Talk:Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary

Author's First Comment

The author of the article on hymnal Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary has received the following response:

"It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:

Prostylizing, POV, non-notable spam"

I object to this accusation. Nothing in this writing is of a proslytizing nature. In the freedom of speech, it describes a historic hymnary which has significance in how it is effecting other hymnals and church worship practices. I am not even a current member of the said church body, yet recognize its significance to confessional Lutheranism, Lutheranism, liturgical churches, and Christianity in general. Those not interested in its contents would not likely seek out the article. Those interested have a right to learn about this book as similar articles exist on other hymnals.

I found it less than useful that the one who objected did not offer suggestions on what he objected to, aqnd simply chose to have the article removed. I believe there is and should be room for dialogue on this and ask for that consideration.

People are free to belief what they do believe. This article describes a worship book and exists in its proper catagory. It likewise includes what has shaped this resource, and points out how it differs from similar resources. I do not find this to be out of place, and it is certainly not spam.

I commit that I will not search out articles I have no interest in and label them "spam", and likewise, I will not search for religion articles on theologies I disagree with and label them "spam" or consider them "prosletizing." I hope such was not the intent of the said objector.

Please post your comments, positive or negative, and your reason for such comments. If there is something which needs to be changed, lets talk. At the same time, I ask that we do not approach history with a revisionist's pen. --RikEischen 01:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Author's Second Comment

Once again, "RandomHumanoid" has sought to stop this article on a hymnal, claiming it is "not encyclopedic." I do not understand why he will not respond on the talk page, if he feels his concern is legitimate. I still contest the removal of the article and stand by what I have written above. In my opinion RandomHumanoid is trying to limit the scope of the encyclopedia by picking and choosing what he likes and what he doesn't. As I've stated before, if you have an objection, please state it.

Here I will apologize: I am a new writer to Wikipedia, and am not as familiar with how to respond to objectors. I tried to respond to him personally, but was told I needed to be logged in and have a valid email address on my preferences page. I was logged in, have had the email address listed and the box checked, and still somehow don't have access to communicate directly with RandomHumanoid. I do not consider it too great a demand to request dialogue on this issue. I hope this can be resolved properly and amiably. --74.141.160.8 01:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hmnn, you don't seem to be logged in given your signature is an IP address, although I'm not sure what the problem is. Anyway, I think this page should be reserved for discussions about how to clean up the article. The proper forum for addressing the WP:AfD nomination is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evangelical_Lutheran_Hymnary. That way, everyone interested in the subject of the article's deletion will be sure to see your comments. Finally, please comment only on the article, not about me personally. That is a cardinal rule here. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)