Archives

2000s 2010s 2020s

Hello@Ltwin: I wanted to first thank you for your creation of the 1552 BCP page and your other edits—excellent job! I also wanted to make sure that, since it seems like you’re the other person making BCP articles right now, we didn't accidentally overlap on work. I wanted to know if you're going to be producing a 1662 BCP page, as I was planning to produce one after I complete the 1962 Canadian BCP page. If you plan to do it, I'd prefer to leave it to you so I could work on pages for some other BCPs. Thanks and, again, incredible work! ~Pbritti (talk)18:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pbritti, thanks for the appreciation. I had thought about working on a 1662 page eventually, but only after completing the ones that came before it (1552, 1559, and 1604) if I can find enough information to give each its own article. So I have more than enough work right now. If you want to go ahead and create the 1663 article I would be thrilled 😁.Ltwin (talk)03:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding. When I’ve gotten to it, probably early April, I'll tag you to take a quick look! ~Pbritti (talk)21:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ltwin:: Hi! Since you're really the only consistent contributor on prayer book material right now, I was hoping to pick your brain about a couple questions:

• 1. What should we name my forthcoming article on the U.S. 1928 BCP? I favor retaining the nomenclature we've used elsewhere–"Book of Common Prayer ([YEAR])"–but we already have aBook of Common Prayer (1928). How do you feel about "Book of Common Prayer (1928, U.S.)"?
• 2. I intend to publish a quick series of independent pages better detailing the prayer book lineages of several smaller Anglican or Anglican-adjacent groups (theREC andKing's Chapel). Any preference for naming convention there? I favor "Book of Common Prayer (REC)", for example.

Anyhow, I wanted to express my gratitude, so here's a little something:

		Richard Hooker Memorial Barnstar
		Thank you for your diligence and commitment toWikiproject Anglicanism, as well as your general kindness! ~Pbritti (talk)18:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ~Pbritti (talk)18:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti:: Thanks for the barnstar! It does seem kind of lonely in the prayer book space right now doesn't it? That kind of surprises me because there is so much scholarship available about Anglican liturgy and I would have thought a Wikipedian would have filled in the gaps by now lol. In regards, to your questions:

• 1. Have you thought ofAmerican Book of Common Prayer (1928)?
• 2. I agree. Something like "Book of Common Prayer (REC)" makes perfect sense to me.

Ltwin (talk)19:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ltwin: It is awful peculiar, considering I have found rather extensive online communities that discuss the prayer books with rigor and regularity. In any case, I must admit my hesitancy on referring to it as "American" is largely founded on having encountered complaints that, in the broadest technical sense, "American" applies beyond the U.S. Also, as far as I know, italicizing the title would produce "American Book of Common Prayer (1928)" and mean a different titling convention from the 1979 (and 1892, when I finally get to it). Willing to discuss further and if you move the page post-publication I'll accept it unquestioningly. As for question 2, I'll implement when I start sometime next month. ~Pbritti (talk)19:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have to worry about too many complaints using "American" since it's widely acknowledged that American is a synonym for the United States. In regards to italicization,Template:Italic title allows you to pick and choose which parts of the title you want to italicize. I just think American Book of Common Prayer (1928) is a lot better style-wise than "Book of Common Prayer (1928, U.S.)".Ltwin (talk)19:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I’ll implement when I put it in the mainspace. ~Pbritti (talk)22:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiLtwin! The thread you created at theWikipedia:Teahouse,Splitting page with redirect, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can stillread the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, pleasecreate a new thread. See also thehelp page about the archival process.The archival was done byLowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered byMuninnbot, bothautomated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page).Muninnbot (talk)19:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got prior consensus on the talk page to change the referencing system perWP:CITEVAR?DuncanHill (talk)08:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:DuncanHill, I didn't think there would be any objections to it, but if you object I'll change it back.Ltwin (talk)08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--"Anglo-Saxon", already a misnomer (since it leaves out the Jutes and the Frisian), has become kind of a sus term in scholarship. "Old English" will work just as well--I hope you will consider renaming it. Thanks,Drmies (talk)03:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, thanks for the feedback. It's something to think about. Most of the books I've read have used the term "Anglo-Saxon" and that term is more consistent with the other titles used on Wikipedia for this period. I'm about to go live with the article (even though it's not yet where I want it to be), and I would be fine if there were a consensus to move it to a new title.Ltwin (talk)03:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a matter of developing consensus. I'll see if I can find some relevant discussions. I can tell you that when "my" own book (an edited collection) was going through the press (about three years ago), my co-editor and I decided it was too late for a wholesale adjustment, though I made probably two or three dozen silent redactions. So, yes, most of the books you will find on the library shelves will still use "Anglo-Saxon", but that will change; we have the white supremacists to thank for that. Thanks, and thanks for writing up important albeit esoteric material,Drmies (talk)13:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was your book on? I will admit a lot of my sources are older. It seems like a lot of the more detailed sources were written at least several decades ago.Ltwin (talk)13:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no need to admit anything: printed scholarship is conservative. There's some discussion inAnglo-Saxons#Legacy; the ISAS changing their name (toInternational Society for the Study of Early Medieval England was a big thing, prompted by esp. younger scholars (meaning younger than me!) and their newfangled blog posts, haha.This, byMary Rambaran-Olm, lays out a bunch of the arguments, but asthis piece byMary Dockray-Miller indicates, the association of both the field but especially the term to white supremacy was clear for a long time (here, in 1986.This article is quite insightful and has very useful links. Again,Mary Rambaran-Olm, on Medium but valid, andthis list of resources (for all relevant fields) is excellent. I metthis guy at a conference and he is where scholarship is going, so you will see this in years to come, and then it will percolate into Wikipedia as well; personally, I'd like to see that sooner rather than later, but I don't want to press the point and I don't want to tell you what to do. After all, we go by published sources and the pendulum hasn't swung over into the "Old English" side. Thanks, and again I appreciate the work you're doing.Drmies (talk)16:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ltwin. You added a reference for "Warren 1987" toHistory of the British peerage, but that work isn't defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the References section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCUActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords°18:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested. Thanks for letting me know. I will add it.Ltwin (talk)23:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ltwin. -- LCUActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords°23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Ltwin. You add "Schnelle 2020" toHistory of Christian theology but it's undefined. Same as last time, could you add the required cite or let me know what it is? -- LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested thanks for catching that again. I've added the source.Ltwin (talk)15:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Ltwin. -- LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Easter Joy
	Happy Easter to a fine editor! May you have a kind and joyful Paschaltide! ~Pbritti (talk)23:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti, thank you so much. I hope you have a wonderful Easter as well!Ltwin (talk)23:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I startedSplit of Christianity and Judaism early this year. It could use knowledgeable editors. Thanks!Zanahary (talk)19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ltwin. As you are the principal author ofHistory of monarchy in the United Kingdom, please see this proposal. Thanks and best wishes.PearlyGigs (talk)16:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... for your extensive editing onChristianisation of Anglo-Saxon England. The clear mark ups of your edits was particularly useful, I wish more people would be just as informative and will aim to follow in your path. Have a good week!OJH (talk)07:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Ltwin! As a member ofWikipedia:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity and a top editor onOneness Pentecostalism as well as myself, I wanted to get your thoughts on an idea I have regarding theAffirming Apostolic Pentecostal churches page.

My concerns are multifold. First, it seems to me (though I may be wrong) that there is really no analogous page on Wikipedia for a set of churches/organizations within a specific denomination to have their own page in this way on the topic of sexuality, rather than a page detailingall of the views (whether in opposition to, affirming of, or neutral on the topic of sexuality) within the denomination on this topic. For example, withinTemplate:Christianity and LGBTQ topics, there is a section on Denominational positions that has pages likePresbyterianism and homosexuality,Homosexuality and Lutheranism,Homosexuality and Baptist churches, etc., but I have not seen any page about, for example,Affirming Baptist Churches. Secondly, the page strangely includesTrinitarian Pentecostals, which are definitionally not Oneness Pentecostals. Finally, the name for the page seems both arbitrary and inaccurate. The Oneness Pentecostal page was renamed in favor of Oneness Pentecostalism over Apostolic Pentecostalism several years ago to align with the scholarly naming and to maintainWP:NPOV; why should this not apply to this page as well, as it is aligned with the same movement but differing in only one point of theology? I don't see any consistent naming convention from the sources either, so the page naming seems arbitrary.

It seems to me that the most logical thing to do would be to create a page such asPentecostalism and Homosexuality and merge the contents into the new page to better represent all the positions taken by Pentecostal organizations (both Oneness and Trinitarian), not limited to just those affirming. What do you think of this? For a movement as large as Pentecostalism, it probably is overdue for a page such as this to exist, and it would solve the issues I've raised with the Affirming Apostolic Pentecostal churches page. Let me know your thoughts!JParksT2023 (talk)18:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have mirrored this message atTalk:Affirming Apostolic Pentecostal churches#Thoughts on the page in its current state, please reply from there. Thank you for your response and your help!JParksT2023 (talk)21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JParksT2023, thanks for letting me know. I'll reply on the talk page.Ltwin (talk)21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Ltwin, I noticed your edithere and thought to myself that it might be helpful to create a separate article onReformed Anglicanism as this seems to be a significant camp within that tradition. Would you be interested in starting the article? With regards,Anupam^Talk02:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you are still interested inWikiProject Christianity.Please respond to this within a week if you are still interested in helping out. If you do not respond within a week you will be classified as inactive on the WikiProject member list.Sheriff U3 |Talk |Con06:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Special Edition of ICHTHUS

Special Edition

Your feedback is requested atTalk:July 2025 Central Texas floods on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(trialing replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)13:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Homer Glen, Illinois on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(trialing replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)14:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Western Sahara on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(trialing replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)11:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Assadism on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)20:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)18:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Trumpism on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)03:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:AfD pro-Russia movement on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)02:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:United States support for Israel in the Gaza war on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)20:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Anglican Church in North America logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)18:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:North Korean Postal Service on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)10:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ltwin. Your wiki edit anniversary was 2 days ago, marking 18 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee❚❙❚❙❙✉13:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnoeee. Thank you for the kind note.Ltwin (talk)18:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]