User talk:Josh777

Don't edit the Peeps Wiki too heavily. LOL ;)

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hi Josh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Brisv e  gas  P.S. Thanks for asking about signing up to the Christianity Portal. To do this, all you have to do is go to the talk page and click the "edit" link next to "Information." Add your name and we're off! Alternatively, you can just follow this link. Enjoy! As a member, you aren't obliged to do anything, but you could suggest new articles, pictures, biographies and scripture passages suitable for showcasing. If you have any questions about this or any other Wiki issues, feel free to ask me. Cheers! Brisv e  gas  07:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Lutheran Calendar of Saints
Why do you keep changing the Lutheran Calendar of Saints? The name of the Minor Festival on February 2nd is The Purification of Mary and the Presentation of our Lord, the name is in TLH and LSB. Also why do you keep adding links to articles that do not exist? User:Josh777 23:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jackturner3"

The change to the Festival on 2 Feb is to reflect the usage of the LBW which does not list the purification of Mary as being the primary emphasis. While I realize and understand that the SBH and LSB add her purification to the title, the LBW is more recognizable to a wider number of North American Lutherans and reflects something of a theological consensus between ELCA predecessor bodies and the LCMS since the latter did not pull from the LBW project until immediately before publication (if you look, you will see that they are even still listed as one of the publishers in the title page). Thus, as I stated, the LBW represents something of a broad consensus amongst North American Lutherans in terms of its production that even the TLH and the SBH did not enjoy, and is certainly not enjoyed by either hymnal project by the ELCA or the LCMS.

If it is felt for whatever reason that the verbiage of the LSB be given priority (exclusive or otherwise), I would suggest that an LCMS-specific calendar be written since my vision for the current page is that it reflect both the presumed consensus of the LBW and the nomenclature/format most easily recognizable to North American Lutherans. As it stands, I fail to see why the LBW should not be used since it represents the work of the LCMS/ELCA predecessors in cooperation whereas the new LSB is the exclusive work of the LCMS without consideration for usage in other North American Lutheran bodies (the same would hold true for the new ELW). Therefore, aside from updating the body of the article to bring the dates for specific commemorations/festivals into conformity with the new prayerbooks (and to properly designate their ranks where applicable changes have been made from the LBW), I see no specific reason to give either the ELW or the LSB preferential treatment in terms of nomenclature or verbiage. In short, the LBW represents the closest thing to a consensus on liturgical matters that North American Lutherans have ever had and since the article is designed to appeal to the widest variety of North American Lutherans possible, it should be preferred over either new or previous hymnal/prayerbook.

Furthermore, I keep re-adding the links to non-existent articles because it serves as a notice that these are things which should be researched and added to the articles on Wikipedia. Since having started the calendar project, several individuals who previously did not have an article or had only a stub now have full articles or have had existing articles significantly expanded, hence my rationale.

Hope that serves to answer your questions.

IC XC

NI KA

WikiProject
-- Pastordavid 20:52, 22 March 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 20:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

Image:Elevation1.jpg
Hi. I noticed Image:Elevation1.jpg that you had uploaded awhile back. The source and licensing information that you gave for it is somewhat cryptic. Did you take this photograph or did you download it from someone's website? If you took the photograph, would you indicate that on the image page and remove the "fair use" tag? If you downloaded it from a website, can you indicate the source website and what, if any, permission you were given to use it? In order for Wikipedia to use the image, the author needs to explicitly release the image under the GFDL or another acceptable free license. If the image is from a website and there is no such permission to use it, then it probably needs to be deleted. --BigDT 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars
Please stop by and give your opinion on the two proposed barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David † (Review) 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Eucharist Picture
Hello, I had changed the picture hoping to more accurately represent what a Lutheran Eucharist service looks like. Most pictures that are out there are not of "high church" Lutheran traditions, and the Fiddleback chasuble and maniple I felt misrepresent the appearance of the rite in most of American Lutheranism.

The use of gothic vestments (which most liturgical Lutheran Churches utilize) is more accurate I felt, as well as the presence of lay and clerical assisting ministers in the picture, helps to show the viewer how Lutherans Celebrate. Perhaps it would be appropriate to have both pictures, rather than one over the other Let me know your thoughts.

Thomas Drobena, c.r.m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thespiano7 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Unspecified source for Image:Elevation1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Elevation1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 18:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Elevation1.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Elevation1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 18:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LutheranWorship.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LutheranWorship.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism