User talk:Rekleov

Sin
I appreciate your edits on the page for Sin; it gives us "more room" to maneuver, make distinctions, and work. Thanks...good job. KHM03 17:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've noticed that many pages are in dire need of dissection.  Far too many are a jumble.  Let me know if there's more I can do to help. --Rekleov 15:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Means of Grace
This is a page which could use some attention by someone with a knowledge of Lutheran theology. KHM03 13:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will take a look.  --Rekleov 14:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Rekleov. Since all of the branches Christianity have held that sacraments are not mere symbols, except the Zwinglians, the Anabaptists, and others with a similar theory, I wonder if it might be more convenient to say something like this:
 * Except for those who concur with Zwingli's theory that the sacraments are mere symbols, all branches of Christianity have held that the sacraments cause their recipients to receive divine grace.

In putting it that way, Zwingli and the radicals, including many Reformed, along with most of vanilla evangelicalism, are out of the circle of the norm. What do you think? Otherwise, it seems to me that the list could get kind of long, and would become confusing when Mormons, the Church of Christ groups, and others are added to the list. What do you think? Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah...we don't want to have a laundry list. The problem comes with the Reformed --- there are some, those closest to Calvin, who find that there is a Sacramental presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper (though they disagree with Rome, Wittenberg, and Constantinople on Christ's *physical* presence in the LS); then there are the Zwinglians and those effectively Zwinglian --- or who simply embrace the sacraments as mandated, or as expressions of unity or somesuch.  If it weren't for the first group of Reformed, it would be easy.  Hmmm...  Where do you want to put this in the article?  That would definitely make a difference.  Thanks!
 * I'm not sure, but I was thinking that it could replace the sentence where it occurs:

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and Lutherans hold that sacraments are not mere symbols, but cause their recipients to receive divine grace.

Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. The only phrase I'd like to massage, however, is the "cause their recipients..." --- do they cause them to receive grace, or do they actually bring grace along with them?  I think on the Grace-delivery side would vote for the latter.  --Rekleov 18:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. The wording of that can be improved. "God actually confers his grace to ... by means of ... " that sort of thing, would be closer.  Mkmcconn (Talk)  19:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lutheran Eucharist
I have heard it said that Lutheran Eucharistic theology is best termed "ubiquitarianism", not "consubstantiation" (a term which you also refute). Have you heard the term ubiquitarianism used? I think I read it in Stookey's book Eucharist, but am not certain. KHM03 18:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No...I have not heard that term used. I will have to look into it.  -Rekleov 01:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Luther Page Rewrite Discussion on
See the Luther page talk. --CTSWyneken 01:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Real Presence
Drboisclair and CTSWyneken have been making a lot of edits in the "Lutheran" section of this article. It all looks good to me (albeit, a United Methodist), but I thought you'd enjoy a peek at the latest edits. KHM03 12:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther and the Jews
Isolani, could you do me a favor and look in on the Talk page of Martin Luther and the Jews? I'm trying to keep this page balanced and accurate. It is proving very difficult, since I'm the sole Lutheran voice here at the moment. Would you examine my posts and tell me if I'm crazy or unreasonable? --CTSWyneken 02:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Infant Baptism
I'll take a look. If I can find time to help, I will, although I'm a bit tied up with a user who only wants to make Luther into the source-of-all anti-semitism. --CTSWyneken 15:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

After a quick review, it seems that the overall content is OK. But I agree we could tweak quite a bit. Compared to the Martin Luther and the Jews article, this should be a cake walk to keep everyone happy. --CTSWyneken 15:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Luther Page Revert
Thanks for the help! Would you do me the favor of weighing in on the talk page? Of course, why do you want to get insulted like the rest of us? Happy New Year! --CTSWyneken 03:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have. Not in the most constructive way (yet), but as a call for argument rather than trying to bury folks under a mass of quotations.  We'll see what time I have to put in on this.  Thank you!  And a Happy New Year to you as well! -Rekleov 03:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (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

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
Hi. When you recently edited Chip Coulter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Triple, Major league and Double (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macintosh IIci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mb. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Malcolm Kendrick


A tag has been placed on Malcolm Kendrick, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. bonadea contributions talk 14:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Your comment on the deletion discussion regarding Malcolm Kendrick
Hi, there. To begin, your comment has been removed from the discussion page, as that was not the proper venue for your thoughts. You should have posted on the discussion's talk page. You are welcome to put your comments there. In response to those comments, however, what you're asking for is not possible. The user in question is still on Wikipedia, just not under that specific name. But, even if they were not still here, their contributions would still stand. There is no action backed by policy to "undo" their contributions, simply because they do not (if we're speaking hypothetically) have an active account. Striker force Talk 20:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note, and the explanation. I have moved it to the talk page. That said, people being able to move from account to account is an avenue for subterfuge and cowardice, and is not in the best interests of an enterprise such as Wikipedia. Rekleov (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that you strike the use of "cowardice", per CIVIL. To the subject at hand, however, I would argue that you are wrong. Perhaps if the outing of a Wikipedia user in an attempt to reveal their offline identity hadn't been encouraged on Dr Kendrick's blog - specifically, in the comment section thereof - SFB would still be editing under that identity. Personal safety takes precedence over anything that happens on Wikipedia, any day of the week. Striker force Talk 20:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I used the term "cowardice" as a potential problem; no one is being or has been accused of it — this is a problem in the Wikipedia rules, nothing more. As for outing someone, that was also not suggested — only that someone can skip from account to account, leaving behind accounts that might have been used to tout controversial or unpopular opinions, so as to keep from having comments on their behavior left for them to see, or patterns of edits left behind for people to follow. I do not care who the person is; what I care about is whether or not people can use accounts for certain ends and then move on, with no one else the wiser when they make future edits under another name. That is a problem equal to sockpuppetry, though I do not know if it has a name attached to it or not. Rekleov (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that you were calling for an outing. I can't prove the identity of the individuals that did it on Kendrick's blog. What I am saying is that the attempts to out SFB, which as I understand it were successful in outing someone (not sure if it was the right person, are reasonable grounds for the rename as it has happened in this case. Striker force Talk 21:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrea Cunningham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RSA ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Andrea_Cunningham check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Andrea_Cunningham?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)