannon won a Best supporting actress Oscar... whoops, I meant to say Ann is also getting more than her share of womanly attention on the Good Article list. Joining her on this exalted plane are Freddy Mercury, Waylon Smithers and Lance Bass. Good articles indeed, and the last one mentioned just goes to show that one needn't admire the subject of an article to appreciate the effort put into making him worthwhile reading. What on earth Britney ever saw in him I'll never know. Truly a riddle cloaked in an enigma and wrapped around a puzzle.

Fresh faces to brighten our pages
Though I may not be the first, let me extend a warm, LGBT Love Boat welcome to the 12 new members who joined us in October: Jliberty, JockCub360, ChristopherEdwards, Desiderius82, Zlrussell, Kelsied, BeardedWoof, Mujerado, Tyrfing, Fabgurrl, Redl@nds597198, and decafdyke! Whatever you choose to do here, I feel sure that your contributions will enhance our project to no end. And if they don't...well, let's just say that I'm not shy.

Leather and lace
On a personal note, your already overworked cruise director is being cyberly whipped almost daily by Nemissimo, who desperately wants to get the German BDSM translation copy edited and used as a replacement for the current one. It's such a ... err, stimulating topic that I am sure many of you will want to join the copy editing fun. Jump right in, folks! It's so lonely copy editing it all by my lonesome!

Late breaking news
A little birdie just whispered in my ear that our noble collaboration project was delisted from the Community Portal due to inactivity. When asked how this scandalous turn of events could have occurred, the answer I received was "we suck at stuff like that". Well. In the first place, I disagree that sucking should be considered a negative, but to each his or her own. In the second place, I have full confidence that we can and will collaborate with other projects in the future. So let's not view this as a setback (even though it is), but rather a challenge to improve (and good Lord, I sound almost Wikipedian!).

Champagne dreams and caviar kisses
Lastly, the holidays are rapidly approaching. Our American cousins are currently getting ready to slaughter masses of poultry in an effort to show their gratitude and generally peaceful demeanor, and those of the Canadian persuasion, trendsetters that they are, celebrated a bit early this year. I'm sure all us foreigners will join together in wishing them all a very happy Thanksgiving on their respective holidays, both already celebrated and forthcoming... though I would hope somebody would enlighten me as to why they don't celebrate it on the same day. I was awake all last night trying to figure that one out. - In the spirit of this peculiarly North American holiday, let me take a moment to thank all of our editors for their contributions to this project. It's people like you who make people like me...well, a "people person"! May all your Wiki days be bright, and may your Love Boat never turn into a Poseidon.
 * }

Kisses,

Miss Julie To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know. Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
 * valign="top" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%; " |
 * valign="top" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%; " |
 * }
 * }

Collaboration
freenaulij 03:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Vote for ours while you are at it: WikiProject Anglicanism/COTM -- SECisek 04:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of gays and lesbians
Hello Ms Fan. As a firm supporter of the increasing inclination of the ACC to be properly inclusive of gays and lesbians (as of other minority groups whose interests the Gospels according to many Anglican views champion) I wonder if the ACC article doesn't now begin to be somewhat disproportionately focused on this issue. As you would doubtless be aware, certain elements in the Anglican Communion increasingly seek to characterise both the ACC and more particularly the ECUSA as the gay churches of the Communion, and surely the emphasis of the ACC is on inclusiveness of gays and lesbians simply being a part of the mandate to be doers of the word and not hearers only, as the Epistle of James has it, and to love God and love our neighbours as ourselves as Christ's summary of the law has it. Would there be any special objection to the section on inclusion of gays and lesbians being edited down in volume of words (or perhaps part of it hived off into a separate article as to inclusion of gays and lesbians in the ACC) so as to make it clearer that this is not a special issue of the ACC but only a part of its broader concern with love and tolerance for all?

On a quite separate track, I feel that the ACC article has become rather top-heavy with discussion of the early history of the church in Canada: the photos and discussion of early, pre-settlement church presence in what is now Canada are certainly very decorative but I question whether they have as much to do with the ACC as their prominence in the article suggests. I, however, would not peremptorily make cuts to the article along the lines I have suggested without there being a consensus among Wikipedia editors who have taken an interest in the article. Possibly this discussion could be hived off into a sub-article: oh...I see that it is borrowed from an already-existing article....

What do you say about these observations, Ms Fan? Masalai (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good day, I would like to point out (kindly remember) that wikipedia is not a soap box. Even know you support same sex blessings please remember the purpose of the wiki project. This means that all edits must not show any bias. I am sure you will understand. Blessings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Christ Church Deer Park
A tag has been placed on Christ Church Deer Park requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. KnightLago (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dianne Haskett
I apologize, I didn't realize that this tag didn't go on your talk page, however I have reverted my edit. I misread what you added. Jauerback (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Anglicanism & British punctuation
The article is presently inconsistent, i.e., there are many St.s and many Sts. Someone must decide. A simple revert of one of these and comment is not very polite, but shall forgive in advance. -- So shall we leave it to you to change 'em all? Kindly, Fremte (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Grace Church on the Hill
Another editor has added the " " template to the article Grace Church on the Hill, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Warden Woods Mennonite Church
Another editor has added the " " template to the article Warden Woods Mennonite Church, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OGS
Thanks for adding the page on OGS! I reviewed their own page, and I couldn't see any indication that they are "secular"; they live "in the world" in a dispersed way, but so do many of the other communities listed (OP, BSG, for example). They take vows, have a rule, etc., in a way which looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, AFAICT. Now it seems to me we also need a page on the Sisters of the Good Shepherd! Tb (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think that the practice has been not to draw these distinctions on the Anglican religious order page for a couple reasons, one of the biggest being that the canonical distinctions are different in every country, and nonexistent in most. So the list has had the practice of being broad rather than narrow. The OGS do indeed take vows, though not monastic vows, as I understand it.

Likewise, if you look at Roman Catholic religious order you'll see that the list includes the Maryknoll (technically a society of apostolic life) and the Oratorians.

I think this is the best way to approach the question, since to most folks the canonical distinctions are not all that crucial. Tb (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely that the distinction is well-mentioned on the individual articles. My only nervousness in the case of OGS is that the word "secular" isn't used in their own literature. But you clearly understand the ins and outs of their history better--including that they themselves aren't agreed about what they are! So perhaps the ideal thing would be a section in the OGS article explaning the question and (ideally) giving references? Tb (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

ELCIC and the word narrowly
Good day, please do not add the word narrowly to the ELCIC page. It does not fit with wiki policy as it is subjective and not factual. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. I believe that we must becareful not to exclude the other synods for the ELCIC page. Currently there is a divide among synods and the ELCIC page seems to favour the Eastern Synod. I believe the edits (which are not mine) that have included the vote count better fits within the context. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please act respectful
Can you please refrain from using the language that you used on my talk page. I do not like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 555623a (talk • contribs) 22:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

stop vandalising my user page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 555623a (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches
Your recent edits are much better!Thright (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Anglo-Catholic Churches
Another editor has added the  template to the article List of Anglo-Catholic Churches, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Anglo-Catholic Churches
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Anglo-Catholic Churches, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of Anglo-Catholic Churches. Thank you. Springnuts (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dean of All Saints', Edmonton
You may want to check the article Dean under Anglican Communion. In Anglicanism the Dean is the chief cleric of the Cathedral, and may not be the Rector of the Parish associated with the Cathedral. The terms Dean of X, Dean of X Cathedral or Dean of Cathedral Name can all be used where X is the See City. The use of Dean of X is mostly used in the Church of England, while Dean of Cathedral Name is used outside the Church of England. I have no doubt that in the case of St. James' Cathedral in Toronto that the Dean is called Dean of Toronto, but In the case of All Saint's Cathedral the Dean is referred to as Dean of All Saint's Cathedral, and not Dean of Edmonton.

Sapperbdl (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm??? --Sapperbdl (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. All Saints' is my Parish Church. --Sapperbdl (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I finally found a reference on the ACC's website. shows that the practice within the ACC is that the Dean is Dean of Cathedral, not Dean of the Diocese. However, it can be correct as I stated earlier to refer to a Dean as Dean of See City instead of Dean of Cathedral. I am updating the article. --Sapperbdl (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case I could agree to do so since Jane was both the Dean of the Cathedral and Rector of the Parish as well. In the case of some Cathedrals the Dean is not Rector of the Parish which resides at the Cathedral, however, with all Saints' this position has been combined since the position of Dean was created in 1956 when All Saints' went from being a Pro-Cathedral to a Cathedral. --Sapperbdl (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Corpus Christi (feast)
Re our disscussion at Talk:Corpus Christi (feast). Thanks for your efforts to clarify this for me, but I'm afraid I'm still not following you. I currently have a vague understanding (based on User:Carl.bunderson's edit to the article) that the purpose of the feast of Corpus Christi is "to honor the Eucharist". That's all I was trying to find out. Thanks again. I'm not trying to be troublesome, I'm just dense I guess. Have a good one! -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "Maundy Thursday (as we've established) isn't an appropriate time for such festivities" -- I don't have any problem with that (I don't make these rules :-) ), but I'm not sure what festivities, or why Maundy Thursday wouldn't be an appropriate time for them.


 * Per your latest post to my Talk: Fair enough -- I guess I could have phrased my original question more clearly.
 * You wrote "you backtracked". Well, I'd prefer to characterize this as "I attempted to clarify."
 * Anyway, my question was addressed in the article, which was what I was hoping for. Carl and I talked about this and seem to be okay now.
 * Thanks to you both for your help and discussion on this. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AofC
He is the dicoesan, yes he chooses to delegate to the Bishop at Canterbury, but taht delegation could be withdrawn. It's too much info for the lead, and the delegation is already mentioned in the article. David Underdown (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those two words to me seem slightly misleading - what's not clear from the sources I've been able to find is the extent to which actual Ordinary authority is delegated to the Bishop at Canterbury, does he have actual authority over the other suffragans, or would the Archbishop still potentially have to be involved in matters of discipline? Putting de jure in seems to weaken the Archbishop's position to me.  We probably ought to be discussing this at the article talkpage, rather than our respective talkpages, as there's a bit more chance of wider discussion there.  David Underdown (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CC9966; text-align: center;" |The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter  {| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue XV: June 11, 2008
 * style="border: solid 1px purple;"|
 * style="border: solid 1px purple;"|
 * colspan="2" valign="middle" style="width: 60%; border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; background: #ffe4e1" |
 * valign="top" style="border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; width: 75%; " |
 * valign="top" style="border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; width: 75%; " |

Hello, members and friends of WP:LGBT! I'm not one to be writing newsletters, but I miss our cruise director, Miss Julie, and our project is drifting along with a few leaking plugs in the bottom of the boat. Hey, it happens. Every group we join goes through changes. If Wikipedia weren't so interesting it wouldn't also be so frustrating sometimes. And vice versa. More than one Wikiproject has tumbleweeds blowing through it, but this is one that can't afford to let that happen. Even if you pop in to the talk page of the project, you can let us know you're still around.

{| style="font-size: 90%;"
 * valign="top" |
 * valign="top" |

WP:LGBT's Role in HIV / AIDS articles
It wouldn't be a proper gay community without a li'l bit o' drama! That's right. If we aren't arguing about something, then we should be asking if we're still queer. Maybe that's for the best, since we know we're still kicking. Our most recent topic is how far the role of our project should go in dipping our toes into HIV/AIDS articles. The main AIDS article was delisted as a Featured Article last month, sadly. (Sending a swift kick to WP:Medicine.) A spirited discussion is available for your entertainment on the WP:LGBT talk page about just how much of HIV and AIDS should we take on. As ever, we'll take your opinions under advisement. We're going to have to, because it doesn't seem to have been settled.

Is Pride POV?
We have a pretty cool sidebar that identifies core LGBT articles. Its symbol is the iconic gay pride flag, much like other Wikiprojects have iconic symbols denoting the topic is a core subject in a series of articles. However, a question recently arose asking if the symbol itself is not neutral. Should a pride flag show up at the top of the article on Conversion therapy? How else would anyone know the article is about queer issues? Is there another symbol that is as widely recognized and that includes all our many splintered facets? At what point do we stop asking ourselves all these questions and just go have a mint julep on the verandah and stop caring?

Harvey Milk and Jim Jones
For the love of all that is holy, no Kool Aid jokes. However, an editor involved in pioneering San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk's article has included a section about the late supervisor's support of Jim Jones and the People's Temple. While it may be accurate, there is a Request for Comment regarding how much emphasis the section places on Milk's support in light of his overall political influence on the city, and indeed the rest of the United States. Milk's article is a sad one in more ways than one. It lacks the detail and heart that honors its subject. Anyone want to do a barter with me? I'll bring Harvey Milk to featured status (give me a month or two so I can read stuff), if you do something of equal value to WP:LGBT?? Make me an offer...

Queer Studies is offensive!
The established branch of study known as Queer studies was brought up as an category for deletion because an editor was offended by the use of "queer" in the title. It was overwhelmingly rejected mostly by the usernames I see here on our Wikiproject page. (A clue that I know you are out there, hiding...biding your time...) So, I wish I could congratulate you, but now I'm all confused by my sympathy for the editor who was offended. So, if you're reading this, Moni has a short memory and can't remember your username. Don't be put off by our demonstrative pushiness. Join us. We can always use involved editors.

Lambda Literary Awards
What can you do to help the project out? Be a wiki-fairy, on many levels. There are all kinds of articles that need help. Why, just this morning I removed those ugly wikify and cleanup tags from four articles at random. If you can put  around stuff, you can clean up articles. There's a list of articles that need attention at the top of the WP:LGBT talk page. Or you can start with the Lambda Literary Awards, where the goddess of my altar received a pioneering award, and was "reduced to rubble" by Katherine V. Forrest's wonderful speech. The 20th ceremony of the Lambda Literary Awards, which celebrates LGBT literature, took place in West Hollywood on May 29th. The page needs to be updated with the new winners, to be found on the official website.


 * valign="top" |

Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Arthur C. Clarke and Bernard Montgomery
Why on earth would someone want to delete material about homosexuality? 'Tis truly a mystery. But these embattled articles have some random evil gnomes removing information that places these folks under our queer umbrella. Help us keep an eye out for the deletions. Take a peek at the articles, familiarize yourselves with the info, and be handy with the undo function in the article history. If tempers flare, take it to the Hall monitors and let them sort it out. Best solution is to make sure your sources are immaculate.

This month's Wiki stars
This is what I get for opening my big fat mouth and suggesting the newsletter should be revived. Here I am writing it. So, to pat self on back (*cough*) Mulholland Dr. became a featured article in May. This is A Good Thing since it is my personal declaration that there is no such thing as lesbian porn. I don't care what Benjiboi says about the video collection at goodvibes. Instead, we have hot women who connect on a deep, personal, soul-touching level, so this film should qualify as some of the skankiest porn available for lesbians. Plus, it's completely confusing and surreal! D'you think Laura Harring would care that the article is featured? I don't think so either... (Call me, Laura!)

Compulsive hoarding of templates
Once I saw a harrowing episode of Animal Planet's Animal Cops where this guy had, like, 250 cats in his house and it freaked me right out. I'm drawing a parallel between 250 cats and, well...three, really, templates in articles involving LGBT issues. Can we stick to one, maybe? In the aforementioned Harvey Milk's article there's a core LGBT template, a link to the LGBT portal, and a sidebar for LGBT rights. Jiminy! You'd think we weren't the folk to set industrial grey carpeting and track lighting in vogue. An LGBT footer was designed to link to articles of interest that aren't the aforementioned core articles. What do you think, can we have either an LGBT template for core articles, a footer for LGBT articles that are high profile but not core, or an LGBT rights template? As ever, anything's up for discussion on the WP:LGBT talk page.

The Violet Quill and magazines
Zigzig20s suggests we create an article on The Violet Quill, as it seems such a milestone in the advancement of gay/queer literature. Members of the Quill all have pages of their own (Edmund White, Christopher Cox, Robert Ferro, Michael Grumley, Andrew Holleran, Felice Picano, and George Whitmore). We need to find more info on the Quill per se to reference the page that we create. Perhaps Google Books - and libraries? - can help.

A number of magazines also need articles, perhaps most notably QW, LGNY, and Lesbian Feminist Liberation.

Mom's nagging for Pride Month
It's June, Pride month. Wear sunscreen, stay hydrated, get a designated driver, then go half-dressed in the streets find a girlfriend or boyfriend, or some homo who's standing there looking lonely and kiss 'em up real good. Remember, it all started 39 years ago when a bunch of drag queens just got fed the f*ck up by the cops raiding the bar and dragging them all out to the pokey again. Rock on, queens! Enjoy your celebrations. My town's is in October, and 200 people attend. I miss Denver.

Fresh faces to brighten our pages
Hey, I've seen you around! Sorry there seem to be so many—it's been a while. But we welcome you all: Cheezisyum21, Taineyah, Dustihowe, Avesta69, RachelSummers77, Vivekgopinathan, AMK1211, Staffwaterboy, Ted Ted, Joe5150, Leahtwosaints, Robapalooza, Arthomure, Confusionball, Affinity likely, PrinceOfCanada, Yobmod, Npd2983, Neagley, Bvlax2005, Bvlax2005, Rhullsf, Textorus, Kieran.casey, Tyciol, Meojive, Sappho'd, Bookkeeperoftheoccult,  Gaywarrior, Aujourd'hui, maman est morte, and Balin42632003.

It looks like we've picked up a lot of talent lately. We have no doubt you'll be making your indelible mark on LGBT knowledge as we know it, here at Wikipedia.

- In the immortal words of Miss Julie, "May all your Wiki days be bright, and may your Love Boat never turn into a Poseidon."
 * }

We miss you, Miss Julie, as well as all the others who have graced our project and are on wiki-breaks or just got fed up with all the nuttiness and went to live their lives. Get your stupid houses built and hurry up and come back. --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
 * valign="top" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%; " |
 * valign="top" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%; " |
 * }
 * }

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Peers in Boston
Dear Ms Parrish-Fan, Do you have a citation for this item? It tends to suggest that Mr Peers has taken up full time residence in a monastic community in Massachusetts, which hardly seems likely. Regards, Masalai (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (My apologies, incidentally, for not having previously got your name quite right. Are you in fact "Ms Carolyn Parrish Fan" or "Ms Carolyn Parrish-Fan"?) Masalai (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Or indeed, "Ms Fan"? Masalai (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Willibrord Society
An article that you have been involved in editing, Willibrord Society, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Willibrord Society. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lutheranism and the Deuterocanonical Books
Does Lutheranism have a view, or even a majority view, on the Deuterocanonical Books and the canon?

I know Lutheranism's view is not alaways the same as Luther's view and changes to Template:Books of the Bible‎ make it seem that all Lutheranism follow the Deuterocanonical Books as part of the cannon. -- Carlaude (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerical celibacy
I've responded to your discussion post here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clerical_celibacy#ELCA.2FELCIC I thought I'd leave you a message since your post is over three years old. -- Crushti (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Propitiation (Toronto)
A tag has been placed on Propitiation (Toronto) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Neelix (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Fidelity (Anglican)
A tag has been placed on Fidelity (Anglican) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Neelix (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Prayer Book Society of Canada
A tag has been placed on Prayer Book Society of Canada requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Neelix (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Integrity Toronto
A tag has been placed on Integrity Toronto requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Neelix (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II
Hello Carolynparrishfan, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. So, I though I would invite you to take a look. Any help would be much appreciated. Kind Regards     02:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin Bucer up for Featured Article Review
I just wanted to let you know that you can cast your vote of "support" or "oppose" to the Martin Bucer article as a potential featured article at Featured_article_candidates/Martin_Bucer. Thanks! --Epiphyllumlover--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  17:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Archbishop of Papua New Guinea"
Greetings to you again in Toronto from Brisbane, Australia. Someone has created an article "Archbishop of Papua New Guinea" and referred in it to the "Archdiocese of Papua New Guinea." In fact there's no such office and no such archbishopric. (That is of course RC terminology, not Anglican.) This I suppose calls for a merge proposal (not that I know how to do that) but in fact there isn't anything in the article that merits transferring into the article on the Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea (which is in fact an Anglican "Province" -- in the sense that the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of South India and so on are provinces of the Anglican Communion, but it is also only one ecclesiastical province as well, there being only one metropolitan). How do you think this ought to be dealt with? Masalai (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mariner's Church lawsuit
In answer to your questions, check out and. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

= "still plenty of "episcopale" church signs in QC" = Greetings again, Ms Parrish-Fan.

There may well indeed by plenty of "espiscopale" church signs in Quebec, but there are also plenty of "Anglican/Episcopal" signs in anglophone Canada.

Surely one doesn't need to advert to what is clearly an extremely informal explanation in such forums though.

Masalai (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Ms Parrish-Fan --
 * Oh yes, to be sure: and Anglican churches across the country display signs saying "The Anglican/Episcopal Church welcomes you."


 * I really don't think it signifies though, do you? (Really?) Masalai (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Carolynparrishfan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Andrew Hutchison -
 * 2) Jeannine Gramick -

ACNA
Hey. I have to challenge your interpretation of the source. The LA Times article says "Leaders of the new Anglican Church in North America said they took the extraordinary step to unify congregations and dioceses that had fled the American Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada over issues of Scripture." Again the Irish Times, "would bring together groups that have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada over gay issues and rebels who left decades ago over issues such as the ordination of women and changes to the Book of Common Prayer. Although the rebels are united in their opposition to gay priests and gay unions, they disagree on issues including the ordination of women."

However, I read over your revision and I can live with it. Happy editing. Ltwin (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You are now a reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. User:Carolynparrishfan (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Calmer   Waters  07:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatting Canadian electoral district articles
I am soliciting opinions on how percentages should be shown in electoral district results tables here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electoral_districts_in_Canada. Your opinion would be welcome. Regards, Ground Zero | t 02:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and sexual orientation
Thank you for your efforts to add to Christianity and sexual orientation, but I have again had to revert your addition. When you edit, please be careful to follow Wikipedia's policies against original synthesis, which prevent editors from drawing together disparate sources to make their own arguments. Your addition, which combined a source on transgender (that did not mention religion) with a source on religion (which did not mention transgender) to make the unsourced argument that the CDF statement is in line with psychiatric standards, is an example of original synthesis and is disallowed under Wikipedia policy. Please let me know if you have any questions. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Evangelical Church of the Deaf


A tag has been placed on Evangelical Church of the Deaf, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Sumanch (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/CCP


A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/CCP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ( ).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/People


A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/People requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ( ).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/TOP


A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/TOP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ( </tt>).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Vegan


A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Vegan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<tt> </tt>).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> In this issue...

- Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism