User talk:Ltwin/Archive 2000s

Victory World Outreach Center
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Victory World Outreach Center, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Victory World Outreach Center
Victory World Outreach Center, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Victory World Outreach Center satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Victory World Outreach Center and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Victory World Outreach Center during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply about Magnolia, Bennettsville, South Carolina
The article looks fine now. jj137 ( Talk ) 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Unhindered
The article Unhindered has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Iowa Band
Delighted to see a Pentecostal commenting in Talk:Iowa Alliance for Reformation. What do you think of my proposal? If nothing has happened within a couple of weeks, I shall probably do it myself. But whereas I could only prune the article savagely, you may be able to add extra information. If you are more interested in the current Alliance, fine, you are probably a good person to be able to assess their notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, but I had no particular faith in you. However I did have hope. Seems my hope was too optimistic, so all that abideth is charity! Whilst we must be charitable to these five men (and you are probably right there), the Wikipedia criterion is notabilty. Be bold (another Wikipedia motto!) go ahead, edit the page - it can always be reverted if necessary. I fear that if you do the job properly and cut out all the POV and the irrelevant stuff about the Iowa Band, the article will crumble to dust in your hands and you will be left with &hellip; the name of the Alliance and nothing else. Try it! I have also posted a request here so hopefully something will come of it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I think you put too much faith in me. Sure I agree that the current article is really screwed and maybe your plan would be best at least until we can accurately judge the two groups. I could probably help out with removing the unwikipedia-like references and material, but I really don't know anything about this group (maybe it's because im not from Iowa lol). But what I do get from this article is that this is a group of people with very loose connections with the Iowa band, might not be any at all. Also I think I read somewhere that there are only 5 of them? I don't think that just 5 men could have too much influence. But anyway if you think it would be a good idea to go ahead and edit the current page too make it sound more npov i'd be willing to do it.Ltwin (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Greater Grace World Outreach
Thank you for your involvement with editing this page and your interest in having a consensus reached in this article so the block can be lifted and the article to be brought to some sort of consensus. I was brought in by a request on the Christianity Project page to have someone review the article. I have absolutely no former knowledge of GGWO, nor any particular bias. All I can tell you it in its current state, it looks like an absolute disaster (both the article, and the organization as a whole). My hopes is to help bring the interested editors to the table on the talk page to resolve the conflicts and have the page properly created/edited. Please take a moment to go over to the talk page and review my most recent postings. Also do no be alarmed as your earlier comments/posts were refactored and archived (there is a link available on the page to the archive). My post is only one of several which will hopefully help guide this page towards something everybody can agree is appropriate. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lakeland revival
I see you've put the page under construction. You go! All the independent reliable sources I found in prior versions or by link following and logged at Talk:Lakeland revival are already listed there in citation templates, should you wish to use them. GRBerry 23:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:United House of Prayer for All People
Apologies for that, with only a quick look, that previous edit seemed somewhat POV, which I did not realize until now. Sorry, and thanks for the note!  Marlith  (Talk)   04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

IPHC
Responding to an old message about the International Pentecostal Holiness Church: I guess I haven't logged on in awhile, and just noticed your message. I quickly took a look at the page and its seems that you have done a good job improving it. I will try to take a closer look when I have time. - Rlvaughn (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heading levels
It's a bit late, but regarding and  (amongst others): There should be no reason to use level 1 headings ( =Blah= ), and articles should at most have level 2 headings ( ==Blah== ). Level 1 headings match the style of the title of the page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nazarene
Why was the Protestant Church cat removed from the Church of the Nazarene page? thanks. Moonraker0022 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * oh ya, that makes sense but it seems a little litteral to me. There needs to be a cat for churches (denominations) within the Protestant umbrella. Moonraker0022 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying-up the Nazarene Missionaries article. It looks much better now.Far Canal (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember to keep your cool...
Even when an editor is behaving in a manner you believe to be tenditious or offensive, it's always best to take the moral high road and err on the side of being nice. Even, for example, when a material falsehood is put forth. It's better to be right and scrupulously polite. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Antiochis of Commagene
Hi there. Thanks for your interest on the above named article. The reason I created the article name Antiochis of Commagene, is it distinguish her from the other princesses of this name. There are another two princesses of this name from the Seleucid Empire. The information in this article is correct, that includes the facts on her tomb, she shares with her daughter and mother. I am happy the way I am written this article. If you can find anymore information on her, I am more than happy for you to update this article. You can check out the sources on this article that I have provided for the article, so you can read yourself.

Anriz 22 October 2008

RE: Charismatic Church of God
The think the article should be deleted. In hindsight, the church doesn't seem to be notable in New Mexico at all. Ottre 03:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lakeland Revival
I don't think it is obvious to everyone why there was a problem with Bentley's behaviour, and so it would be good to explain. Help me say it well, if you can. Hyper3 (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks- that sounds good. Hyper3 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a post-Christian world - I just think that think some of these things need spelling out. Hyper3 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pentecostalism in Canada
Thanks for responding - you can always report the official numbers and then say that you don't know how many other members there are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian Pentecostal Church
Hello seeing your vast knowledge in Pentacostalism, I would greatly appreciate your input here []. I have just created this article and I was hoping if you would take the time in incoorporating some information from Pentacostalism into this article since this church's doctrine and creed stems off of it in its entirety. I would greatly appreciate your input and some help in expanding the pentcostal beliefs into this article to make more informative, thank you Ninevite (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecolstalism
Thanks for your followup. Oneness Pentecost is very very simple difference from Trinitarian Pentecostal. There is a lot of debate about the right method of describing it but aiming at a page as concise as the Trinitarian page would be a laudable goal. In fact the Trinitarian page would be a great place to start, copy into a topic called New_Oneness_Page fix it to be OP, archive the Oneness Pentecostal page.

There are two definitively different subjects that people have tried to group together. Jesus Name Baptism and Oneness Pentecostalism. I believe that this is the result that most people baptized in the name of jesus are OP. Jesus Name baptism is simply people who believe they should be baptized directly in the name of Jesus instead of the Titles. There are many other groups and people that execute Baptism in Jesus Name other than OP people.

As the Trinitarian page states there is no direct reference to 3 persons in the bible. OP people simply believe that the Trinity is 3 manefestations of same god. They also believe there have been many other manefestations of the same god through time, for example the burning bush, and as God who walked with Adam in the Garden of eden etc.

On the Trinitarian page it says OP are Modalists, and then it goes onto to say that OP believe in "One Personage" which is simply a bad way to describe it. OP don't believe in the personage of god at all. God has a personality, but God is not a person, or three persons god is YHWH (I am that I am).

OP believe that God is One, and there are manefestations of God, but there are not "Persons of God" For example traditional Modalists would suffer to explain,

There is One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

OP totally believe and teach this. That Jesus is Lord he is the One God, who as it says in 1 Tim 3:16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

So OP draw from this conclusion that when God was Manifest in the flesh, that he progressed his relationship with Man from being a 3rd Party relationship of man-to-YHWH (I am that I am) to a first party (brotherly John 1:12) relationship of man-to-YHSWH. He became our Personal Saviour who died for our sins, as opposed to us offering a sacrifice of lambs and bullocks.

So when we refer to YHSWH or the Greek the Greek Ieasus (very few OP ever speak YHSHW or Ieasus except as the historical reference) or the English Name (Jesus) OP believe they are referring to the proper name of the One God that we should speak to him with.

OP would also use titles, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the hundreds of other titles found in the Old and New testament to refer to God. They would consider Hosanna, and Father equally valid Titles of God, whose proper name is YHSWH -> Ieasus -> Jesus.

You often would here a OP pray, "Heavenly Father..." and all the OP in the room would know he means Jesus as the manefestation of our Father and in that Fatherly relationship, and OP would not think there was a different person other than God.

I hope that all helps set the tone of OP beliefs.

DevonSprings (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am more than willing to improve the Neutral quality of the document as much as I can.

So you asked the question that gets down to the major factoring of trying to limit God to personage?

If Jesus was God, and the "Fullness of the Godhead dwelt within him fully, why did he pray to the father?"

How did Jesus talk to his Father. Was Jesus Talking to himself?

This is very very simple. Jesus was both Man and God. The father dwelt within him. The nature of God, the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit is not the nature of Man!

From John 14

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

--

Jesus the Man had the "father dwelling within him", in Jesus case it was "the fullness of the Godhead".

God is a Spirit, to communicate to God, you must believe that his and submit to that Spirit and pray to God. God is not flesh, when God was manefest in flesh, the fleshly man was praying to the Spirit of God.

Simple?

DevonSprings (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The nature of God versus the nature of Man. I too have long stopped arguing OP versus TP. And I agree we should definitly discuss the sameness of it all as opposed to the differences. I hope you take time to help me be clear in the OP Pov. The page when I read it was so confusing.

I think what I will do is spend a week or so and fix the 3 introduction paragraphs, then I will describe the Doctrine, then the History. All of the Doctrine today is described in "as opposed to Trinitarian doctrine" which should be one very small section, stating some of the differences and maybe the samenesses in the chart.

At the end of the day, OP describes the Persons as Manifestations, just like wording in 1Tim 3:16. Its just that simple.

There is almost no difference other then OP people don't have to spend multi-paragraphs describing how 3 is one. One is One, it just happens to be God so God can manefest himself however he chooses.

I appreciate your help and encouragment, may we pray each day that the work can be accurate, respectful and representive of what a OP person would say themselves.

The PAW was never part of the Assemblies of God and therefore never came out from them. The PAW is much older than the AG. The PAW was racially integrated in the beginning as was the Azusa Street Mission (Apostolic Faith Mission). Those within the AG that recieved the Oneness revelation were basically excommunicated by the AG. My grandfather was part of the Azusa Street revival. He knew SR Hanby and GT Haywood and others. He was part of the PAW in the very beginning. History has tried to cover the fact that the white brethren left the PAW soley over racial division. My grandfather, who was white, kept fellowship with both the PAW and the PAJC(later to merge with PCI as the United Pentecostal Church International). My grandfather founded the very first Pentecostal Church (Oneness OR Trinitarian) in the whole Tri-State. I have documents, letters, ect. that shows that much of Pentecostal history has been twisted to political correctness. Alas, who am I to change anything. But I am concerned about some historical aspects of Pentecostal history that is readily available but lightly being glossed over. One of these being that the PAW was never part of any other organization and that UPC was never the mainline Oneness group until the white brethren left PAW over racial predjudice.Connor1551 (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean when you say "is this page necessary." I assume you are referring to the OP article proper. There is another article titled Oneness Pentecostalism Doctrine. Perhaps the OP article could go a little lighter on the doctrine (and refer readers to the OP Doctrine page) and go more in depth in the history of the movement. BTW, do you think a separate article on OP Church succession would be an acceptable article? Thanks Connor1551 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is not about the Oneness Pentecostalism or Doctrine articles. Its about the Oneness vs Trinity article. Just asking if there really is a need for such an article? About OP successionism, Im not sure. Of course, this is Wikipedia and you can make an article if you want. Is there really alot of material on this subject? If not it might be better for it to be addressed in either the main article or in a section of the Oneness doctrine article. However, I know that alot of Baptist share similar views. That there were always Baptist in unbroken succession from the time of the apostles; however, I don't recall a separate article on it. However there is an article on the Great Apostasy. Before you make an article it might be better to discuss first on the Oneness talkpage just to see what other people think. Ltwin (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I had no idea there was such as article as Oneness vs. Trinity. I found it interesting but it doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic subject. Perhaps someone should merge it with the OP Doctrine article. As for the Church succession article, I was wondering if it might be something someone else would consider writing (it's called passing the buck ;) There are quite a few Church successionists in OP, although they may not call themselves by that particular name. Dr. Marvin Arnold founded an OP Church organization that is basically made up of Church successionists. Dr. Curtis D. Ward worked for some time with Dr. Arnold. Dr. Ward differed with Dr. Arnold on the nature of Church succession and proposed a very strict linear succession. He wrote a book on OP Church succession. Dr. Ward also wrote a book that teaches Church succession for Churches practicing glossolalia (which does not go into OP doctrine as the first book does). Chalfant has been quoted as a Church successionist also. Previously in the OP article every Tom, Dick, and Harry was listed in that section as successionists and none of them really were except for Arnold, Ward, and Chalfant. The article is much better but still leans a bit heavy on the doctrinal end as opposed to the historical end. It takes time. Keep up the great work! Connor1551 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that ONLY secular mainstream authors publishing through secular mainstream publishing companies be cited in the articles. Agciorg (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If acceptable I would like to work closely with you and DevonSprings on the OP article. There is a certain individual attempting to sabatage the article for personal reasons. I intend on completely going over the article and then share any need changes with you. Thank you. Connor1551 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Cloud Banking
G'day. These guys spammed the cloud computing article so I've warned them (uw-coi) and prodded the article. -- samj in out 19:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL I did not even notice that the creater of the article was named "mobilecloud". Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation on If Americans Knew
Hey... thanks for stepping in. A lot of editors run from I-P related articles like the plague, and for good reason. Look forward to what you have to say. IronDuke 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing much from other folks. What do you think is the way forward here? IronDuke  03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me that we were seeing some progress in the case of Prop 2, however, time has passed and since users that were previously interested have seemed to lost interest maybe you two can come up with something that you can both deal with. If not I'd say that Prop 2 or somthing similar might be the best route. Of course, the decision must be reached through consensus. Ltwin (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure... it's just... what if no one shows up to talk about it? I don't want to be a consensus of one. IronDuke  03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then you and Stn will have to be that consensus. I'm staying neutral, just here to help you come to some sort of an agreement. Though, users who have shown interest on this issue on the talk page may be asked if they are aware this discussion is going on, as long as its people who have commented in the past. Making those aware with no connection to the issue or only those who might support your views would not be appropriate as it could be construed as trying to be trying to game the system. Ltwin (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay... as long as Stn comes to say more, I guess. IronDuke  23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about CausalObserver, I wouldn't consider that an outside view, per se. Was there something else? IronDuke  04:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that was all. Ltwin (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not originally explaining my edits on the IAK discussion page. I have now done this.Flawfixer (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ltwin, can you enable your email? IronDuke 19:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Click "My preferences" at the top of your screen (right near where your watclist, etc are). Then there will be a space where you can enter your email in a box, which I think would be a handy think for a mediator to have enabled. Now, no one will be able to read your email address. What happens is that users looking at your userpage will have an option on the left side of the screen to "email this user." When they click that, they can send you an email, but they themselves cannot see your address unless and until you reply. You might want to make sure your email address does not identify your RL ID (unless it's too late for that) as a fair number of creeps do haunt the environs of WP. IronDuke 20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember reading this at the mediation cabal, at the time I didn't think I'd ever need to email anyone from Wikipedia. First time for everthing.Is enabled. Ltwin (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise
I have proposed a compromise for now consisting of taking out all negative & positive material and leaving the entry at the bare-boned facts. This seems like a reasonable compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flawfixer (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh of course. . . but you put the cart before the buggy. How is it a "proposal" or "compromise" when the proposal was never offered and the parties never compromised. This was you editing the article and ignoring my request for restraint. Ltwin (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit wasn't wrong, getting sucked in by Flawfixer is. If it's any consolation, the mediation didn't seem to really be progressing, anyway. I can't reach a compromise with myself. IronDuke 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

International Pentecostal Holiness Church
I'm interested in improving the IPHC article so it will pass a GA review. According to the review on the talk page its almost there. I can help with reliable sources - I've added a couple already and will add more at a later time. I also plan to add a graphic or two, such as a visual timeline with the start of the organizations and the date of their mergers. Lamorak (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey. Glad you are interested. I've done alot of work, but I've relied on the internet for most of the sources I've added and I've come to my limit on what I can find there. That would be awesome because reliable sources really are the one thing that is keeping it from GA. Ltwin (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Frank Sandford
Hey, nice work on the Sandford article. I've nominated it for GA status. There is one sentence that I took out that you put back in. Its not a huge problem, but why in an encyclopedia does this need to be mentioned?
 * "Sandford had, of course, not died as Elijah in Jerusalem, but as an unrecorded inhabitant of a Catskill village.[82]"
 * Thanks for nominating Frank Sandford for GA status. Once I got going, I felt I needed to write Sandford up as best I could because the few print encyclopedia entries about him were both short and inaccurate.
 * I also appreciate the improvements that you made in the article. I agree with virtually everything you did.  But I do think that final sentence helps remind the reader that Sandford never recanted his identification with Elijah, and it also helps explains why The Kingdom dwindled to curiosity status after his death.  As Nelson says, unbelievers saw Sandford's death as "irrefutable proof that the man had been a false prophet, the whole movement forced into admitting it had been based on a delusion." (423)

Well that's fine, but the qoute kind of sounds like it came straight out of the book not an encyclopedia. I think for an encyclopedia it would be better to say it how you just said it above. Ltwin (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision Collision
I will work on a few more cites as I get time. Thanks for being patient. I found this article some time ago and it was a morass of bias and intentional attacks on Pentecost ala History Channel/NatGeo (e.g. all Pentecostals are snake charmers who drink rat poison and practice witchcraft.) Okay I'm paraphrasing but not by much. I did a quick hack job trying to clean up the most egregious junk and point out the primary text, uncited facts, and opinion issues. But It needed a bottom up rewrite. Apparently it got one. Look like you've had a lot to do with that and I want to thank you for it. What I did was a patch but an ugly one and probably raised a lot of hackles not the least of which is that I go anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.48.224 (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank Sandford GA Review
Hi,

I have placed the review on hold as there are some issues which need sorting out. Another editor has decided to fail it, but as that is against procedure I will revert that in a moment. Please respond on the GA Review page at Talk:Frank_Sandford/GA1. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Anglican Province of America
I maintain that the beliefs of the so-called "new" anglican church are based upon beliefs that reach back to the 14th and 15th century. I have seen the literature myself. They quote a text from the 15th century and compare it to today's text. Yes, we evolve. We change. We do not believe everything that we believed in the 15th century, because we know better. The "new" anglican church comprises very, very old thinking. 76.119.148.224 (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What you "maintain" is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia which values neutral points of view and verifiability. The tone you wrote in and the way your contribution was written was not as a neutral commentator of verifiable fact, but as someone who was biased and against this organization. Its ok if you don't agree with this organization's views but you must keep your own opinions and viewpoints out of this. And this doesn't mean that you whitewash anything, only that in all things you must maintain a neutral point of view. Verifiability is usually achieved through using citations and references. Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. This means that you can't just place something in an article because you believe it or have discovered it yourself. You must take knowledge that has already been established from a source that meets Wikipedia's criteria and cite it properly. Otherwise anything you put on Wikipedia can be removed without any reason other than it was unsourced. If you have any more questions I will be happy to help you. Ltwin (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian Scientist
Hi Ltwin -- Thanks for your message. I'm confused. Why do you feel that my edits are in violation of Wikipedia's policy? Based on my own understanding of the C.S. church, they rectify serious problems in the entry's opening paragraphs. As it stands now, the article reads like a church publicity statement. Look forward to your response.Digger2009 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)digger2009

Church of God
You look like you're getting into an edit war, over simple editorial opinion. The revisions in question do not violate NPOV, they are not biased, nor are they irrelevant. The fact that the individual died for the very reason he was seperated from the church is information that readers, students, etc. might find quite relevant. I understand your concern, but in cases where a piece of information is "on the fence" you err on the the side of allowing the information, not on censorship. Especially when the information has to do with religion, and since you have publically identified yourself as a Pentecostal, your constant reverts give the appearance of protective bias, whether that is the case or not. However, since the individual in question died due to a practice that was condemned by the church, does it not serve to actually reinforce the church's position? Something to consider. As to your statement that the word "ironically" should not be used; it would, in any definition of the word, be considered ironic that the person who initiated the practice of snake handling would die of a snake bite. Again, this is a case of editoral opinion. You may dislike the editorial styles of other Wiki users, but that is not grounds for an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50%quick (talk • contribs) 01:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no bias at all. Yes I'm Pentecostal but that doesn't factor into my edits (at least not consciensely). The fact is that by mentioning that he dies from snake bite could in its own way be interpreted as "protective bias" in favor of the church. It doesn't really matter to me though. I'm happy to yield to consensus on this and I wont make an issue out of it. I can see how my actions are more editorial opinion and that it could be seen as forcing my views on others, but my reason for reverting was that I interpreted it as trying to insert information covered elsewhere and geared more toward providing distance from the snake handling then anything else. Perhaps I have overreacted. I wont revert it again, however, I don't see a particular reason why the word "ironically" should be there. Ltwin (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

CS article
Hi -- thanks for your work on editing the article on Christian Science.

The unfortunate fact is that the best source for citations to the article would come from religious scholars that probably don't frequent Wiki (as they are doing more scholarly things).

My own viewpoint (POV) is that Christian Science is only a new (non Christian religion) if we put in that category any religious viewpoint that falls outside a circle of orthodoxy.

Certainly, since Christian Science defines itself as a Christian religion (by name and by explicit statements by Mary Baker Eddy that she was a faithful follower of Jesus (and in her words, Jesus Christ, kind of making the point) -- hard to state that it isn't.

My alternate POV is that it is also defined by the philosophy of the Protestant Revivals of New England in the 19th century.

Anyway, again, thanks for your efforts. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At first I did not know what you were talking about or where you were coming from. However, after looking at the article I'm assuming you are thinking that I'm the editor who has added some comments saying Christian Science isn't Christian. I was not the person who made those edits and they have been reverted. While I may not agree with Christian Science in alot of areas and while some may consider them unorthodox, it is definitely a Christian movement and should be defined by Wikipedia as a Christian religion. Hope this clears up any misconceptions. Thanks for pointing out those edits.


 * I also see that you are relatively knew to Wikipedia? If so you may not realize that there is an edit history which you can use to see all the edits made to an article and who made those edits. Welcome. Ltwin (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Will look over the edit history to see if their are any references to journal articles on popular theology in New England in that period. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China (Pre-1911)
Huge article with lots of information, would like it to go on GA sometime. Can you help copyedit it? thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd be happy to as I have time. I havn't read it yet, but I can tell you by just looking at it that the lead section seems a little full. I understand this is inherently a large article, but if it can be trimmed just a little bit, it may not look so imposing if you know what I mean. I'll try to get to work on it either tonight of tomorrow. Ltwin (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgot?Teeninvestor (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhhm yeah actually I did. I'll start it tonight ok. Ltwin (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bible Way Church
Re: Your email. If there is a real-world consensus that there are now two distinct churches, and each church meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article of its own e.g. notability, etc., then by all means create two articles. If one or both churches do not meet the criteria to stand alone even if they are separate entities then there should be one article, or perhaps no article if neither stand-alone church meets the criteria for inclusion. 70.116.134.151 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ABCUSA
Peace, brother. Hey, I' m an inclusionist, and don't think people should have to go off Wikipedia to find an organizations basic beliefs. I'm all for putting as much info as Wikipedia as it can hold! If you can rewrite it better than they did, go for it.DavidPickett (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of this CfD
Please be aware of this CfD to rename Category:Universities and colleges by affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement to either
 * Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement or
 * Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Restoration Movement, and read and comment there if you wish. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Oneness Pentecostalism article
Thanks so much for repairing the recent vandalism to the Oneness Pentecostalism article. It's sad that folks have to engage in that kind of foolishness just because they don't like something. I'm not attending the Oneness church I had been attending when we last spoke (or any other kind of church, for that matter, right now), but I still want to see the articles on this subject become the best they can be. It's nice that you took time out to do that. Hope all is well with you, and thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming SBC resurge/takeover article
The article currently titled "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" will soon change its name. An earlier straw poll narrowed the choices to six alternatives, listed at: Talk:Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover (once this thread is archived, see here.)

If you wish to rank the names suggested there, please do so soon. Please put other comments BELOW rather than interpersed among suggested names. Thanks. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page SBC conservative resurgence
Please check to make sure your last addition made it to Talk:Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence. I saw it appear on the page log (seems like it said "Free advice" or something similar), but then I didn't see your comments. Maybe it is just a system timing issue. Afaprof01 (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked it. It's there, thanks. Ltwin (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Brad Pitt
Hey Ltwin, sorry to bother you, but I was maybe hoping if you can copy-edit Brad Pitt's article, as I'm trying to aim the article to Featured article status. This past June, the article failed its FAC, due to the article not having a good prose. A kind user copy-edited the article, but a second pair of eyes would be helpful. If you have time, I would appreciate your help a lot. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for me replying late, but thank you for taking your time and copy-editing the article, I appreciate it a lot. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish monarchy
Hello Ltwin!

I'm glad you have taken an interest in the Spansih monarchy page! I have to let you know I reverted your recent edits however as too much information was lost. I understand the desire to compare the Spanish monarchy page with the British monarchy page, but they are two different animals! As I read the British Monarchy artical, it is far more focused on the history of the British monarchy, while the Spanish monarchy article is focused more on  what the Spanish monarchy is, and how it operates in Contemporary Spain. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 04:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha! We're talking at each other at the same time! hehe. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 04:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lt, I have created a peer review request, you too can add your comments and critiques there. Follow the link at the top of the discussion page on Monarchy of Spain. This way we may get a cross section of opinions on where to go from here! ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 07:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello LT! Listen, on the Peer review page you made note that we have different opinions on formatting, but I think it may help if you could list what those may be so that we can brainstorm on them ok? It may also give other peer reviews an idea of what you were speaking on! They may agree after all! ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 03:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy of the United Kingdom
As you reverted my edits twice now without offered reason - not even a hint in an edit summary - I've started a discussion about the matter at Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Do please offer your input. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation and quotations
Wow! Is my face red. I should have double checked this first. I'm sorry I made a royal mess of the comma's in OP. The present style of punctuation just looks so awkward. If I would have used this style in college I would have never graduated :) Thanks for straightening that out.

BTW, you have done a GREAT job at OP. I was quite impressed. Rachida10z (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Some, including myself, have wondered about the extra spaces in some of the articles. For example the spaces between sentences are sometimes more spacious than necessary. Does tightening up the article either hurt or improve the article, or would such corrections serve only to appease the obsessive compulsive nature in some of us perfectionists? :) Rachida10z (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)