This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Ltwin.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

Archives

2000s 2010s 2020s

Ltwin, I found an error in the OP article but I am unable to correct it. Under References number 50 it should be Bethesda Books (not Bethesda Publishing). I attempted to correct this but all that appears on the edit page is the following:

The references all appear in the article but disaapear on the edit page.

I have not seen this before and have no idea what it means. Is this something new?Rachida10z (talk)13:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, my face is red! I knew better. I don't know what I was thinking. Must be the caffeine;) Thank you so much for helping.Rachida10z (talk)06:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for that.DJ Clayworth (talk)23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit stating that homosexuality was the "most recent" issue leading to the formation of ACNA, rather than "the" issue. The Episcopal Church hasn't had any other major theological controversies since the ordination of women debate, which does not appear to be the genesis of ACNA. The "continuing" bodies for Anglicans unable to accept this development have been around and welcoming new members for 30 years before ACNA was a gleam in ++Bob Duncan's eye, and ACNA ordains women anyway. Contraception was 1930; the remarriage of divorcees happened around the same time as female clergy. ACNA may describe the gay issue as only "the most recent" but it's actually the only recent one. If there are other Episcopal innovations to which ACNA objects, they sure took their time speaking up.

It may be that homosexuality is only the most recent of a series of Episcopal doctrinal revisions to which ACNA Anglicans take umbrage, but until we have a source for them, their inclusion is based on your speculation, which isn't kosher on Wikipedia especially for such a contentious topic. The current sources cited at the end of that sentence don't support the "most recent" appellation. If you can find other ones that do, power to you. Indeed, I'd even welcome hearing from an ACNA-composed source what the other issues are, for while they may believe that this issue is but one of several "symptoms," they sure are cagey about providing examples.Carolynparrishfan (talk)02:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have joined into Christian theology work group. I hope that I will help to make better articles in area of Christian theology. If you have some suggestion or propose be free to write. Best wishes,--Vojvodaeplease be free to write :)16:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your comment atUser talk:Mootros. In the section right above, I was just discussing the issue with Mootros, so you might want to just join that discussion to keep it in one place? BestSkäpperöd (talk)21:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that's what I did. But I do think it should be discussed on the articles talk page. Like everything else.Ltwin (talk)21:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lt Win. Seems the Calvary Chapel page is protected by a group of people that follow theNew Religious Movement. Edits seem to be immediately reverted. I commented on your post.Sliceofmiami (talk)14:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not protected by a group of people who follow it.

1. I'm not a group,
2. I'm not protecting it,
3. it's not a new religious movement,
4. edits are not immediately reverted,
5. edits must meetWP:V in any article.
6. I am not a follower, I'm just a friend because God used CC to make an influential change in western Christianity in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

It's not nice to talk about people in out-of-the-way places. Please don't do that. If you want to comment on the article, please do it on the article's page. --Walter Görlitz (talk)17:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to confuse, I wasn't accusing you of talking in out-of-the-way places, I was commenting onSliceofmiami's action. --Walter Görlitz (talk)22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, look on the talk page I have placed a statement. The definition and translation is against the translation in all bigger dictionarys. The definition is etymological false. For a definition are dictionarys, German-english, etymology books are important. The idea that you can simple translate the word evangelical with Evangelikal is completly false. Look in German dictionarys and the Brockhaus, the Duden etc. Do you thing that the Lutherans are so crazy that they don't know what they are? (I am a Lutheran. :-) Sorry the definition is false. I suppose it would be better to erase the section "name". You will not find this definition in a serious Dictionary. If you wand a discussion you can write on my German site or it would be nice when you e-mail me. with friendly greetings, Sönke --Soenke Rahn (talk)21:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The articleEvangelicalism says things like I decleared. Please look again on the article. (-: --Soenke Rahn (talk)22:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploadingFile:ACNA logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am abot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this noticeafter the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, clickhere to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add{{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it offhere and leave a message onmy owner's talk page.

Thank you.DASHBot (talk)00:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, your revision is much cleaner and clearer than my attempt was!Bo (talk)18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad you keep up with the anglican blogosphere. I was totally surprised by all this.Ltwin (talk)19:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in theGuild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration.ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk!14:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you toreview other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing atwo-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are notautoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to onlya small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located atSpecial:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obviousvandalism orBLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (seeWikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be foundhere.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.Courcelles (talk)00:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Since you're the main author ofInternational Pentecostal Holiness Church, and since I mentioned that articlehere, could I please ask you to weigh in? Essentially, I'm struggling to restorethis content, but am being held back by an editor who claims it's trivial, subject to change, not notable, etc. Personally, I think it's rather useful without being overly specific, and can be maintained as new numbers become available. What say you? And thank you for any insight you provide. -Biruitorul^Talk05:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please help me Ltwin?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malik_Shabazz Milik (and a few others) at this address does not see the Baptist state conventions as notable. Would you be able to help me document these conventions. They are all a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. Having comprehensive coverage of the largest evangelical denomination in the world would be helpful to many. I named the doctrinal standard of the conventions as well as the entities they own and operate. As an SBC pastor I can assure you this is important and valuable information. I sincerely believe the conventions qualify as notable because they are a part of the SBC. Also, I linked each convention web site which verifies the bulk of information I contributed. In addition, I called each state convention to verify the number of churches in each state. Any help you could render would be most helpful. Thank you. Tim—Precedingunsigned comment added byToverton28 (talk •contribs)04:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ltwin. Your link was very helpful. One problem I have is that I am not good with computers. If you could speak directly to Milik this would be very helpful. I know you are busy, but I really do need assistance.—Precedingunsigned comment added byToverton28 (talk •contribs)05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you could help document the other state convention sites I would be forever grateful. I have put much time in them, even called each state convention on the phone. Thank you for all you have done.—Precedingunsigned comment added byToverton28 (talk •contribs)05:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is what was said to me:Thank you Codf1977,

May I add that the sub group in North Carolina has over 1.5 million people. I certainly believe this to be notable. Organizations like this have their own newpaper (The Biblical Recorder) which covers news for the churches. I'm not sure you understand how big some of these state conventions are. North Carolina alone consist of over 4,000 churches. This is bigger than most denominations. So I would argue that these state conventions are more that your typical sub-units.

http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/37_2000.asphttp://www.biblicalrecorder.org/post/2010/07/26/The-Biblical-Recorder-A-Compelling-Vision-for-a-New-Century.aspx

Please reconsider. Also, who may I appeal to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You have already appealed to the deleting admins, as for the above ref's the Biblical Recorder is not an independent source, and numbers of members does not in and of it's self make a group notable. As others have said the Southern Baptist Convention is notable, however is is not clear that the individual and consistent parts are.Codf1977 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ltwin, Do you have any advice?—Precedingunsigned comment added byToverton28 (talk •contribs)20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Having seen the sterling job you have done onOneness Pentecostalism and related articles over the eighteen months or so...

...how do you fancy looking atCessationism andContinuationism? Both articles seem to want to point up their contrasts with each other, and there has been some discussion about a possible merger (and I can see reasons both for and against such a merger). But I think what is really needed is someone (you?) who knows enough about the topics to be able to bring the two articles into line, to avoid unnecessary repetition and to bring clarity to both (or a merger, or some combination).

Feline Hymnic (talk)22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to look at over the next few days. I'm a little busy now with school in full swing so my time on WP may be inconsistent from now till December, but I'll definitely give it a look.Ltwin (talk)00:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Ltwin. You have new messages atResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The articleGeneral Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America for eventual comments about the article. Well done!Aaron north (talk)23:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.

		The Christianity Barnstar
		For your dedication and work in bringingGeneral Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America up to GA status. Thank you.John Carter (talk)16:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please clarify the phrase "excluding Europe" in "The Episcopal Church is the Province of the Anglican Communion in the United States and most other territories where it has a presence (excluding Europe). . ."?Matisse412 (talk)19:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Matisse412

No I cannot because if you look at the article's edit history with more than just a passing glance, you will see that I did not write that particular sentence.User:Dctoedt added that particular phrase, seehere.Ltwin (talk)20:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing someone who is obviously new to Wikipedia in the right direction. Have a good weekend.Matisse412 (talk)16:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Matisse412

Hello, Ltwin. You have new messages atAsatya82's talk page.
Message added14:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings LTwin, I just signed on to wiki as a user. I'd like to know how to create a user box and sand box. I found the articles a little confusing and seeing your user page setup, I thought it better to talk to you. Please advise anil satya 14:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Ltwin. You have new messages atAsatya82's talk page.
Message added15:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the speedy reply. This is much better and I think I'll be able to setup my user boxes faster this way too. anil satya 15:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ltwin,

I will add citations to that article when I have time. I will try and get it done by next week. --Phillip J (talk)19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Ltwin,

I'm back for some more advice. I'm trying to categorize a particular article as a list-class one. I don't know the procedure, could you please shed some light on the same....

Thanks,anil satya 16:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Asatya82— Precedingunsigned comment added byAsatya82 (talk •contribs)

Ltwin,

The article is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_social_networking_websites", this is as yet "unassessed" and contains only a tabulated list of defunct social networks. I'd like to categorize this as a list class article.

Regards,anil satya 10:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Asatya82— Precedingunsigned comment added byAsatya82 (talk •contribs)

Thank you for your astute and scholarly contributions which have enhanced many articles. Wesley's book on Christian Perfection is onlinehttp://www.dewildmissions.nl/OudeSite/mediapool/49/494031/data/A_Plain_Account_of_Christian_Perfection.pdf. I agree that a paragraph explaining the current adherent denominations and their current beliefs would enhance the article. You are qualified--if you have the time. Regards,รัก-ไทย (talk)06:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to ask your opinion aboutprosperity theology andWord of Faith. I know better than to lump all pentecostals together. I'm a Lutheran and view it as atheology of Glory rather than of theCross. Email me if you have to. Thanks. --Confession0791^talk08:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ltwin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.

--Confession0791^talk02:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you get my last email? I don't know if you've been busy - or didn't want to get into a theological debate, which is understandable. I just wanted your opinion on the populist/commercial form of dispensationalism, as opposed to the classic understanding; and whether the former is healthy for the Church. --Confession0791^talk06:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks for helping me get the ball rolling. for a second there I thought it was going to be an uphill battle just to keep the dang section since this churches fans are out in force. pardon my weird sourcework on that one sentence. I put the section together with a mess of browser windows and some of the wires got crossed. my appologies. I lost the source on that claim and capitol-I-If I can find it again I'll throw that sentance back in with a more proper source. if not then I guess it goes.

thx for your help!Scottdude2000 (talk)18:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ltwin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.

Sorry for the late response, I've been busy. --Confession0791^talk01:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ltwin. I followed the link and still think it is the appropriate change. The article does identify that 'Trinitarianism' is not a specific religion. And while that may seem to suggest that it need not be capitalized, it is still along the lines of a particular or specific religious philosophy or belief. So for the same reason the White House or Communism is capitalized, so should 'Trinitarianism'. Not because it is a religion, but because it is a proper noun in that it reflects a particular (not a general) belief, that stems from a particular council. I would like to make the change and ask your respect or input at the discussion page. Peace.--Canadiandytalk18:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you find my last email informative?

I mainly editDisney Channel andNickelodeon related articles (I'm a kid at heart), but I'd like to start editing more religion and Christianity articles. Do you have any advice on where to start? --Confession0791^talk09:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ltwin, I wonder aboutthis revert. If, as you say, you can't read Dutch, why revert an editor who provides a source for the information? Moreover, the number is cited in the source they added, and while 1,789 million may sound ridiculous to you, the report claims even higher precision: 1.789.259. Thank you,Drmies (talk)17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the Wiki emailbefore you read the "Blogs" email, because I have apologized in advance for the content. --Confession0791^talk01:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey ltwin, I am looking to write a article on Rockford First Church. It is an upcoming megachurch in Rockford, IL. I saw the work that you did with the Elevation Church wikipedia website and was wondering if you would be willing to help me out? Let me know. Thank you!!!Amandaallard05 (talk)20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! We were able to simplify a lot of it this past week within the sandbox and I'm getting a lot of the resources up. The other admin. guy said that I should get some pictures and such up there, which I am going to do here in the next few days. I really do appreciate it. Would you like me to email you or can you get into the sandbox and see the article? Again, thank you so much!Amandaallard05 (talk)20:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Well let me know what you think and take your time. Don't feel rushed in anyway. Again, I really appreciate it.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAmandaallard05 (talk •contribs)15:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! you helped a lot. I made the changes to the page. I will be getting a few pictures and finalizing the rest of the resources tomorrow. I also will get the exact date of the church's founding and such. Hopefully I can set it to live by the end of the week. We shall see. Thank you again!Amandaallard05 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Also, I didn't add anything to the sections that were pretty skim because I didn't want it to come off as promotional. The easiest way to do that was to state the facts . :)Amandaallard05 (talk)21:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey ltwin, I was able to get all the references up for the wikipedia page. I just need to upload the pictures for the article. I was wondering how to get the side wiki tool that states all the facts about the church, like the Elevation site has. Thanks for helping out.Amandaallard05 (talk)21:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The site is coming together. Just having to talk some things through with the images on the site and get them all licensed. Crazy. Is there a way that you could go through the article and give me a detailed list of things that could make it better. I have a few more pictures going up there shortly. Thank you!Amandaallard05 (talk)21:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,

Hope things are going well with you these days. I forgot about the PT article for a while, just took a couple looks at it recently. Thanks for your help fighting vandals/POV pushers on there over the past few months. I wonder, how close do you think it is to Good Article quality? Any suggestions of how it should be improved? After I first wrote this draft I had thought about putting in a section about how "Prosperity missionaries" have tried to spread it to the third world and Europe. There are a lot of sources that talk about that, so I'd have to pick which ones to use/which countries to mention. I'll try to read through it again and copyedit the article again sooner or later. Thanks,Mark Arsten (talk)21:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just realized that there are no images in the article--any suggestions of what we could add?Mark Arsten (talk)21:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help withMargaret Poloma. It was very cool that you knew that and found the new article so soon.Borock (talk)22:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for your help raisingProsperity theology to good article status!Mark Arsten (talk)04:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for all your great work helping to get theprosperity theology article to GA status.ItsZippy(talk •contributions)12:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down the exact figure :)Springnuts (talk)10:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is very important to keep articles such as this neutral. It would not be honest to lead the casual reader to believe that the controversy is over. The diocese (its material possessions, etc.) is not "autonomous" until such has been determined legally. Any parish trying to sell its property would have a cloud on its title, rendering it unsellable until a court of competent jurisdiction clarifies it. Likewise, it cannot be reported that the Episcopal Church has current control over the diocese. It clearly has not asserted control as of yet. Wikipedia articles are to be based only on facts.— Precedingunsigned comment added by99.91.98.81 (talk)03:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is neutral. Whether you like it or not, the effect of the standing committee's actions (and until a court says otherwise the same people in charge of the diocese before all this started are still in charge of the diocese) is to make the diocese "practically" autonomous. Note the use of the word "practically." This is true. Regardless of the civil or ecclesiastical legalities of the situation, the diocese is in practice autonomous. The article also points out that TEC disputes the effects of the standing committee's actions. I refuse to believe that we have to deny the obvious by going out of our way to not say that a diocese for all intense and purposes has left. Any reorganization of that diocese by TEC will never be the same again and will be a lot smaller. Until a civil court says otherwise, Mark Lawrence and the diocesan leadership continue to represent the legal identity of the diocese.Ltwin (talk)03:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "whether [I] like it or not." It is a matter of referential honesty. I agree with you that the diocese is acting as if it is autonomous. But nothing is autonomous until it is legally decided to be the case. Such is not yet the case. At issue is the article covering the entity known as the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. It is not a neutral article if the impending legal actions are either not mentioned or if the article does not simply leave the situation as a current stale-mate. As I mentioned from a neutral legal standpoint, no diocesan land is marketable given the current circumstances. That establishes ownership. And, while ownership of material things is not the goal of most religious bodies, it does determine the legality of what is a civil administration - namely, a diocese and its (arguable) parent.— Precedingunsigned comment added by99.91.98.81 (talk)04:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no stalemate. The officers of an incorporated entity have made a decision. Until a civil court rules that what they did did not in fact happen, it did happen. Furthermore, while legal action is likely, it hasn't happened yet. No one has filed anything in any court challenging the legality of what has happened. Until that happens, we can't even say that there is anything to be legally decided.Ltwin (talk)04:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you aren't seeing my rather friendly face in this discussion. A round-table talk with a beer (or iced tea) would be a good thing. What you are saying is that when an incorporated town or city in a fit of rage votes to secede from its state or the Union, as periodically happens from time to time, it has "in fact happen[ed]." In this line of thinking, Anytown, State is now Anytown, Country and should be published here as fact until the judicial system gets around to making a decision. While the legalities may differ a bit from the diocesan controversy, they are remarkably similar in effect. All that said, I agree with you that "believes" used with only one party is prejudicial. Yet, "believes" is precisely where things currently lie. In that vein, it should be used for both parties. It is clear to all that legal actions are forthcoming and it is a disservice to the reader not to be aware that this is not a settled matter.— Precedingunsigned comment added by99.91.98.81 (talk)04:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL. The two cases are not comparable. The United States is a sovereign country, and towns and cities have to be loyal to a country. There is no law on the books that says an incorporated legal entity cannot change its relationship with another body. The leaders of the diocese did just that. They have control over diocesan resources and will continue to have control until its determined in court of law that they are not the lawful leaders. Your analogy rests on comparing TEC polity to the US political system. And yet the two are not comparable, in part because TEC and individual dioceses have to abide by state corporate and property law. This is particularly important in South Carolina, since its court uses the "neutral principles" approach to resolving church disputes. It does not "defer" to church hierarchy but actually looks at the relevant documents and deeds to determine whose actually in charge of a corporation and whose name is on the deed to property.Ltwin (talk)06:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with you that the term "Holy Ghost" is not archaic.— Precedingunsigned comment added by99.91.98.81 (talk)04:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm baaack! Ltwin... Your edit notes, "No, they didn't just vote, they left." That is true -- the majority of the people in the diocese have factually left the Episcopal Church. What has not been decided, legally/canonically, is whether the Diocese, its corporation, and its material goods also left the Episcopal Church. It is true that the Diocesan corporation has, in fact, VOTED to leave the Episcopal Church. It BELIEVES that it has left (although the late comment of Bishop Lawrence that he represents the Protestant Episcopal Church in South Carolina is curious). And, yet, the Episcopal Church (a larger incorporated group with written regulations outlining how a diocese can leave) believes the diocese itself has not left and is, ARGUABLY, a creation of the larger body. Regardless of our personal sentiments of "rightness" on the issue OR our own legal opinions on the matter, Wikipedia is to remain neutral and to only state the facts. Thus, while it is certainly accurate to say that the Diocese has "voted" to leave the Episcopal Church. It is not legally accurate to say that it has, in fact, left. Likewise, it would be dishonest for the Episcopal Church to say that it is in control of the Diocese. Clearly such is not the case. We do not want to mislead the reader into thinking that this is a "done deal." I think you have done a good job of trying to present a reasonably balanced opinion in most areas in the article. This is one area, however, that is not.

Hello! Note, please, that I did not write the above paragraph. It doesn't appear to be signed, so I'm not sure who did. At any rate, this is a new subject: On theEpiscopal Diocese of South Carolina page, I recently removed mention of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, which you undid. The reason I did this relates to what I just wrote on the page's talk section, on which I would welcome your comments. We now seem to have two competing dioceses, one which recognizes (and is recognized by) the national church, and one which does not. And of course there are various lawsuits ongoing. But for now, since the EDoSC is (or is trying to be) "autonomous" from the national church, I don't think it's relevant to mention an adjacent diocese of the national church on this page. It would be like talking about an adjacent Roman Catholic diocese - perhaps factual, but not really relevant. I do think mention of Upper South Carolina is relevant on theEpiscopal Church in South Carolina page, since the two dioceses together make up the national church's presence in the state. So I would like to undo your undo of my change, but I'll wait and let you comment first. Would you want to do that on the article's talk page, in case other people might be watching that? Thanks.Dunncon13 (talk)22:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ltwin,

I see you have written an substantive amount on the AFM. I am a member of this church and my family has been involved with it for a very long time. It would be good if this article can reach GA status. You have the experience and the knowledge of to do this. I dont know my way well enough around Wikipedia to get this done. Is it possible that I can help you to get this done? I just need a push in the right direction.ShiningWolf (talk)19:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In regards to 'No need to list the archaic "Holy Ghost"', I'm not saying that it should be there, but it's not archaic. There are many churches (particularly those that adhere to the King James version -- as well as the Book of Mormon) that still use it -- if not all the time, most of the time. And even if it wasn't used at all, that's still not a good reason to not mention it. --Musdan77 (talk)04:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ltwin, hope that your holidays went well. I thought I'd drop a note to say that we're preparing to nominateProsperity theology atWP:FAC, see the article's talk page for more. Thanks for all your help,Mark Arsten (talk)22:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Ltwin, I have question: one of the reviewers on the FAC said "There is a lot of criticism from other branches of Christianity, but not much rebuttal or other response. Surely some theologians have spoken for them?". I did some looking around, and I can't find too much in the way of Prosperity theologians responding to criticism. Any thoughts on the issue? You're more than welcome to respond on the FAC page itself. Thanks,Mark Arsten (talk)05:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ltwin, hope things are going well with you. I've been working onGeorge Went Hensley with another user, we're trying to get it up to Featured Article. It's about one of the more unorthodox manifestations of American Pentecostalism. If you get a change/are interested I'd love if you could take a look at it and let me know if you see any issues/have any suggestions. Thanks,Mark Arsten (talk)21:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article if you want, but there's a peer review open, as well.Mark Arsten (talk)21:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

For your help on Prosperity theology, it just got promoted to featured article today. You were a lot of help on that.Mark Arsten (talk)00:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it's great to see quality, neutral articles being written on pentacostal and charismatic topics :). Let me know if you ever need help with research, I have access to lots of books on charismatic stuff. --Cerebellum (talk)00:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ltwin,Lionelt suggested that theApostolic Faith Mission of South Africa be pushed for GA status. I have uploaded some more photos and added bits and pieces. I have not incorporated all of the suggestions you had before, mainly because of a lack of time and research resources. As you are probably one of the main contributors to the article, dont you want to give it a quick read again and let me know if you think it is good enough that we nominate it? Kind regards,ShiningWolf (talk)07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ltwin. Glad to see you are interested in doing GA reviews, as you can probably see we need more people willing to do this. It is a lot easier than most editors think, if you have areasonable grasp of prose and are willing to put some work in checking sources you should be fine. I am willing to help out, so if you have a question feel free to drop it on my talk page. Basically you just need to make sure it fits thecriteria. There is an essayhere that gives general advice and another onehere that gives advice on what is not part of the criteria. You have to be careful not to demand it adheres to your own criteria, although you can give some further advice if you wish. You can always ask questions at theGAN talk page.AIRcorn (talk)11:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing,Australian Christian Churches‎, has been proposed for amerge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by goinghere, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.WotherspoonSmith (talk)04:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your help maintainingProsperity theology during the stress of a main page appearance.Mark Arsten (talk)14:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Let me start off by saying that I am young (colleged-age) and Pentecostal (Word of Faith, in particular). I was trying to edit to reflect the fact that Pentecostalism is not a monolith. The problem is, it's difficult to find sources that agree! My particular church considers itself both Pentecostal and Charismatic, but not Evangelical at all. In fact, I have never heard a Pentecostal self-identify as Evangelical. I did once have a theology teacher that tried to convince me that I was, in fact, Evangelical, much to my surprise! I tried to find sources that backed up my experiences, but I could find none. That's why I'm not going to revert anything. I'll wait until I can find a truly reputable source, if that ever happens. I'm not sure if my experiences are unique, or if scholarship reaches different conclusions from the average Pentecostal. Anyway, just wanted to respond, thanks for the feedback!173.59.18.80 (talk)20:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I thought my additions were quite accurate; it seems that there are now two separate entities – Lawrence's independent diocese and that Episcopal diocese still aligned with the PECUSA. Surely the appointment of a bishop provisional is a significant indicator of that? What do you think?DBD23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your independant judgment welcome here.Hyper3 (talk)21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I am making the case for separating out the American only material, so a clearer understanding of World Evangelicalism can emerge. This was not well-received, which is fair enough, I don’t expect all my suggestions to be met with applause. However the same bias I find in the article was the basis for many of the comments. Some were surprised that Evangelicalism was not basically an Americaln phenomenon. The whole article has many problems, and when I attempted to sort it out, an hour's work was just reverted. Sigh. Your work on other pages tells me you may be able to help. I don’t expect you to agree with me, and this isn't a plea for backup. I just want the article improved, as I'm finding it a bit embarassing.Hyper3 (talk)21:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Pentecostalism is a modern movement. Thus, "modern" is redundant."

I did not add "modern" to where it says "Pentecostalism". It was where it says, the "first Pentecostals". Thefirst Pentecostals were those in Acts Ch. 2 (there were also Pentecostals between the 1st and 19th centuries, by the way). I was clarifying. And have you read the article? Because if what I put is "redundant" then you would have to remove 3 places that say, "modern Pentecostalism." --Musdan77 (talk)03:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The first Christians didn't call themselves "Pentecostals" at all. Defining the first Christians at Pentecost as some sort of "ancient Pentecostals" and distinguishing them from "modern Pentecostals" just creates confusion in the lead.

There were no Christians that even resembled Pentecostalism as we know it in the 1st century. At various times throughout the history of the church there have been movements that emphasized spiritual gifts, miracles, and healings. There have also been movements that teach some form of a second blessing or mystical experiences. All of these have some similarities to Pentecostalism, but they also have huge differences.

It is only in the 18th and 19th centuries that you get rise of Evangelicalism and the Holiness Movement. These movements are the crucibles in which Pentecostalism forms and you begin to see proto-Pentecostalism in ever clearer form. The Holiness Movement did use "Pentecostal" language a lot and this makes it difficult to know exactly where the Holiness movement ends and what we call Pentecostalism begins. However, all these events occur in the modern era, so labels like "modern" shouldn't apply.

And I will remove those other uses of modern. Since they to are redundant and confusing.Ltwin (talk)04:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the first Christians didn't call themselves Pentecostals, but that doesn't mean that no one today would consider them that. When they first received the Holy Spirit (as you know), it was on the Day ofPentecost. So, no group could better be called Pentecostals than they. And calling those at the turn of the 20th century "the first Pentecostals" in the lead could be misleading or possibly confusing -- especially since there's no source to back it up.

How about changing the beginning of that paragraph to this?: "These early 20th century Pentecostals were radical adherents of the Holiness Movement, and were energized by revivalism and expectation for the imminent Second Coming of Christ." (or it could be 2 sentences.) --Musdan77 (talk)18:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I can live with that rewording.Ltwin (talk)11:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds20:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We needyou!

HiLtwin! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at theWorld Digital Library, a project of theLibrary of Congress andUNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participatehere. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you!EdwardsBot (talk)19:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ltwin. I'm contacting you because you're involved in theArticle Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, justdrop them at the talkpage. Thanks!Okeyes (WMF)22:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I would like to ask if you know of any official document or source by which we could update the membership numbers of the ACNA. The source used is from 2010 and it gives the number of c. 103,000, but I think due to the ACNA expansion, it isnt accurate anymore. I already emailed ACNA concerning these numbers but I didn`t had an answer yet.Mistico (talk)01:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey. The only other statistics I'm aware of is the2011 Parochial Report. However, many parishes did not report their statistics, so it really is no more reliable than the current statistics the article uses.Ltwin (talk)06:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. I already knew these statistics, they also give the projected membership, including ministry partner congregations, of 141,438. Back then the ministry partner congregations number was higher, they are now only 82 according to ACNA website. I also don't have any information of the results of more recent parochial reports. Hopefully they will be released this year, since the 2014 General Convention of ACNA is approaching.Mistico (talk)02:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ltwin,

Do you remember me, we worked on Oneness Pentecostalism a few years ago...

I want your opinion on something, (need some rational input)...

[[1]] would you read section 5 and section 6 which are written by me and share with me if you think I am right or am I wrong.

Do you know any others that might have a valid opinion on the subject. So far I just have a bunch of reverters, saying "you'r wrong" and a bunch of admin's being

One admin banned me because I seemed like I might edit war in the future. I hope some cop pulls him over some day and tickets him for seeming like he might speed...

DevonSprings (talk)02:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ltwin, I am writing to ask if you might take a look at the NCMI page. I have taken a look at both of the wiki pages on religious organizations that you have worked on (the International Pentecostal Holiness Church and the Assemblies of God USA) Both are outstanding. I was hoping to find a couple experienced fair and unbiased editors who have worked on this kind of wiki page to help improve this page. I am a new editor and I am also a member of the NCMI international team. I have explained my relationship to NCMI in my user page. The page is in very rough shape. It contains much incorrect, misleading and even defamatory information. I started to work on it and found it to be a very daunting task. Please read the NCMI talk page, my talk page and the talk page of the majority editor of the page (Sigeng). I don't think I did everything right starting out, partly because I was so shocked at some of the disturbing information on the page. I am hoping that you might look over everything and if you feel you can contribute to improving the page, please do. I have escalated some of the problems to the administration team, but it still needs editors that can work toward consensus and solve some of the problems on the page. I am going to ask Shiningwolf to look at the page, as well. He is very familiar with the South African and African context. Thanks you for considering this.MuzickMaker (talk)01:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ltwin, I restored the (sourced) information about John G. Lake in the article about the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa and gave my motives at the talk page of the AFM.Vysotsky (talk)16:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I added formerly a link to the 3 million member adherents, but I don't know who reverted my edit. In my opinion the PC(USA) has 1,7 million confessin members, and 3 million adherents(baptised in the denomination but not confirmed, or not communicant member plus the 1,7 million communicant).

Thanks for your question, and you edits to become better articles. [Unsigned comment byUser:CalvinBeza; 11:21, December 19, 2014]

"Robertson is charismatic, not Pentecostal. These are different movements." I'm surprised at you. This isn't about "movements" -- and Pentecostalism is no longer a movement and hasn't been for decades. Charismatics are Pentecostals who belong to other denominations or churches other than pentecostal denominations. On the Pentecostalism article, "Charismatic" is mentioned 37 times, including: "This initially became known as New or Neo-Pentecostalism (in contrast to the older classical Pentecostalism) but eventually became known as theCharismatic Movement." and "David du Plessis (1905–87) South-AfricanPentecostal church leader, one of the founders of theCharismatic movement" And the first source on that article gives this definition: "Christians who ... describe themselves as “charismatic Christians”; or (2) they describe themselves as “pentecostal Christians” but do not belong to pentecostal denominations". So, how does Robertson describe himself? This what he said in a source on his article: "in terms of the priesthood of believers and baptism, I'm a Baptist; in terms of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I'm a Pentecostal" So, that's from the "horses mouth". I will wait for your reply before readding it along with the source. One added thing, if you said that he is "charismatic, not Pentecostal", then you should havemoved his name to theCharismatic Movement article, instead of just removed it entirely. --Musdan77 (talk)03:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

While its common to use "Pentecostal" and "charismatic" as interchangeable, they are different. Read any scholarly source or material published by the classical Pentecostal and charismatic communities. Lines might have become blurred over the decades, but distinctions still exist. Pat Robertson claims that he is a Baptist, which means he is not a classical Pentecostal but charismatic. Even more, he has advocated over the years doctrines that place him even further from classical Pentecostalism, namelyDominionism. If everyone who is charismatic is also Pentecostal, then we should just merge this article withCharismatic Christianity.Ltwin (talk)21:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Everything that I wrote (and quoted) and that's what you get? Nothing is saying that the terms are "interchangeable" or anything about merging articles (though I hadn't seen that one before and it looks to me like there's hardly any unique material there - but that's a complete other issue). And the article is not "Classical Pentecostalism", it's Pentecostalism. I repeat: Charismatics are Pentecostals who belong to other denominations or churches other than pentecostal denominations. That is not just me saying that. I also quoted from reliable source already used in the article. As well as a quote from Robertson himself. I don't see how there can be a dispute. Think of it this way: there are classifications that come under other classifications (like genres). Charismatic --, classical --, and Oneness -- all come under the banner of Pentecostalism. You also didn't respond to my last sentence. Also, Robertson had been on the list for 3 years! You had plenty of time to remove it if you didn't think it should be there, but instead, you decide to wait to revert my reversion. Furthermore, Robertson is listed in the Pentecostalism template (almost 2 years) -- but now that I said that, I suppose you'd want to remove it -- and this time I'd revert you. :) --Musdan77 (talk)04:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"And the article is not 'Classical Pentecostalism', it's Pentecostalism." Actually, the article is very much about Classical Pentecostalism, which is what most people mean when they say "Pentecostal" or "Pentecostalism" without any other sort of clarification. It even says this is what the article is about in the Lead section. All of the theology, history, and denominations discussed are classical Pentecostal theology, history, and denominations. When charismatic theology or people are mentioned, it's clear that they are distinct from classical Pentecostalism.

You seem to be using "Pentecostal" to be any charismatic Christian who belongs to an historical Pentecostal denomination and "charismatic" for any charismatic Christian who belongs to any other type church that is not historically Pentecostal. So, essentially, the only difference betweenGeorge O. Wood and Pat Robertson is that Wood has membership in a Pentecostal denomination and Robertson does not.

My understanding of the term "Pentecostal", which as far as I know is still generally accepted, is that a Pentecostal is a member of a classical Pentecostal denomination and/or adheres to classical Pentecostal theology. It's not enough to be a charismatic Christian in the Baptist church or the Episcopal church or the non-denominational community church. Neo-Pentecostals (what are now commonly called charismatics) generally don't believe in initial evidence, whereas classical Pentecostals typically do. Charismatics place less emphasis on tongues than do classical Pentecostals, and they generally have less stringent lifestyle taboos (such as alcohol use).

In my opinion, you have it backwards when you say, "Charismatics are Pentecostals who belong to other denominations or churches other than pentecostal denominations." I would reverse this: Pentecostals are Charismatics who belong to historical Pentecostal denominations or churches. So, you say that Pat Robertson is "Pentecostal" because he is charismatic. I say that Pat Robertson is not Pentecostal because he is JUST charismatic.

In regards to Robertson's quote, I don't discount it. Nevertheless, it doesn't say what you think it does. He is not identifying as a classical Pentecostal. He is saying he is a Baptist with Pentecostal beliefs concerning Pneumatology. This, in common terminology and in regards to the Pentecostal article, makes him a charismatic Christian-not a classical Pentecostal.Ltwin (talk)08:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. While we're talking, Kathryn Kuhlman should come off this list too since she was not a classical Pentecostal.Ltwin (talk)08:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The intro sentence shouldnot say "classical Pentecostal" -- and certainly not in bold -- because that isnot (and shouldn't be) what the article in whole is about. And you keep repeating that. There's a distinct difference. If "Pentecostals are Charismatics" then the Charismatic article would be the larger one and there would be a template with the title "Part of a series on 'Charismaticism'". Pentecostals arecharismatic; they are not (necessarily) Charismatics. Also, the "People" section does not containany sources. At least I have a source (and I consider it a very good one). --Musdan77 (talk)15:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Classical Pentecostalism has always been what the article is about.Back in 2004, it was clear that this article was about classical Pentecostalism because editors were discussing whether they should describe Pentecostals as a subset of the Charismatic Movement. It has always been about classical Pentecostalism. Even today, it is focused entirely on the beliefs and history of the classical movement. When "charismatic" or neo-charismatics" are mentioned it is in reference to how they relate to or influence or were influenced by classical Pentecostals.

If you are looking for an article that encompasses all of global Pentecostalism and Charismatic Christianity, Wikipedia already has that article. It's calledCharismatic Christianity (which is different fromCharismatic Movement), which discusses Pentecostals, theCharismatic Movement, and [[Neo-charismatic churches] as a single sector of world Christianity. This is whyCharismatic Christianity is shorter because it intentionally directs readers to the more specific articles.

As for sources, theEncyclopedia of Evangelicalism's article for Pentecostalism covers classical Pentecostalism. Charismatics are addressed in the article "Charismatic Movement." In the introduction of 'The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, the editors write the following explanation of their categorization scheme:

There are two approaches to differentiating betweenpentecostal andcharismatic, one theological, the other ecclesiastical. A theological differentiation can be found especially in the doctrine concerning Spirit baptism (also called the baptism in, or of, the Holy Spirit). It is oversimplified, but perhaps useful, to say that pentecostals subscribe to a work of grace subsequent to conversion, in which Spirit baptism is evidenced by glossolalia (speaking in tongues); for some, this baptism must also follow another act of grace, namely, sanctification. Charismatics, on the other hand, do not always advocate either the necessity of a second work of grace or the evidence of glossolalia as an affirmation of Spirit baptism. Yet both emphasize the present work of the Spirit through gifts in the life of the individual and the church.

Ecclesiastical differentiation is based on denominational affiliation. Thus,pentecostals refers to those participating in classical pentecostal denominations, such as the Assemblies of God, the Church of God (Cleveland, TN), the Church of God in Christ, the United Pentecostal Church, and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.Charismatics, on the other hand, refers to persons outside these classical pentecostal denominations but with connections to mainline denominations.Neocharismatics are participants in independent, postdenominational, nondenominational, or indigenous groups or organizations, such as the Vineyard Christian Fellowship.::::

If Pat Robertson attended a Pentecostal church we could say he is a Pentecostal. But to my knowledge he does not and is not a "leader" of classical Pentecostals.Ltwin (talk)17:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articlePresbyterian Church in the United States of America you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofRelentlessly --Relentlessly (talk)17:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please give your opinion about the deletion proposal of the article concerningLagos Province, one of the 14 ecclesiastical provinces of theChurch of Nigeria? Thank you.[2]Mistico (talk)15:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to know if you were active (I don't see many edits over the last two months) and will be around the next few days as I've decided to take up the GA review ofPresbyterian Church in the United States of America. I should have the beginnings of my review up this weekend. Do let me know.JackTheVicar (talk)22:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ltwin,

Please let me know if you are planning to address what I brought up atTalk:Presbyterian Church in the United States of America/GA2.

Thanks --JFH (talk)20:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your health; I'll pray for your recovery. I'll go ahead and close the nomination and you can renominate it when you're able to work on it. --JFH (talk)01:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The articlePresbyterian Church in the United States of America you nominated as agood article has failed; seeTalk:Presbyterian Church in the United States of America for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofRelentlessly --Relentlessly (talk)22:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Dear Ltwin, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent improvement of theChristian perfection article. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards,AnupamTalk19:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Ltwin, I'm glad that you got around to working on it because your edits have substantially improved the article! All the best,Anupam^Talk04:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

HiLtwin, I am reviving the Charismatic Christianity WikiProject and noticed you were active in the past so i am inviting you to come back and help me get it going again.Callsignpink (talk)13:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Callsignpink: Sure, I'll do anything I can to help.Ltwin (talk)04:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

There are minor referencing errors inBaptism with the Holy Spirit:

• There is a Bromiley 2000 in Notes, but Bromiley 2002 in References
• There is Arrington in References but no such citations in Notes
• I've fixed the missing anchor in Wurzburger 2007

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅contribs)00:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You're probably well-aware of the Southern Baptists, but here –Southern_Baptist_Convention#Divisions_over_slavery – The Northern Baptists split from them on the issue of slavery (and therefore,abolition). Southern Baptists – nowadays – refer to themself, and are referred to as, "Evangelicals", so it's disingenuous to just use the term like a blanket. That would mean granting (at least) one particular denomination the "Evangelical" blanket to hide under, while clouding the truth about their past. The Southern Baptist "Evangelicals" had nothing to do with supporting abolition, but instead, kept it around, using the Bible to justify slavery (which was especially effective, since the Bible does not condemn it, and in some cases, condones it). If one is going to claim "Evangelicals" supported abolition, they ought to specify which, and whom, during which time frame. 3/4 of the Founding Fathers were Anglicans, which was a strong denomination in the North (the Liberals, later the Union), as was the Episcopal Church. Many of these old "Liberal" denominations, which supported abolition, were generallyMainline Protestant, not Evangelical. It wasn't even until almost 30 years after the Civil War (the 1890s) that Evangelicalism gained a real foothold. Now yes, of course there weresome Evangelicals who supported abolition, but abolition was largely opposed by the South, and was largely being pushed by theRadical Republicans and Socialists of the North, in the old Republican Party, during their times. That's not to do with Evangelicalism, but rather, political philosophies. Or do you feel you know something I haven't mentioned here?^Knowledge_Battle^(Talk) |^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤──21:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgebattle: I am aware of the history of the Southern Baptist Convention over slavery. All of the evangelical denominations during the Antebellum period split over slavery: the Baptists, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists. The fact that southern evangelicals accommodated themselves quite well to the South's slave culture is quite well known and studied. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that it is Evangelicalism that is credited in numerous reliable sources for being a (if notthe) impetus to the trans-Atlantic abolitionist movement.

Honestly, yes I do think I know "something" that you haven't mentioned. Namely, the fact that the "old 'Liberal' denominations" you cite as being Mainline were in fact evangelical at this time. As the history section of theMainline Protestant article points out, during the Civil War Mainline Protestantism was virtually indistinguishable from Evangelical religion. It was only later that liberal theology took over the formerly evangelical institutions that we now know as the Mainline churches.

But I don't expect you to take my word for it. Check out theEncyclopedia of Antislavery and Abolition, which states in the introduction to"Antislavery Evangelical Protestantism", page 42 the following:

Antislavery evangelical Protestantism emerged in Great Britain and the United States in the last quarter of the eighteenth century within an environment of changing theological doctrines. While evangelicalism alone did not cause antislavery, there is little doubt that it contributed significantly to its rise and to a variety of other social reform efforts. The demand forimmediate emancipation after 1830 sustained an especially strong link with evangelicalism. Many leading abolitionists employed Biblical language, and evangelical Protestants led the drive to found antislavery organizations. Yet, pronounced divisions within American Protestantism after 1840 revealed that not all evangelicals advocated immediate emancipation. Nevertheless, antislavery evangelicals on both sides of the Atlantic shaped the movement in significant ways. Not only did they draw attention to slavery's immoral nature, but they agitated politically for an end to the international slave trade and for slavery's abolition. In the United States, their involvement in both radical and moderate antislavery efforts subsequently coincided with the collapse of the Second Party System and the increasingly divisive sectionalism that ultimately resulted in the Civil War.

In short, American Protestantism was American Evangelicalism before the late 1800s. Therefore, you can't give "the Mainline" credit for abolitionism without giving credit to evangelicals because they were essentially the same people in the 1850s. I'll leave you with another quote just for some added context, Jason Lantzer,Mainline Christianity: The Past and Future of America's Majority Faith, page 31:

Too, the Second Great Awakening was not just a revival of religion; it was also a launching pad for reforms. In many ways, reformist zeal contributed to the success of the Mainline’s evangelical denominations. Evangelicals not only talked about sin, they sought to identify and eliminate specific sins that affected both individuals and all of society. America’s churches thus became places where the rights of women were discussed, where efforts were launched to reform prisons and asylums, where initiatives were started to create a system of free, public schools, where alcohol was openly condemned, and where slavery (at least in the North) was openly blasted as an abomination against both God and man.

The reform heritage of your "old 'Liberal' denominations" is actually a product of their evangelical heritage. Imagine that.Ltwin (talk)22:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ltwin: I see. Wonderful description on the shift of Evangelical thought over time, and thank you for taking the time to prove it. I didn't realize it when I typed my message to you, but with your response("Honestly, yes I do think I know 'something'..."), I had to look back at my own message to see what elicited that tone... realized it was my fault, right there with the ending question. Sorry, I have a tendency to type the way I speak, and so now with this reply, I'm trying to be more careful about not sounding like a douche.

So, correct me if I'm wrong(that's probably how I should've phrased it, before), but what I hear you saying is – the old-school Evangelicalism(which is responsible for abolitionism)is what evolved into the modern-day Mainline Protestantism? Is that correct?^Knowledge_Battle^(Talk) |^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤──03:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgebattle: I think it would be more accurate to say that the dominant 19th century evangelical consensus fragmented into several different trajectories. One part morphed into modern-day liberal or ecumenical Protestantism (and eventually won the fights for institutional control over most of the major US denominations, with the exception of the Southern Baptist Convention). It is interesting that one of the predecessors to theNational Council of Churches was an interdenominational organization named the Evangelical Alliance.

Another part morphed into Christian fundamentalism (mainly from the Baptist and Presbyterian churches), while another part morphed into the Holiness Movement and modern-day Pentecostalism (mainly from Methodist backgrounds). It was moderate fundamentalists likeBilly Graham who invited the Holiness and Pentecostal churches into the postwar "Neo-Evangelical" consensus that basically represents contemporary mainstream Evangelicalism in the US, such as you see represented by theNational Association of Evangelicals orChristianity Today. However, many commentators and researches have noted that we seem to have entered another period of fragmentation in which the Neo-Evangelical consensus no longer appears to be holding evangelicals together—and this at a time when the Mainline denominations appear to be numerically imploding.

I would caution against assuming that contemporary evangelicalism does not have a social justice or social reform component any longer. The Pro-Life Movement should properly be seen as being in continuity with earlier reforming impulses, since it isn't about oppressing women but about saving what they believe to be human lives. Also, evangelicals are heavily involved in anti-human trafficking movements today. Just to name a few.

There is a difference though. 19th-century evangelicals werepostmillennial—they believed Jesus Christ would only return to earth after a period of human fostered peace and prosperity (the millennium). Mainliners have retained this postmillennial eschatology, which is why they speak of "the Reign of God" as if its identical to theUN Millennium Development Goals, LOL. 20th-century evangelicals have tended to be (not all of them are)premillennial—they believe Jesus is going to come back before the Millennium and the world will just keep getting worse and worse until he does return. This helps explain why some segments of contemporary Evangelicalism are less engaged in social reform activities than they were in the past.

That was all very simplified LOL. American Protestantism is very complex and not always easily compartmentalized. Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants can appear completely different, but in reality their roots are in the same soil. TheUnited Methodist Church is a great example, since its often described as both mainline and evangelical.Ltwin (talk)04:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The articlePresbyterian Church in the United States of America you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Presbyterian Church in the United States of America for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you cannominate it to appear in Did you know.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofBradv --Bradv (talk)16:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

	The Christianity Barnstar
	is hereby awarded to Ltwin for their tremendous contribution to Christianity-related articles. –Lionel(talk)12:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articleHalf-Way Covenant you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofFarang Rak Tham --Farang Rak Tham (talk)08:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The articleHalf-Way Covenant you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Half-Way Covenant for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you cannominate it to appear in Did you know.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofFarang Rak Tham --Farang Rak Tham (talk)17:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you could just move the references to the right sections, instead of removing them... just saying.--GenoV84 (talk)14:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

GenoV84, I didn't remove them entirely. I only removed the one's you placed after every single word in the same sentence.Ltwin (talk)14:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice, my mistake. I reverted my last edit.--GenoV84 (talk)14:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I seem to have a issue with mobile.intelati/talk01:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ltwin,

I have appreciated helping you with the GA review ofHalf-way covenant. I'd like it if you could do a GA review of one of my nominations atWP:GAN#REL. There's a bit of a backlog there. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)01:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploadingFile:World Assemblies of God Fellowship logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair 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. — trlkly00:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articleElizabethan Religious Settlement you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofMathglot --Mathglot (talk)20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Census QuickFacts
• Social Capital Variables Spreadsheet for 2014, PennState College of Agricultural Sciences, Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development
• Social Capital Project: Social Capital Index Data spreadsheet accompanying the U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Social Capital Project. “The Geography of Social Capital in America.” Report prepared by the Vice Chairman’s staff, 115th Cong., 2nd Sess. (April 2018)
• Religious statistics by county
• PeakVisor, search for "X County" to find high points in a county
• ebird, gives bird species lists for each county
• Midwest Herbaria, search to generate plant species lists for each county
• Mycoportal, search to generate fungus and bryophyte species lists
• NASS QuickStats database, gives agricultural figures by county for many data points
• bestplaces.net--Epiphyllumlover (talk)21:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)