Valer

Welcome!

Hello, Valer, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Try our tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• Keep the Five Pillars of Wikipedia in mind, and remember to write from a neutral point of view.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~, or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~.
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask a question at the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome, and good luck!

Kirill Lokshin 03:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Eucharist

Re: Eucharist: Don't jump to conclusions about what others' points of view are. I am in the "Real Presence" camp, myself. My goal in editing that paragraph you were working on was to improve the NPOV and the grammar. I don't think the facts are in dispute here: I'm quite willing to accept your statements that the official Church doctrine is "Real Presence", and that only a tiny minority disagree (which would, obviously, be contradictory to the Church's teachings). The issue is that, to my eye, the only difference between "A tiny minority reject the Real Presence doctrine altogether, contrary to the Church's teachings." and "A tiny minority reject the Real Presence doctrine altogether, but are in complete violation to what the Church teaches." is that the former is slightly more neutral in tone, and is better grammar. I don't think you can be "in complete violation to" something.

Regarding neutrality: note that the NPOV page says "when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct." It's fine to say that only a tiny minority disagree with the Church's teachings, but saying that they "are in complete violation to what the Church teaches" seems to my eye to slip over the line into promoting a particular point of view. User:Srleffler 18:12, November 9, 2005.

---

Hi again. I'm curious about your removal of Anglicans from the "Protestant" category. What's up with that? My dictionary defines "Protestant" as referring to all Western Christian churches besides the Roman Catholics. Anglicans certainly qualify. I believe Anglicans are commonly considered to be Protestants, and the article Episcopal Church in the United States of America seems to indicate that the Chuch considers themselves to be Protestants. I've reverted the edit for the moment, on NPOV grounds. Since the word has a clear dictionary definition it is not amenable to implicit redefinition. --Srleffler 06:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It was not a NPOV but a POV in and of itself. To generalize "Protestant" as you did is unprofessional and dishonest. My original edit included a sidenote that explained many people do consider Anglicans "Protestants." That means my edit was far from a POV entry; I was providing both sides, not just one.

I would also ask you to note how much the Anglican Eucharist part was changed, much of it a longer and more detailed explanation of my original edits many months ago.

I do make sure my edits are NPOV. As an educator, as a historian, I am obliged to neutrality. I hope my edition to the talkpage in the Eucharist article shows my good faith in this and my professionalism.

Valer 01:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism COTM

The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglican collaboration of the month

Wassupwestcoast 02:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)