User talk:Mikeatnip

Edits to Daniel Sidney Warner

Thanks for the edits to the Daniel Sidney Warner article. There has been a lot of confusion on this article between various editors and an individual claiming affiliation with the D.S. Warner Library. The person is constantly pushing the issue of Warner's influence on the development of the Church of God (Anderson). I have decided not to engage anymore on the issue and leave it to other editors to improve this article. Thanks for making it better. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

church of God Anderson

I think you have a good outline in the COG Anderson article. I would encourage you to write it. As it stands, the present article needs some help pretty bad. I am not qualified to rewrite it, unless I would do some research which at the moment I do not have time for. Mikeatnip (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually have my hands full trying to the the new Christian music WikiProject going, but as soon as I have that done I will look at rewriting the article. Thanks again. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

NIV Bible

Please visit the NIV Bible page and contribute to the section regarding the gender neutral changes currently being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Johann Leonhard Dober

Thanks for your edits to Johann Leonhard Dober, but please cite your sources on the information that you added. Thanks! Fortpinepitch (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, I believe that the little detail I added is in Hutton's History of the Moravian Church, thus no need to make another footnote. But maybe Hutton doesnt bring that out. It has been a year or more since I was reading much Moravian history, so maybe it is in another book. But I am wondering if we really need to footnote every little detail (would make oodles of footnotes)?? If you doubt what I added, I will look up the source to be sure. I added the little point about Nitschmann not staying on St. Thomas, as there is a big misconception concerning the whole story of the first missionaries selling themselves as slaves (I believe it was you that has added the correct story here on Wikipedia ... Thanks for your work on the Moravian Brethren people here in Wikipedia! I would like to do more, but dont have time.Mikeatnip (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Ok, thanks for your work, and I think you are right that the information was already in the same source I used. Happy editing! Fortpinepitch (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Jakob Ammann

I need to apologize for my harsh comments. I said some things about you that were unkind. I know that your trying to improve the article, but there are certain standards that need to be upheld. Whatever the case, I let my temper get the better of me and for that I'm sorry. I hope we can work together to improve the page and maintain the high standards that Wikipedia users expect. - ICarriere (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, let's be friends! :-) Mikeatnip (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I want to add that a friend and I are planning on writing a biography on Ammann so we have been collecting sources. We have some interesting materials, some of it never published before except in historical journals. For example, they have located the house that was very likely (although not proved yet from a title search on the property) the Ammann house in the village of Thal, above Erlenbach. It was torn down in 1956 and rebuilt, but a man over there doing research sent me a photo of the house before it was torn down. I have some photos of the area, and also some photos and video clips of Jakob's house in the Alsace. If you would like, I would be glad to share some of these things with you by email, if you take an interest in Ammann's life. Mikeatnip (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Waldensians edit

Oh dear. I meant to fix the reference and add Italian/French translations - then I saw that "Vaudois" was the French name and abandoned the edit. I must have accidentally saved the edit before previewing, so I'm glad you alerted me to it. I'm going to go ahead and fix the reference now. Thanks for asking. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 00:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What improvements to the Church of God (Restoration) do you want to make

Hi Mike- I have been away for a while, but it seems like most of my contributions to the article have been reverted by you. What improvements do you think still need to be made? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it's been long enough that I forget what has happened on that page, but it looks like the latest revert was because your edit stated that the ministerial body was "located near Greenville, Ohio." That didn't quite fit reality since the ministers are scattered all over the world. Mikeatnip (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I did see your note thank you. I was wondering more about how to contribute going forward and wanted to see if you had any thoughts. Either way I started a thread on the talk page.  :) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see my most recent edits to the Moravian Church article

The formal name of the Church is "Unitas Fratrum" and I have provided two sources, one is an official Church source, showing this is the case. The previous version of the lead was confusing and convoluted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.77.166 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be best if you could sign on for an account and discuss changes that way. Anonymous editors are harder to maintain discussions. "Unity of Brothers" is better than "United Brethren," although essentially they are the same. However, "Unity of Brothers" puts more emphasis on the "Unity" (the organization) while "United Brethren" puts more emphasis on "brethren." So there is a difference. I have seen "United Brethren" used a few times, but most writers use "Unity of Brothers." That started a long time ago, and today's American English would probably better translate to something like "Community of brothers." Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually if you see my most recent edits I have restored "Unity of the Brethren". As you note, this emphasises the 'unity'. This translation is used in multiple sources, including official church websites. The Latin term is usually used first. 86.159.77.166 (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Native American reconciliation section

This section really doesn't belong with the article, to be frankly honest. The group of "Amish" that was involved in this are a very, very tiny group of people that may have grown up Amish, but are not in the mainstream of Amish any more. Just because someone was born Amish does not make them "Amish" forever, if they change their way of life and thinking. Probably 99% of Amish know nothing about this supposed "reconciliation" and would not feel that these types of "reconciliation" meetings really accomplish anything tangible, for events that happened two centuries ago. I would like comments on the proposal to eliminate the section.

I added some content and deleted one sentence to give a more balanced view. Dan Holsinger (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Jakob Ammann

As far as I know there are no new documents that PROOF that the Jacob Ammann born on 12 February 1644 was the Jakob Ammann of the Amish schism. As long as this is not clear, many other facts about his family remain somehow speculative, even if rather possible than not.

By the way, this is not YOUR article! With your actions you already chased away users like JonHarder who was quite productive concerning Anabaptism. Don't start an edit war! Arandiro (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for your positive edits to Anabaptist articles

Dear User:Mikeatnip, thanks for your kind words about my improvements to Anabaptist-related articles. I've become interested in Anabaptism recently, especially after exploring the content of "The Historic Faith" (if you're familiar with that) and noticed that there was not much coverage on Wikipedia. If time allows, I may travel to visit some Anabaptist communities to get photographs for these articles too. I appreciate your note about the Hutterites not practicing footwashing—that was something I wasn't aware of. I am grateful for your words again and hope you have a wonderful day! With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I have had a desire to add more to the articles, especially the Anabaptist Theology one. Your edits pushed it in a good direct. But time does not allow me to do what all I would like. I live in Ohio at the moment so if you travel around, contact me and I can take you on a tour of Holmes and surrounding areas. :-) I used to be editor of The Heartbeat of the Remnant and am quite familiar with the Charity-type churches. Check out the book Andrew Ste. Marie and I did on Jakob Ammann if you have not already. Mikeatnip (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate the invitation and I will be in touch! Thank you for your generosity! With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Proto-Protestantism

I support what you said about the article, have a look at what I said. I'm Dan Holsinger. 2A02:8071:B81:DA80:5591:E601:B653:907D (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Kenton Amish affiliation

Hello Mike, Some days ago I wrote a paragraph about the "Kenton Amish affiliation" in the Kenton, Ohio article but my edit was reverted, in my view, without a real reason. Maybe the best would be to make it into a stub or short article of its own. I'm not registered and cannot create new articles. Could you please to it. I may then expand it. My text here below. Dan Holsinger 2A02:8071:B86:8060:25D3:F11C:F51F:2E16 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

In 1953 a more conservative faction of the Amish in North-East Indiana, that is the Elkhart-LaGrange and Nappanee Amish settlements, established a new settlement South of Kenton that became a new Amish affiliation. In 1958 it consisted of two districts (congregations). In 2010 the settlement consisted of 8 congregations and in 2022 of 10 congregations with a total population of 1,155 people. It had also spread into Marion County. In 2017 Christophe Petrovich classified Amish affiliations into six groups ranging from most conservative to most liberal. The Kenton Amish affiliation was classified in the second most conservative group that "excommunicates those joining a district considered too technologically permissive or that teaches assurance of salvation". In 2011 the Kenton Amish affiliation had 13 settlements in six U.S. states with all together 25 congregations.

Problems with your view of cults.

Well, I've seen some time now that you refuse to accept that Jim Roberts' group, The Brethren, is a cult. Look, I know that maybe you have a little sympathy for the members of this "religion" because you are a member of a religion (Anabaptism) whose principles resemble in some segments with The Brethren (believe me, I already checked and researched due to awkwardness and reluctance on your part to accept about it). The problem is that I was a neighbor of families that were destroyed by this organization (my first girlfriend had a family member who is still missing because of them) and even local journalists where I live have called them a cult. That's why I ask you (with all due respect, because I'm very puzzled and surprised): why this reluctance to accept that The Brethren is a cult? Unless you have a friend or relative who is a member of that religion, I don't understand why you would show sympathy for a religious organization that has been accused of kidnapping and brainwashing (and which has personally affected my social circle). Look, I'm being honest and respectful, I just don't understand your sympathy for them. I just want to know why... 2804:14C:5B41:8B9E:BC90:D0EF:F709:6750 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

One of the reasons the group has been secretive is because of having family members force (yes, FORCE, as in push a member into a car and drive them away against their will) people to leave the group. So where is the "cult" at: with the group that allows anyone to leave at any time or with family who absolutely refuses to accept their son's or daughter's adult decision to try to live in literal obedience to Jesus? Has the Jim Roberts group ever FORCED people join their group? No.

The issue of people calling a group they do not agree with a "cult" is not limited to Jim Roberts group, no not by a long shot. About any religious group out their has ex-members and detractors who are ready to sling mud at those they disagree with. Perhaps if families would just accept that their child or brother/sister has decided to take a different approach to life, and not try to FORCE them back into their philosophical/religious worldview, that child/brother/sister would be more willing to come around and visit.

All that said, I personally think the Jim Roberts group did take a more protectionist stance than was ideal. But when you look at it from their standpoint, of having their members taken away by FORCE, then their "going underground" really makes a lot of sense. Think: "persecution."

If family members would have just accepted their son/daughter/brother/sister's decision to live a distinct lifestyle, I suspect that the going underground would have never happened. But when you have private detectives looking to hustle you into a car and FORCE you into a lifestyle you have chosen to turn away from, then running and hiding is the only option. Or, fighting back, which the group does not do, since they are pacifists.

On another note, anonymous users are welcome to edit Wikipedia, but people who make an account and use that account to make edits are generally taken more seriously, since there is more accountability with an identified user. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I was in the Brethren in 1998, a cult is when there is some man who controls everything, people look to him to make rules, he is held above other group members. When you read 1 Corinitians 5 most people think this was talking about a physical thing it wasn't, your Father is God his wife is the church, if someone comes into the church and starts ruling it he is guilty of 1 Cor 5, people don't see this because it is so prevalent it would be weird if it wasn't, Jesus said "call no man your rabbi, master" that includes "church leadership" Jesus was preaching a radical independence not a group think type situation with a leader at the top. There was no leader of the church when I was there, it was an environment where i could pray, read the bible, seek God, and be around people who were doing the same thing. Mikekumm (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)