User talk:Epiphyllumlover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Epiphyllumlover, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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



Please stop by and give your opinion on the two proposed barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David (Review) 18:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mayerhoff.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Mayerhoff.JPG. The copy called Image:Mayerhoff.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 03:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

HST of X-tian Views on Contraception[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that the motivation behind my edits was to remove the impression that Anglicanism is a Protestant denomination in the same way Lutheranism is; as I would assume that you know, Anglicans consider themselves both Protestant and Catholic...the "middle way" and all that.

To the extent that the article has or had a RCC POV to it, I agree, but that had nothing to do with myself or any of my edits. I used the phrasing "Other Christian denominations" only because the article had all denominations, including Anglicans, under the title "Protestant", it was not any attempt to make Catholism the standard and other denominations some lesser collection of subgroups.

Also, do any other denominations have a magisterium in the manner that Catholics do? Again, that was there when I first started work on the article, the words are not mine, but as far as I know, Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians come the closest to Catholics in terms of leadership. And the difference is still rather stark as that the RCC has a Pontiff with supreme jurisdiction over every RCC in the world. Where as in the other two churches, each country's Presiding Bishop oversees their own Church with no international interference.

Of lesser importance, do you object to Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterians being listed under a "Protestant" label? They all are self-indentifying Protestants, are they not, even the most high-church Lutherans? Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites are all Protestant to the extent that they descend from Anabaptist traditions, do they not?

And do they think someone can do something about those poor Mormons. I read the talk history and I understand the Nicene creed point, but surely they deserve better than just "other".


SacredSpermWhale (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Well done! What a clever Lutheran. Quand le jour se lève les ténèbres s'évanouissent. (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Elimination of Antichrist as the Leader of the Western World[edit]

I find it somewhat disingenuous that the repeated removal of the "base of Antichrist" being the leadership of the Western World somewhat disturbing--it is repeatedly removed from the discussion - this interpretation of Holy Writ has become so pervasive throughout the world, that to omit these discussions must be viewed as editorial prejudice? Doug Krieger (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)kriegerdwmDoug Krieger (talk)

I am fine with a futurist explaination of the Antichrist in the article. In the past, I have added some futurist info--see the section in the article titled "Early Church". I deleated your paragraph because you violated Wikipedia:No original research by writing about the ideas you have developed in your own book; some other user or users messed with other text that was directly sourced and substantially changing the meaning. That rendered the old sources untruthful to the new text, so I had to undo their changes. If you want to add a dispensationallist section, I suggest you derive and source it from a scholarly journal published by a dispensationallist seminary.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Irresistible grace[edit]

Please lend your thoughts to Talk:Irresistible grace#Calvinist vs. Lutheran view. Cheers! --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Bucer[edit]

Hello, the Martin Bucer FAC was archived. In my opinion, this was closed too early. I have renominated it; would you please vote or leave a comment on the new FAC? See Talk:Martin Bucer and click on "leave comments". Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of {{ImageStackRight}}[edit]


Regarding the comment you made here: the {{stack}} template is the modern replacement for {{ImageStackRight}} and can be used for the same purpose. {{ImageStackRight}} is less flexible and is redundant to that template, hence its coming replacement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


I disagree with with about the Bible section in Lutheranism. Listing the orthodox view gives the impression that it is the view for all Lutherans, it is not. All Lutherans agree that the Bible is the Word of God, but there is much disagreement about what that means. KitHutch (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

From CRAZY TALK: A NOT SO STUFFY DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS published by Augsburg Books (of the ELCA), "The 'Word of God' refers to (1) Jesus, God's word to us (see John 1: 1-4); (2) the Bible; and (3) any spoken witness that the Holy Spirit uses to create faith ..." I think our disagreement is about what we mean the Word of God to be. Just because the Bible is the Word of God doesn't mean that everything in it is literally true; the Bible is filled with folklore, metaphors, poems, adventure stories, history, and other types of literature. While they are not all literarlly true, all tell us something about God and His interaction with His people. KitHutch (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CC vs RCC[edit]

I noticed your earlier opposition to the renaming of Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church, in case you're interested, a new debate has started about renaming the current wiki article "Catholic Church" back to "Roman Catholic Church", you can find the debate at Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Antichrist (historicism)[edit]

I think it's a good idea to have an entry on Antichrist (historicism) apart from just Antichrist; the first refers to a term found in Scripture and accepted in the canons of all Churches, while the second refers to a peculiar Reformation doctrine spread by Luther and Calvin which had its origins in the Western Schism of the Middle Ages. It seems better to arrange it this way, given that only a minority of Protestants still hold to the historicist interpretation, while most have switched to alternative views such as futurism or dispensationalism. ADM (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the Antichrist article had a substantial description of the history behind the historicist position, I hardly see the need for an article splice, given that the article is well under 100kb. I would much rather see a Futurist add to the history of the futurist position. I am not capable of doing this myself, given that I am ignorant of the Futurist viewpoint's history prior to the Schofield Reference Bible. Perhaps you could add it? In addition, the unique views of the Eastern Church deserve explaination, but likewise I'm not well read enough to write the section. Issues of undue weight are better fixed by adding more to the other points of view than by removing sourced material.
In your comment, you claimed that Historicism is a minority view among Protestants. I was under the impression that Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists tend to be historicist, while Baptists, Church of God, Church of Christ, and Pentacostals tended to be Futurist. While there are more Baptists in America than any other Protestant Church, when you look at at the situation globally, there are more Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists than Baptists, Church of God, Church of Christ, and Pentacostals.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Anglicans are not historicist, that is for sure, given that they have long had ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church. In general, any Protestant organization that engages in ecumenical relations with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity must have long abandoned historicism, because you can't reasonably dialogue with someone whom you believe to be the Antichrist. Given this information, the Lutheran World Federation isn't historicist, and neither is the calvinistic Baptist World Alliance, or the World Council of Churches for that matter. There are probably a minority of Baptists, a minority of Lutherans and a minority of Pentecostals who still are though, along with various non-trinitarian groups. Even if that does sound like a minority, it's still a substantial minority of people that adds up in the millions of adherents. ADM (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have a narrow definition of historicism. Historicism is merely the interpretation of Revelation as dealing with events throughout history, not just the end of the end-times. In contrary to your statement that those that dialogue with Rome cannot believe that the Pope is the antichrist (a claim made by some historicists), the Missouri Synod has dialogued constructively with official talks with Rome together with the LWF for over a generation now and the LCMS doctrine hasn't changed since then. Rome must be more tolerant of the view than it used to be.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This is because LCMS dialogue with the Vatican has been deliberately kept at a strict minimum by its conservative leaders, such as Gerald B. Kieschnick. For instance, the LCMS never did sign the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, as most Lutheran bodies did. I suspect that if the LCMS did sign the Joint Declaration and did participate in all the interfaith meetings such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America does, there would be strong pressures both from within and from outside the Synod to do away with the papal antichrist doctrine. ­I'm refering here to historicism as it has historically been understood by most Protestants, with all its associated symbology of the Man of Sin, the Beast, the Whore of Babylon, which have been deliberately used to target the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
So, would you advocate that all the other possibilities for the Antichrist should also be given a separate article, for example, "Antichrist (futurism)", "Antichrist (dispensationalism)", "Antichrist (orthodox)", "Antichrist (preterism)"? Who is going to write all these articles? Why would anyone visit them?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't advocate it unless a substantial amount of material was added on the subject. If it were, I would say why not?, but that hasn't beeen done yet. I am thinking about adding some content on futurism, so maybe it will be done eventually; the important thing is that the article is properly categorized, so there are enough categories that link to it. The historicist doctrine is arguably among the most notable of such teachings, and so it deserves special attention because it has deep roots that in the writings of the Reformers, as well as in the medieval period. ADM (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Luther's canon[edit]

Given that no Lutheran scholarly book that I've read believes Martin Luther advocated a closed canon for the New Testament, I find an article titled, "Luther's canon" preposterous. Specifically, Luther advocated an open canon, with a consideration of the distinctions between Homologoumena & Antilegomena, simply noting which books had been termed as such by the Church Fathers (although following Erasmus in not including 2nd Peter as antilegomena, given that he thought Jude was an extract of it and not vice-versa). Catholics often argue that Luther set a canon because this allows them to say he put himself over Scripture, but that is their POV about Luther; this article at the present is an essay for the Catholic point of view.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether Luther advocated a closed or open canon is probably a separate question, this article merely describes the canon that is attributed to Luther, and which is consequently used by Lutherans and others. Since the Lutheran canon hasn't really evolved since the time of Luther, I suppose that suggests that Lutherans haven't yet adopted an open canon and have essentially stuck to what they believe is Luther's canon. ADM (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Syncretistic controversy[edit]

I don't think the content of syncretistic controversy should be fully included within the article syncretism because it contains too much specific information, as opposed to the much broader phenomenon of mixing religions and beliefs together; this peculiar Lutheran affair happened centuries ago, in the 1600s, and so it should be treated as a primarily historical matter that occured in a very regional context, i.e. between Protestant churches in Northern Germany. ADM (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


Barnstar of Indulgence.png The Barnstar of Indulgence
For your many contributions on Lutheranism-related articles, I award you this beautiful Barnstar of Indulgence! Shark96z (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

An individual does not speak for a whole[edit]

Please revise this change, it hardly seems like a theological statement has been made by this organization. One official has doubted a sentiment; that is not 'approval' of the sentiment. Plus the 'approval' mentioned is a supposition by one person, the mentioned McAllister (in last paragraph quoted below).

"Oh you're not quitting," she said, waving her hand dismissively. "You haven't lost your faith."
"Um, yeah I have," McAllister said. "This is for real."
The bishop shook her head. For the church elders, McAllister's revelations simply did not compute.
"They're either in complete denial," he says, "or they're completely comfortable with the idea that they have a pastor who's a fraud, as long as he puts asses in the seats."

There's so much wrong in going from this passage to your statement. Probably you should remove the change entirely. Shenme (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The section I edited was referring to the diversity of positions within the ELCA--not their official positions. Actually, many Christian scientists believe in atheistic evolution along with theistic Christianity. If you read the scholarship in the science and religion field there are different schools of thought; the "theistic evolution" position only encompases the "cooperation between religion & science" camp. There are many that instead feel that there is no place for God in science and that God did not direct or influence evolution in any detectable way. However, I didn't have a specifically ELCA reference for it (until a new study that I am anticipating comes out in perhaps half a year or so). So I had to use the Psycology Today reference. I edited it to reflect that he is a "former" pastor.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Christus austreibt.JPG[edit]

File:Christus austreibt.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Christus austreibt.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis; the image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Christus austreibt.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move; this bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page[edit]

Hi there. Discussion between September 2007 and December 2008 is now archived in Talk:Lutheranism/Archive 4. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for adding the Lutheran use of efficacy to efficacy. I watch that as a user of the other terms and am interested to learn one I hadn't known. I find the language unfamiliar and hard to navigate. For example, Scripture, capitalized, must be something more specific than scripture, but how would a reader like me know what is meant? Can we link some of the specialized terms to appropriate other articles? Then I'd be better able to understand what's written and might have more suggestions.

One suggestion right away is that the reference numbering should be one number per source. If it's a list of five references for one topic, each gets its own ref and /ref tag. Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on this. I'm not opposed to capitalizing Scripture--it might even be useful in distinguishing between the general concept and the specific set, it would be great if it could be capitalized and linked to a section of an article that was specifically about what Lutherans consider Scripture. Your list of other terms to clarify and/or link looks really good.
I meant to say one source per number, not one number per source. Does that make sense now? --Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent moves[edit]

Information.svg Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name; this is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page; this both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Americanman095 (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

translation impossible?[edit]

There is a discussion going on whether the name of that German church body can be translated or not (it appears like this on the english pages of this church's homepage). One user changed the name of this Church (actually a federation of several Lutheran, United and Reformed churches) and it's regional member churches to the German form because he says their names can't get translated. so the article on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria now appears under its German name because he says the "concept" can't be translated into English. Please go to the discusson page of the Evangelical Church in Germany and have your say -- (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Dear Epiphyllumlover, I removed vandalism from your talkpage. See the history of the talkpage for more information. kind regards, Taketa (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:John Calvin#infobox again[edit]

Can you comment on this discussion on the John Calvin article-- and placing an Template:Infobox theologian there? Thanks. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging pages on The Beast[edit]

I have been doing some work on The Beast (Revelation) and have seen the article The beast (preterism) which you initiated.

Would you agree to merging these two articles. Dadaw (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png


January 2012

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Johann Gottfried Herder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • it did not exist except as the process of reasoning. This process was dependent on language.<ref>[Copleston, Frederick Charles. The Enlightenment: Voltaire to Kant. p. 145</ref> He also turned away

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process, it has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment; the arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here; the edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles; the welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

We do not use case reports. Refs says "They proved it with two examples." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Cross namespace linking[edit]

I reverted your edit to Lamp, as Wikipedia:Linking dos and don'ts says, "Don't link to user, project, draft, or talk pages in articles." - Donald Albury 00:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

John Adams[edit]

Hello. I noticed an addition you made to the John Adams article. There are two things I would like to say about it. Firstly, when you added your content and source, you put it directly in between already existing content and its citation, failing to copy the citation to the end of the content that existed before where you added the new material; this can lead the reader to erroneously believing that the content that existed previously is actually verified in the source that you added, which would be incorrect. Secondly, in the future, please use the Harvard citation style already in use in the article. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Too many woodcuts[edit]

Please stop spamming these appalling-quality images everywhere - they wouldn't be very attractive nor instructive even at better quality. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

PS I notice these images aren't even categorized under their subjects on Commons - that would be something useful to do, though ideally using versions that meet contemporary scan quality. And please do a line break, and ideally leave an empty line, after you add an image. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Years ago I was given a complete bound set of these woodcuts as a gift. They have long been treasured by more than just me.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, help to categorize them properly on Commons then! The quality of these scans is well below what we expect. In some cases there seem to be better versions on Commons, which you have ignored to add these very low-quality dark ones, but adding so many images exclusively from a single source amounts to WP:SPAM, and does not help the reader. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that it was spam or should be considered as spam. In addition, not all of the ones I recently added were even from that particular artist, and one of the ones from that artist was a drawing, not a woodcut. As far as quality, years ago I added one from one of my bound volumes that was a higher quality. I re-added that one; the existing quality is not that exceedingly low, though. Many of the higher quality resolution ones have margins and captions left in, if you want to edit those, you are welcome to.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I checked and noticed you were editing at the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse page. That woodcut in particular gave me pause because it was yellowed. I picked it anyway because it was not over-exposed at least like the one from 14:51, 13 December 2008, but it still seems to be lower quality than most of the Commons page von Carolsfelds. If you want to delete it on that objection, I will not object.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I left it, as I thought it was one of the better reproductions, & good as an image. NB it's about x4 more bytes than most of the others. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I've watched other reverts of your edits. Partially because of WP:SANDWICH which I presume you haven't read, partially because of adding more than one image by the same source. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages; 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.)

Nude photography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Collateral
Prostitution in China (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Collateral

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Institute of Lutheran Theology has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Institute of Lutheran Theology. Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Serge Maschewski (February 7)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time; the reason left by Kvng was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
~Kvng (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Epiphyllumlover! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~Kvng (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Institute of Lutheran Theology has been accepted[edit]

Institute of Lutheran Theology, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Re:File permission problem with File:Chancel of Trinity Lutheran Church on Easter Sunday.jpeg[edit]

Dear User:Epiphyllumlover, thanks for your message on my talk page. I did not actually take the photo myself although the photographer did supply similar photographs that had their licensing information completed properly (see File:Chancel of Trinity Lutheran Church on Holy Saturday.jpg used on the Holy Saturday article, for example). If you provide me with a reminder around Palm Sunday, I can probably get one of that church's chancel on Easter Sunday. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vicarius Filii Dei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellarmine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]


Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lutheranism to Efficacy (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s); when copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The material you refer to was authored by me originally from years ago. I had written it for both articles, it came from the Efficacy page's own history. It was removed on the Efficacy page, a long time ago, but recently I tried to add it back, but this was quickly reverted due to scope of article issues. (I think possibly one phrase was changed by another user on the efficacy page many years ago, but other than that it was mine.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cuius regio, eius religio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peace of Prague (check to confirm | 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) 09:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Music of the Reformation[edit]

I like the idea of the navbox, but can you make it a bottom one? That's the usual place, compare {{Lutheran hymns}}. If not, please make sure the navbox title isn't larger font than the article title in the infobox, it looks too attention grabbing at present ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought about it. Years ago I made the Lutheran History templates that way. A major reason I didn't do it this time is that I would like followers of the "Reformation" navbox to see it as a continuation of the one they have.
I had serious reservations about putting the sidebar navbox on the ones that have the Lutheran bar type navboxes. It gets excessive. For now I will move them lower so that they are less inconspicuous, but I won't be offended at all if you remove them completely from the ones that already have a bar type navboxes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Understand. I wasn't even aware of the Lutheran side bar, but would say the same for that one: should be at the bottom, is much worse attention-grabbing-wise ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
It is possible to make them smaller by deleting the |expanded="something" part--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I know nothing about side nav-boxes, or nearly nothing. I know that in bottom navboxes, you can have the whole thing collapsed, and for Lutheran hymns, I always do that. (When there are 2 or more, all are usually automaticcally collapsed.) - Side navboxes are still on some operas, such as Rinaldo (duplicating - and hidden on top - what a bottom navbox also has), but I prefer infoboxes in the position, such as Carmen (which has two bottom navboxes, one intentionally open). A navbox is there to navigate away from an article, and why would you want to do that when you just entered? - Nutshell: side navboxes look old-fashioned to me. In a Lutheran hymn, the infobox has (or should have) a link to that article right below the title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have set them to be auto collapsed. So if you want you can go to the article which has a navbox and collapse it simply by removing the |expanded="something" and leaving only the }} at the end, but I organized them so it is smaller anyway.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


In you history of hymnody, I am not happy with the image placement. Images should normally be right, left only when the subject looks right, and even then not when headers are "pushed" out; when more images are wanted than can be easily inserted that way, a gallery may be the choice, compare Unionskirche, Idstein. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If I had a shorter image for Gregorian chant that would really help. If one were to do galleries, it would need to be multiple small ones like on the Protestantism page where each one has three images. I will move the St. Cecilia one down below the header right away.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Lutheranism at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1500sProtestantwomen[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:1500sProtestantwomen has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Lutheranism article[edit]

I think I have removed all of the html formatting from Lutheranism. Could you run your bot on the article again to see if there is any I'm missing? Thanks for alerting me to this issue.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There were a few minor issues, but I fixed them and removed the cleanup tag. Thanks for your help with this! -- Beland (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lutheranism[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Lutheranism at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lutheran Indian Ministries (March 5)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time; the reason left by Hell in a Bucket was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Template:Deism sidebar[edit]

Was deleted, but I’ve started it over, if you’re interested in doing something with. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

2018 Met Gala[edit]

It seems there is a problem in attributing to "traditionalist Catholics" (as a whole) what in fact can only be cited to some traditionalist Catholics and only of the dissident variety. (The article makes clear that there are not only individual non-dissident traditionalist Catholics but even organizations of traditionalist Catholics "in good standing with the Holy See".) It is also out of place to mix up with the typical problems that traditionalist Catholics have with "developments of the Catholic Church's teaching and practice" the problems that they have with what you call "the more liberal-aligning dissident Catholic groups". Perhaps you could revise the article to make the distinction clear. Naturally, it is inevitable that one extreme will criticize the opposite extreme.

As for the 2018 Met Gala, you yourself consider that "probably most non-traditionalist Catholics would be offended too" by the style of dress (or undress?) by which certain celebrities won publicity through their attendance and which Cardinal Dolan said may have indicated poor taste. The linking by the National Review of the Gala function with the vestments loaned from the Vatican for the 2018 Met exhibit, not for the 2018 Met Gala, would in Wikipedia have attracted an immediate "citation needed" or "original research" tag, it could be pointed to as an example of falsehoods about the Holy See on the part of some traditionalist Catholics. I do not believe that "incorporating it broadens the traditionalist cause", as you say. Rather the contrary. You may therefore wish to remove it, since you also say: "Removing it helps to simplify the article as it is a tertiary issue" (I would say "a secondary issue"), especially under the heading, "Traditionalists' claims of discontinuity and rupture". There are many museums (including, perhaps, the Vatican Museums) that exhibit particularly artistic liturgical vestments of the past. I leave it to someone else to remove it, and certainly will not object if you are the person who does so. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining about the gala vs. the exhibit. The exhibit itself seems intended to provoke Catholics, too, and was criticized, such as in this article: review-of-heavenly-bodies-exhibition-at-the-met-the-fashion-of-this-world-passeth-away. For now I will remove all of it, and see if anyone objects.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!OlJa 19:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Move made without consensus[edit]

The move from "Proto-Protestantism" to "Pre-Reformation movements" was made without consensus.

In the explanation for the move you stated, "It seems that the term "Pre-Reformation" is closer to what Epinoia would prefer."

This is a misrepresentation as what I actually said was:

  • "I feel this article...should be called Proto-Protestantism"
  • "I don't see why the article needs to be renamed"
  • "my inclination is to leave the article as it is"
  • "my inclination is to keep Proto-Protestantism as the article title"
  • "Proto-Protestantism is the best description as it states most clearly and succinctly what the article is about" - Epinoia (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I understood that you preferred the proto- name, but this was my estimation as to what your second-best choice might be based on your comments to the other names I put out. I stand corrected on that; as for consensus, Daask and Rosguill both put out comments opposing the proto- name, which would make consensus three-to-one against it. I will message them and see if they approve of pre-Reformation movements. If the responses come back as a tie or a majority against, I will move it back to "proto-" myself. I will also message Dan and Grassynoel, who previously commented on the talk page, although their positions are unclear.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- please note that Wikipedia:Consensus says that consensus is not a vote - Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion states that, "decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule" - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY states, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy" and decisions are based on "consensus—not voting" - Epinoia (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Since I already messaged them, I'm going to wait and see what they say anyway.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Anthony Bliss for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anthony Bliss is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bliss (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion; the nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TSventon (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Bliss[edit]

Hi Epiphyllumlover, I edited the article to keep the subject of the article as Anthony Bliss (died 1815) as I was unsure if there is any guidance on changing the subject of an article from one individual to another of the same name (or now two of the same name); the attached wikidata entry has date of death 1815. Incidentally, I am open to the possibility that either Anthony Bliss could prove to be notable, but I hope that the second discussion will be able to clear up the confusion from the first one.TSventon (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

While I (and others) were willing to overlook the first issue you created at Criticism of the Catholic Church, and scores of other articles, that you did similar twice—while evidencing in your WP:SPA contributions at Lutheranism and Lutheranism-related articles that you do know how to correctly create content on Wikipedia—indicates that you may have a WP:COI and should not be editing Catholic topics. I hope not to see this kind of problem again from you. Please review WP:COI, WP:LISTEN, and WP:DISRUPT, and consider whether you are able to edit neutrally or need help in avoiding pages where you cannot avoid COI or POV; the amount of cleanup work your blunt force abuse of templates has generated for others is unappreciated, and as someone who has been editing as long as I have, you should know better by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I spent a number of days waiting for consensus to split the page after you ignored the existing consensus and reverted it. Now you are ignoring it; but I suspect that because you are anti-social, the other editors who formed the previous consensus with me are staying away. Possibly you didn't give them a chance; quickly blanking a page an all that, I don't know.
I showed willingness to discuss individual issues to claim up whatever faults remained, as demonstrated yesterday on the talk page. As for POV, my main offense you cited on the other page was transcluding from other articles; you can't blame me for POV on that.
If you really believed in the rules you claim to represent, you would not frequently use ad hominem attacks, assume bad motives, (or WP:Hound as you did earlier this month on the Lutheranism page).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the WP:LISTEN part of WP:TEND. There was zero initial consensus; the first damage was yours and yours alone. On the second incident, repeating for the nth time, the problem is not that there was a split (although you did not have the consensus you claim to have had even for that split); the problem is your blunt force and irregular use of templates and piped links to spread a POV, which you clearly have as a Lutheran SPA.

Also, you have now issued a personal attack.

At any rate, the point is, please stop the disruptive editing, and I suggest you avoid Catholic topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yawn. Any admin can follow what is going on and can see who is attempting to obey WP policy and who is not.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I welcome improvements relating to Criticism of the Catholic Church. I would caution against attributing character traits to individual user accounts. Lots need to be improved, and contributions are welcome. About the split of said article, however, I'm not sure that makes things more accessible for the readers. Are we sure there was consensus for that? There seem to be some objections to this, isn't? PPEMES (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lutheran Indian Ministries (May 25)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time; the reason left by Bradv was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
bradv🍁 05:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lutheran Indian Ministries (May 26)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time; the reason left by MRD2014 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
— MRD2014 (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of the Catholic Church[edit]

Noted with thanks. I will keep monitoring this article MainBody (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Lord Jesus Christ, True Man and God) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Lord Jesus Christ, True Man and God.

User:Rosguill while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

For Template:R from alternative language, the parameter ordering is 1=redirect language, 2=target language

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Christliche Dogmatik.JPG[edit]


The file File:Christliche Dogmatik.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible canvassing[edit]

It seems that you may be canvassing by notifying certain editors with whom you have a relationship of disputes on Talk Pages in which those users are otherwise not involved. You seem to have done this recently here: and here: The Wikipedia behavioral guideline states that you should only notify individual editors on their talk pages under the following circumstances:

  • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • Editors known for expertise in the field
  • Editors who have asked to be kept informed

Neither of the users you notified in the above links fit within the above categories. Please keep this behavioral guideline in mind going forward. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your statement "Neither of the users you notified in the above links fit within the above categories."--Hyperbolick is known for both the second and third of these, although with the third I was mistaken in retrospect and intend to remember it for future reference. Moreover, I would have been fine no matter what he voted for, nor did I know what to expect of him.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The notification to Display_name_99 was so that he could get a good idea of what bad behavior in this corner of WP looks like. I did not/do not expect that he will do anything with that article. Notice that I alerted him to an archive talk page, not an active discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions on abortion-related pages[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

MastCell Talk 23:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Search boxes on templates[edit]

Reverted one and I see there are more going up, it seems like a lot of coding and work went into this, but I would think this major addition should be presented at the template guidelines page. And I guess I'm not understanding what it does, as each page of Wikipedia already includes a search box. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The topical search boxes are intended to help a reader find articles related only to a specific subject. They do not search the entire Wikipedia due to the pre-loaded text. Most of them use the deepcat function to search terms only from articles within a particular category, along with subcategories. Unfortunately, many categories are too big, with too many subcategories for the search engine to handle them all, or too small for a search feature to be more useful than just browsing. However, if the template is large enough the list of articles having a particular template can be used in lieu of the category. Yesterday I went searching for topics that could possibly work and added as many as I could. I got the idea from the template used here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Further_reading; this one uses a prefix to generate a list related to a specific topic. I have not found an appropriate place for that strategy on Wikipedia yet. I understand that this is a bit of an experiment as I learn how readers/editors use them (or not, if they are inappropriate). Several have already thanked me, you are the only one to have removed them so far.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)