User talk:Rekleov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Transubstantiation

You are reverting material whose language was worked out in the talk page. Also your reverts state "m (rv vandalism)" which is false; this is not vandalism. Please state objections in the talk page, seek consensus before reverting, again. Thanks. Giovanni33 16:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sin

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

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

[edit] Means of Grace

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

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

Hi, Rekleov. Since all of the branches Christianity have held that sacraments are not mere symbols, except the Zwinglians, the Anabaptists, and others with a similar theory, I wonder if it might be more convenient to say something like this:

Except for those who concur with Zwingli's theory that the sacraments are mere symbols, all branches of Christianity have held that the sacraments cause their recipients to receive divine grace.

In putting it that way, Zwingli and the radicals, including many Reformed, along with most of vanilla evangelicalism, are out of the circle of the norm. What do you think? Otherwise, it seems to me that the list could get kind of long, and would become confusing when Mormons, the Church of Christ groups, and others are added to the list. What do you think? Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...we don't want to have a laundry list. The problem comes with the Reformed --- there are some, those closest to Calvin, who find that there is a Sacramental presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper (though they disagree with Rome, Wittenberg, and Constantinople on Christ's *physical* presence in the LS); then there are the Zwinglians and those effectively Zwinglian --- or who simply embrace the sacraments as mandated, or as expressions of unity or somesuch. If it weren't for the first group of Reformed, it would be easy. Hmmm... Where do you want to put this in the article? That would definitely make a difference. Thanks!
I'm not sure, but I was thinking that it could replace the sentence where it occurs:
Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and Lutherans hold 
that sacraments are not mere symbols, but cause their recipients to 
receive divine grace.

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

Sounds good. The only phrase I'd like to massage, however, is the "cause their recipients..." --- do they cause them to receive grace, or do they actually bring grace along with them? I think on the Grace-delivery side would vote for the latter. --Rekleov 18:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes. The wording of that can be improved. "God actually confers his grace to ... by means of ... " that sort of thing, would be closer. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lutheran Eucharist

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

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


[edit] Luther Page Rewrite Discussion on

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

[edit] Real Presence

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

[edit] Martin Luther and the Jews

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

[edit] Infant Baptism

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

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

[edit] Thanks for the Luther Page Revert

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

Actually, I have. Not in the most constructive way (yet), but as a call for argument rather than trying to bury folks under a mass of quotations. We'll see what time I have to put in on this. Thank you! And a Happy New Year to you as well! -Rekleov 03:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your fresh edits to the Luther page! Happy Wikiing. drboisclair 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Jews Merger Discussion

Would you weigh in on this one? Thanks for the support. This is getting old. --CTSWyneken 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Geller

Hi, I seem to have tripped over your changes when following the trail of vandalism left by User talk:167.206.203.14. My apologies! Jbetak 16:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rvv

Hi. Re: Eucharist: when you revert vandalism, check that you got all of it. Vandals often make multiple edits. If you just revert the last edit, other editors may see that vandalism was reverted and assume you got it all, leaving the page vandalized. Thanks for keeping an eye out for vandalism, though! Good work!--Srleffler 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Stephan

Why are you reverting this article to the previous version? The version submitted by Phil Stephan has a far more detailed view of Martin's life than the current post and vastly than most people will ever get to know by reading the one sided book "Zion on the Mississippi". We would like to post this information and are willing to edit if resonable reasons can be given, otherwise we need to enter the mediation process to resolve this.

[edit] New Discussion Opening at talk:Martin Luther

FYI. This looks like it will be civil and fun. --CTSWyneken 12:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please lend your guidance once again on Martin Luther

The question of whether or not to put Martin Luther into the category of Anti-Semitic people has come up again. Your help to arbitrate this matter would be helpful. drboisclair 01:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther (Again)

SlimVirgin and Doright wish to list Luther in both catagories Antisemitism and Antisemitic People. Please drop by and help resolve the issue. --CTSWyneken 02:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The category:Antisemitic people

I want you to know that I am behind you in your opposition to this category, but I think that we have to get our ducks in order if we want to have it deleted. The compromise of earlier this year has been breached in the putting of Luther back on this list. I wonder how we can resolve this to the satisfaction of all concerned. I think that the Admins will be willing to compromise on things. What should happen is that Luther should be removed from this list until we have had the chance to discuss and perhaps vote on whether Luther should be added to this list. I guess that we have to be sure that we are NPOV on this thing. Addendum: a vote could be binding here because there is disagreement among editors on whether or not to have Luther on the list. I doubt if one would have much success in having this category eliminated. Drboisclair 22:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on Talk:Martin Luther page

Please, come and vote at the bottom of the page. Let's get this decided. Drboisclair 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luther and On the Jews and Their Lies pages

Given your interest in Luther, your presence in the discussions on these pages is requested. --CTSWyneken 11:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Swizzeling and Deleting Content on Martin Luther Talk page

Rekleov, please be advised that Content Swizzeling and Context Swizzeling are NOT considered to be a “minor” edit. In addition to declining to answer the question, you are now engaging in Swizzeling by [1] deleting the text in talk to which my prior comments refer. I think this is considered improper and, of course, leaves the preceding comments looking absurd. Please restore the discussion page text, also please note that replies to comments typically are placed following (usually with indentation) not on top of the chronologically preceding comment. I suppose I should learn my lesson that no good deed goes unpunished in some quarters.Doright 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To what POSSIBLE good deed do you refer? Telling me that I should have seen a category that was nonexistent when I made my first entry? Fascinating what one finds on the internet. --Rekleov 21:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Not only did you insert an unsigned and undated edit out of sequence so that it appears to be associated with an earlier date, (i.e.,Swizelling), you also wrecked the vote count numbering. Please do not waste anymore of my time on this and fix your own mess yourself. Furthermore, you dated your edit, "I am moving my vote to "neither category", 01:59, 21 April 2006, which is a date 18 hours earlier than even my original post to you that (1) pointed out the existence of the new category (2) sought clarrification and (3) asked you a question that you still have not addressed. Please restore the integrity of the talk page and stop wasting my time.Doright 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the good deed. Rekleov, I think you are saying that you would rather the Luther article not be in any antisemitism related category, just as I would prefer that Luther was not one of the most significant antisemites in world history. However, I'm wondering why you prefer this category to the other? Should your vote be understood as a vote for Stan's newly created option of "neither category?" Can you explain? Doright 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC). As a result of this good deed you changed your vote. You are now clearly demonstrating bad faith. I have no more to say to you on this topic.Doright 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please look at the Martin Luther introduction

Dear Rekleov, user:Doright has made an addition to the introduction of Martin Luther that I would view as vandalism. Drboisclair 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Drboisclair: I have seen this and am in full agreement. If nothing else, it has nothing to do with what Luther himself did, and this therefore at the very least off-topic. Thank you! It also looks like we rvv'ed it at about the same time --- my rv isn't showing in the history. --Rekleov 19:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Discussion underway over reducing the two paragraph mention of Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric to a sentence. Come and join in. --CTSWyneken 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion on listing Luther in two antisemitic catagories at Martin Luther is requested. --CTSWyneken 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justification article

Hi,

I noticed that you appeared in the edit history of the justification (theology) article. I recently made major changes to the article in an effort to move it to NPOV. If you have any suggestions for improvement (style, content, whatever), please leave a comment on the talk page for that article. The goal is to get the article to the point that the POV and cleanup templates can be removed.

Thanks, --jrcagle 20:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (copied from my talk page:)

The one thing I would suggest is keeping a separate Lutheran section --- as Lutherans draw a bright line between Justification and Sanctification, they do not fit well under a simple protestant umbrella, given the number of groups that teach sanct. first, then just,; just. & sanct. together; just. & sanct. all together in one big ball; other variations... -Rekleov 23:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
See if this meets the need. I had actually mentioned the Luther's separation between J and S in a couple of places, but the language was obscured by bad organization...If it's not clear enough, feel free to muck around! And thanks for the help. Grace and peace, jrcagle 00:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll jump into it a little later and take a look. I'm trying to edit on a larger range of articles these days. Bob --CTSWyneken 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (Talk)
I'll take a swing at. Are you sure it's OK with you if I do a complete rewrite? You have some good thoughts, but it isn't the way I would normally say things. If so, I'll work it up in Word first and cut-and-paste the results into the Wiki. Bob--CTSWyneken 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No problems with that at all. I was simply trying to edit what I found there and make it some what more palatable --- this isn't how I would have ordered or said things, either. I've just been busy these days... My two concerns are these (and I am sure are held by you as well): 1) Accuracy; 2) correct language, but vocabulary (at least explained in the text) that won't scare off non-Lutherans. That's what I was shooting for. I look forward to your efforts! --Rekleov 21:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Take a look when you get a chance. I'm about to post a first effort. Still needed is to account for JDDJ and other heterodox renderings. --CTSWyneken 12:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rekleov,

There has been a bit of reversion going on in the Lutheran bulleted list: justification has gone back and forth between "cannot be lost" and "can be lost." Does that reflect a genuine difference of opinion, or is it simply a confusion?

talk below. Thanks, jrcagle 18:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small text in footnotes on Martin Luther

Dear Rekalov: I've put back the text size to normal. It is very difficult for old geezers like me to read text so small and few folks are like me and know how to direct their browser to blow it up. And I don't like doing that because it disorts the page. Why it is necessary to reduce such to the size of a legal disclaimer? 8-) --CTSWyneken 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I hadn't considered that problem --- it would be nice, however, if the wp would automatically put together a references page for each article that has them, as it would reduce clutter while still making the material accessable. I shall leave things as they are, then! --Rekleov 13:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you are up to it, would you weigh in on Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies?

I'm trying to deal with some poor additions from Doright and trying to document everything objectively. Take a look. --CTSWyneken 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you see the feature article nom

Take a look at the link at Talk:Martin Luther. The article was nominated for Featured Article. We're trying to answer all the criticisms and comments we can. We're probably not going to make it this go around, but it's good to shoot for it, now the the Jews front is quiet. --CTSWyneken 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Any improvement in language would be welcome. If you think you can reduce detail, go ahead and comment it out. Ask for objections in talk. I've also been trying to move Latin and German titles of Luther's works to the footnotes. If you find a section where a lot of detail could go, feel free to start a subarticle and port it there. Just watch for NPOV and OR. Someday a critic will come to visit.... --CTSWyneken 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
And here is the problem with "Rek" and his edits. He comes in after detailed work has been done for many hours and then starts tinkering with the text, with no discusion, no explanation, nothing, and then is incensed when he is reverted after, in several cases, only gumming up the flow of the tex.Ptmccain 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your remarks

I regret that you continue to launch personal attacks and reference CPH. I wonder why you insist on that? As I said on the page, some of your edits are good, others are just wordy and contribute nothing to the good flow of the article. You seem quite impressed with your editorial skills and eager to disparage mine. I'm all for good edits, but several of yours to the Luther page just add words for no good reason. The article is already too long, adding more words is not improving it. This is Wikipedia, not the Britannica. It is a nice useful summary for people. There is no "dumbing down" involved in editing for clarity and better flow. You seem to confuse proper editing with "dumbing down" which I'm beginning to understand means, in your view, any edits that differ with yours. You are quick to toss out the accusation of "dumbing down." You choose to hide behind your anonymity and continue to take personal shots at me and CPH. It is getting old. If you wish to discuss this more appropriately, send me an e-mail. Ptmccain 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One note: it has nothing to do with skills; it has everything to do with tendencies. Edit as you will. I've better work to do. --Rekleov 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I welcome good edits, but poor ones can not be excused by claiming they are done in the interest of not "dumbing down" the article. Ptmccain 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther (again)

We now have Doright asking us to document salvation by grace. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 21:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theology of Martin Luther

In order to begin the process of reducing the size of the Martin Luther article, I've begun this article to allow a detailed disucssion of Luther's theology. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your help in editing this article so that it fulfills that purpose. Thanks! --CTSWyneken(talk) 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[[

[edit] McCain

Can you explain why you made this edit, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If I made an error, I'm sorry --- I just noticed a bunch of material deleted by a user (I now see it was you), and assumed that it was a random deletion. If it should go, then make it go. I've seen a lot of random deletions of late, and just went with the reversion automatically. --Rekleov 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lutheranism Project

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





--CTSWyneken(talk) 11:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lutheranism

The WikiProject Lutheranism Collaboration Project is under way. Please help improve this month's article, or make a suggestion for next month's article. To add the collaboration banner to your userpage or talk page, use {{Lutheran COTM}}. -- Pastordavid 19:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

Please stop by and give your opinion on the two proposed barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David † (Review) 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your helpful editing on Book of Concord

Hello, friend Rekleov, I appreciate your help with reverting back the helpful material that Paul McCain has been deleting. Even though he is banned he still manages to change his IP address in order to mask his presence on Wikipedia. Of course, the main point is not that he is editing but that his edits are wrong in themselves. He wants to dumb the article down. I have mentioned something on the talk page but the "anonymous editor" does not respond. Thank you for being for getting as much info across to Wiki readers. Kindest regards, David--Drboisclair (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)