User talk:CTSWyneken/archive 8

Lutheran Template

Hello CTSWyneken, I was wondering what you think on creating a Lutheranism template like that of Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, ect. I know from reading your discussion on talk pages, that you hold the viewpoint (which I also share) that Lutheranism is in it's own a seperate tradition within Christianity (as opposed to a Protestant denomination). It would be very helpful as there are many pages related to Lutheranism, wich could all be linked to it. Your thoughts and help would be gladly appreciated. Please respond on my talk page. --Josh777 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

Before the Reformation, there existed a Roman Catholic Church indeed, even if full communion with the Pope was taken for granted and as a normal thing. The use of "Catholic Church" is thoroughly Medieval. Martin Luther founded an ecclesial body built on different principles than the Catholic Church in Germany before him held, therefore we cannot have the insinuation, that he somehow was in "continuity" with the Catholic Church in Germany before his reforms, which indeed was Roman Catholic.Smith2006 12:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You win, I agree with you. PLease remove Roman Catholic from Martin Luther then. Thanks for the discussion. Smith2006 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this discussion because this page is on my watchlist from having commented before. I found the discussion interesting, and agree that certainly pre-Luther "Catholic" makes more sense; I'm not sure I'd understood this point before. However, on the issue of continuity, I would recommend taking a look at the discussion of Luther in Bokenkotter's Concise History of the Catholic Church, which emphasizes that there is a question that can be argued both ways as to whether many of Luther's positions (up to the point where he began identifying the Pope as the anti-Christ) were inconsistent with Catholic teachings. Might be worth putting this on the discussion page. Sam 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good example of where in fact there necessarily will always be points of view, and where the Wiki theory of NPOV is simply false from the start. What is important is to let the various points of view be heard and not try to push one POV at the expense of another. I think that's where Wiki often fails miserably, due to its approach of "anyone and everyone can edit" pages. My user talk page has a great quote dealing with this systemic flaw in Wiki philosophy and what results. So, for example, on this issue, obviously we Lutherans do, as our Confessions indicate, regard Lutheranism as not a "break from" or "split" from the historic church catholic, but a reform of the same. The Roman Catholic Church regards Lutheranism to be a break off group, a schismatic and even heretical approach. Both POV are understandable and even defensible from their respective positions. So the NPOV would be simply to state both positions objectively and clearly, well sourced, etc. and then let readers decide for themselves. That's how I would see the NPOV principle in action here. Does that make sense? Thanks Sam. Ptmccain 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and to take it a step farther, there are clearly some differences of opinion within the Roman Catholic Church as to what in Lutheranism may and may not be "heretical." I don't see a lot of defense of the manner in which indulgences were used in Luther's time in the most commonly read Roman Catholic histories today, though, of course, indulgences themselves continue to be upheld. Of course, the authority of the Pope is a different thing, and calling the Pope the anti-Christ is more than frowned on. Sam 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sandwich of Diligence

Awarded for sourcing that was above and beyond the call of duty on the Martin Luther page. This is a special award Wear it with pride, brave Wiki-documentor! Ptmccain 21:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - thx - --Trödel 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Using "subst"

Hi! Don't forget to include subst at the start of templates: this forces the template's code to be posted onto the page, cutting down on server usage and means it's harder for other users to delete your template accidentally.

For example, rather than using {{smile|~~~}} you can use {{subst:smile|~~~}}.

If you need any help with this, feel free to ask.

Cool name, by the way...

Regards,

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem: I didn't know until another user passed it onto me- it's not made very clear most of the time! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

Sure, it's all fixed for you now!

I'm usually around for bits of time during the day, so if you need any more help just ask!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Small references

Since wikipedia uses the style guide of "references-small" for the list of references, I was thinking you might prefer to have a user customization that would make all the references not be small - rather than just the one on the Martin Luther page. You can do this if you are using the monobook "skin" (Check your skin by clicking my preference then the skin tab). If that is your skin, then edit the User:CTSWyneken/monobook.css page the way you want it:

ol.references { font-size: 100%; } 
.references-small { font-size: 90%; }

Above are the default values:

ol.references is the line for the numbered lists (like the footnotes)

.references-small is the line for bulletted lists - like sometimes used on Bibliography sections

My tests showed that using 110% and 100% respectively makes those sections about the same size as the normal font. You can do other customizations on that page as well --Trödel 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the help with this. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NP --Trödel 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing Wishes

Qho wishes you a happy editing day!!

Wiksistentialism

(I was told to pass this on to 10 people or my grandma would die. I assume the same applies to you.)

Your helpful neighborhood watch report: Tracking the source of this, it seems to come from one anon IP address with four edits, who did not include any chain letter type message or even a request to "pass it on". Just though you might like to know Homestarmy 18:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Articles

Ah, I just nominated the page because I noticed it wasn't already a GA, and I thought that was odd. The way it works is that somebody, (In this case me) puts the article on a list, Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations, and eventually somebody will review the article according to the Good article criteria at WP:WIAGA. I see no reason why it shouldn't pass. Homestarmy 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that one failed the MoS, it's lead was five paragraph's long and the limit is four :/. I don't think anybody's going to raise a big deal over it though, unless the article was pro-Hebrew language :D. Homestarmy 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You seemed to be doing it about right. Just remember WP:LEAD and that "further reading" and "See also" don't count as references, and that "well-referenced" doesn't mean two notes at the bottom of a 70 Kb article :). Homestarmy 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The referencing qualification is possibly the most ambiguous criteria of all, "well-referenced" can mean many things to many different people. Whenever I review articles, I get the feeling im far more lenient than most reviwers, some of them even fail 70 Kb long articles for a single "fact" tag :/. It's really up to you in a way, "Well-referenced" doesn't mean "perfectly referenced", but if you come across an article which you feel could go either way, you could just not review it, another reviewer will probably pass or fail it eventually :). As for Charlamagne specifically, for some reason that article seems familiar, but I don't see any notice about anybody passing it anywhere :/. I'd probably fail it for more than just the references, the "family" portion of the article isn't in prose and probably belongs in a Family of Charlamagne article, and the introduction doesn't seem like it is really long enough to encompass the topic, i'd think this article would warrent at least two paragraphs. Homestarmy 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The rules were supposed to now read that people were supposed to leave comments, but I guess it'll take time for the system to react, we've been having a sort of silent-failure/pass problem a bit lately, sorry about Martin Luther :/. Homestarmy 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:1874

Hi - I don't get it - what is that? I don't remember having created it. This Fire Burns Always 21:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the norm for these kind of "year" articles. I can't think of notable events in 1874 (although the Prince of Wales visit is important as India was a British colony, and this was the first of its kind since the 1857 rebellion). I don't personally mind its deletion, but I know that many similar stubs exist so I don't know if it merits an AfD or not. This Fire Burns Always 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken HELPME!!!!!!

This person keeps going on over a dispute of which I already tried to settle but he continues on and on and on and on and....well you get the point. Please help. --Qho 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This was my apology to him.....

HEY

I AM SORRY BUT I DID NOT MEAN WHAT ALL I SAID.

CAN I HAVE YOUR VIRTUAL HAND SHAKE?

AND IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT PLEASE ADD YOUR ACCOUNT TO MY FRIEND LIST.

--Qho 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And this was his response...

I still don't understand what the problem was. Of course you don't expect me to just say "oh, it's nothing" after making such obvious threats by suggesting you supposedly know my identity. The only resolution i can accept at this moment for this vehement attacks is a face to face meeting to iron out this problem (that should not be a problem for you as you seem very eager to that). however, current circumstances render this meeting very unlikely to occur in the near future and even it will, i'm afraid you won't survive it. And also i would like to know if you would be that brave if i'd be standing next to you as you type, pluck your teeth and use them to enhance your keyboard. -- 89.32.1.82 11:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ALong with many other comments

Please respond on my talk page.

Thanks

Let me know if there is any thing I can do to get back to a civilized Community. How doi contact the admin. board. --Qho 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken/Library of Congress Classification:Class B

I just tagged CTSWyneken/Library of Congress Classification:Class B as needing context, but did you mean to make that a user subpage? NickelShoe (Talk) 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Now at User:CTSWyneken/Library of Congress Classification:Class B. up+land 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I need your help

My user boxes need alignment. Please help. --Qho 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

please

let me know who so i could ask them. Some one is having problems with my smilies, talk page and the long confused message i put down before asking for help.Also does putting things in CAPITALS mean i am SHOUTING?i posted smilies to every one who helped me with this edit war along with the 2 people i argued with in the past. Please help. --Qho 19:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nocebo

Response on Talk:Nocebo page. Lindsay658 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish People

Please reply to the question on the talk page of Kurdish people. Your change invalidates our citation. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry, it seems that I edited a bit too fast. The figure was wrong according to the source, but the number in percentages wasn't. My apologies. Bertilvidet 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther Image Link

Dear Payna: I created this cat and put it where it is. I really don't mind you moving it. I'll say so if the tempest keeps brewing. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the category is a great idea; but usually the top of the article is reserved for disambig stuff; the image thing, while impressive and useful, probably doesn't need to be up there. I've done all that I'll do with it, but thanks. Peyna 13:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Something completely different

A simple typo -- about the hardest thing to see. At one point you had </rev> instead of </ref>. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I kinda made a career out of my ability to notice such things... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about css in general -- maybe I misunderstand what you're trying to do -- are you just trying to change the color of visited links on Wikipedia? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Changing color of visited link at User talk:CTSWyneken/LC Sandbox and connected pages

Sorry about the late reply, I'm just getting round to ploughing through my messages after a holiday.

I'll take a look at it soon, I'm sure it can be done with a little CSS!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a few gos, but couldn't get anything to work for the visited links. The only alternative I can see is to define the background colour as something which will allow the links to stand out.

You could, of course, use the rather dilapidated <font> tags to alter the colour of the link no matter what the state (visited, hover, active etc), but you'd have to add the following code around every link!

For example,

[[Pagename|<span style="color:#666666">Pagename title</span>]]

would give

Pagename title

Leave me a message if you want help doing this, I'd be happy to help!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Five solas

Could you review these changes to Five solas from a Lutheran perspective? --Flex 14:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

Inline references have been added to the 2nd Battalion 9th Marines article. It would be appreciated if you would take a look at it now. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, ERcheck wrote a message on my talk page, to look at your message. For me it is an honor that 2nd Battalion 9th Marines will pass the GA Nomination. First, because it was my unit. Second because I wrote the article. User: Looper5920 originated it with the introduction and info box, which motivated me and I wrote the rest. I couldn't have done it without User:ERcheck's help. His help with the format has been instrumental in the article. The 2/9 patch is the one that I used and is also posted on my User page, which I invite you to visit. Take care. Tony the Marine 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for going back to review and for the complements to the page (see Tony's note above). — ERcheck (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again. Thank you. I see that you have promoted the article. Your suggestions for improvement are much appreciated. I expect that there will continue to be improvements made to the article in the coming days, including your suggestion on expanding the lead. — ERcheck (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Union Pacific Railroad

Thanks for alerting me about this, and I have removed it from nominations pages. Thanks and regards, Iolakana|^T 20:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am just being lazy!

If I forget, it would be very kind of you to remove the nomination. I should remember when I do things like this! Thanks again, Iolakana|^T 15:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Reza Shah GA nomination

Hi, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to review Reza Shah. I've responded to your concerns about inline citations on the article's talk page. ♠ SG →Talk 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replied and added two more references. ♠ SG →Talk 20:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for promoting the article. I really appreciate all the help you gave. ♠ SG →Talk 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Refs needed

Need a reference, ask a librarian ;) There are several "citation needed" tags in Jesus#Chronology. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

15th Marine Expeditionary Unit

Inline references have been added. The article is continuing to be worked on. If you have a minute, we'd appreciate it if you would take a look and give your feedback on additional work that should be done to earn GA designation. You can leave your response on my talk page, or Looper5920's talk page. Much appreciation to you for your guidance. — ERcheck (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lutheran-stub

Stub templates are not supposed to add any categories besides that of the associated stub category to an article. This is because the appropriate category might be the non-stub parent cat or it might be one or more its sub categories. Main categories should be added to each article individually, not by means of the stub template. I have reverted the template to remove your changes. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You added three non-stub categories to Lutheran-stub, which caused those categories to be added to every article that used the stub template. However, a stub should add only only a single stub category. Stub templates and stub categories are managed by the Stub Sorting WikiProject. Stubs connect back to the regular categories via the stub category which will have one regular category as it's parent. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

from stub to article

I have greatly expanded the stub "Jim Kiick" from just a few sentences to a full article. Shouldn't it be reclassified as an article and not a stub? Also, from looking at other football biographies there seems to be a standard format that is used; is there a template for this type of article?--65tosspowertrap 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me with feedback on....

The Elizabeth Smart kidnapping article thing on the GA disputes page, i'm in a sort of debate with an editor on that page over whether the article is a GA or not, and I don't really want to just leave it there all alone without consensus and then just end up archiving it and leaving it delisted :/. Homestarmy 16:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you a [question] on the comment page about language style.--Overdubbed 02:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have requested more specific information.--Overdubbed 05:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi Bob, I was wondering if you could take a look at the article Pedro del Valle. It's been around for sometime and deserves a rating. Thank you Tony the Marine 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• *Redlinks eliminated and inline references added using the "inote" style which I used in my FA article "Military history of Puerto Rico" Tony the Marine 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bob, I added some more inote references to cover the "tags". A couple of years ago when I wrote the FA article, the inote reference was the system that was used. The reference was to be visible only to editors since it was assumed that that all the references were listed in the reference section. Things may have changed therefore, I invite and welcome anyone who's familiar with the new reference system, to convert my "inotes" into what maybe now commonly used. Tony the Marine 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob, I'm going to give a shot later on today. Your explaination was really good plus, I'll check and see how REcheck did in my 2/9 article. I asked him but, he's on a Wiki vacation. Tony the Marine 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I tried but, I don't know what happened. When I clicked on "save", whole sections of the article disappeared. So, I decided not to mess with it. Im interested in the Civil War thing that you mentioned. Will look into it. Tony the Marine 06:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was going to start on it but I see you have taken care of it. Is this going to effect your ability to rate?--Oldwildbill 12:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to review it and promote it, but I probably shouldn't in any case, since I encouraged the listing. I'll finish it up and invite a friend to review it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On Pedro

Are you sure you want me to review that, because check the comparison of edits from the beginning of today to the end, all the changes you made were pretty big, that doesn't seem stable :). Homestarmy 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I just wanted to thank you converting my "inote" references to the new <ref> style. I'm glad that you were able to explain (I hope) to User:Homestarmy that the changes that you helped me in were in regard to the "inote" reference system. Tony the Marine 06:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have more confidence with the new refs. if you did it rather than I. Incidently, they really aren't that new. The part in the "Later Life" section which talks about the Sons of Liberty can be found in the "Nationalists" ref. and all the rest in the "Defenders of the American Constitution" ref. Oh, by the way, did you hear? OldWildBill believes that 2/9 has a chance at FA. Ain't that something, now I have two new found friends here, you and OldWildBill. Take care Tony the Marine 19:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sharing a story about Pedro

Bob, I just want to share this with you.

I had never ever heard of Gen. Pdero del Valle until a few years ago when I went to the library and read a book on Iwo Jima. I saw one sentence, only one sentence that mentioned him. I became curious because I had never heard of him before, a Hispanic WWII General.

I checked the internet and there was absolutly nothing on him so, I e-mailed the Marine Corps and the Marine Corps Museum and asked why. I requested that they provide some info in regard to this unknown WWII hero and Wha La. Finally I did my research and the websites posted his history and as the saying goes "The rest is History".

I wrote his bio because it contains three of my favorite things 1. The united States of America, 2. Puerto Rico and 3. The Marine Corps.

I hope you enjoy this message. Tony the Marine 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

John Sanders hold

I made some changes to the John Sanders article-- check it out and let me know if this is roughly what you were looking for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaliforniaKid (talk • contribs) .

Luther GA nomination

I'll try to take a look at it - I noticed his comments and agreed with him - it is very choppy - the hard part is ahead of us - synthesising the compromised presentation with smoother writing. --Trödel 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for help on Mormon handcart pioneers

Thank you very much for reviewing the article and helping us get approval for our article's nomination as a Good article. BRMo 03:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei GA

Hi, thanks sp for looking over the article. Obviously-- "how good" must a GA be is an open question, and I don't hang out around GA, so, perhaps the page does qualify. But it's a frustrating experience for me, because I feel like criticism has been systematically excluded from the page. I mean-- it's an article on the most controversial organization in a controversial religion, and yet-- it doesn't even have a controversy/criticism section.

Since you're familar with the subject, could you take a look at proposed rewrite I made and see if you think it's an improvment? I'm getting ready to ask a bunch of people their opinion on whether I'm going in the right direction, or whether the article is good as is, and I should just leave it be-- but, since you've just reviewed the issue, I should start by asking you :). --Alecmconroy

Thanks. Do you have an opinion on whether the rewrite is an improvement? --Alecmconroy 14:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas

Thanks again for your comments on Thomas Aquinas. I've discovered that the Biography section comes (almost directly) from Schaff-Herzog (see Talk:Thomas Aquinas#References), so I added the {{Schaff-Herzog}} tag to Thomas Aquinas#References. Do we need more complete inline citations? I also reworked the language and sentence construction in the Biography section as you suggested. Any further comments would be appreciated, when you have a few extra minutes. Thanks! - David aukerman ^talk 13:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bob - I've added citations (with external links) to Schaff-Herzog where appropriate. There are a couple of statements here and there in the Biography section that don't come from Schaff-Herzog; I've put {{cn}} in those places. What do you think? - David aukerman ^talk 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob, I think I've cleaned up all the missing {{cn}} tags... {{1911}} was the major culprit this time. Thanks for pushing me to find these references! - David aukerman ^talk 03:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA's back

Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 06:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile. It's great to be back with the good guys. Sophia 18:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

GA review - I like the sound of that. I've got some real life stuff to do at the moment (maths exam papers and some reading as I'm starting a one year maths teacher training course in September) but when I get them out of the way I'l give it a go. Hope Luther-life is not too bad at the moment. Sophia 22:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting Opus Dei GA

Thank you for supporting the return of GA Status for the Opus Dei article. That was nice of you. I found your comments to-the-point and useful. In fact, I have done some changes in view of your suggestions. If you have more comments and ideas, they would surely help. I am not that good in modern English. Thanks. :-) Marax 06:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Humbert Roque Versace

Tony the Marine and his crew have been hard at work on the above article. I have assessed it as a B Class and put a GAnominee tag on it. I let them know that it needs a little more in-line citations. I'm letting you know since you seem to be a fair assessor who works with the editors in achieving the goal of a good quality article and would like you to look at it. Due to real world events I will be unavailable until next weekend.--Oldwildbill 06:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have taken care of the citation situation the best that I know how. Man, I was really inspired when I wrote that article. It really made me a little emotional because nobody in Puerto Rico knew about him. I'm going to make sure that he gets his deserved recognition in the island. Take care buddy. Tony the Marine 03:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Received your message, thank you. You maybe interested in knowing that I'm going to take upon myself a quest. Puerto Rico has what is known as "El Monumento de la Recordacion" which is the Puerto Ricn equivalent to a Veterans Memorial. The thing is (and I live in Arizona) that I noticed in a website that the names of Captains Manuel Rivera and Humbert Roque Versace are not on it. They qualify because other soldiers of PR descent are inscribed. I'm going to write to the Senate and newspapers to get this thing moving. I want to see their names together with the other heroes. Tony the Marine 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. I wonder what happened with the Pedro del Valle rating.)

Jesus vote

Would you believe it? Over the era notation! Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 03:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pedro del Valle

I just wanted you to know that the article was promoted to GA status. I wanted to thank you because without your help with the references, it wouldn't have been possible. Tony the Marine 23:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about my editorial contributions

Hi. Silly question: Is there any way to figure out statistics about one's own edits, such as, how many edits I have made, get a list of articles I have edited/created, etc? Thanks! -- Ssilvers 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar award

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For his tireless work against Wikivandalism I award CTSWyneken the RickK anti-vandalism barnstar. Congratulations. Drboisclair 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Royal Scots

I have placed this article in GAnominee status.--Oldwildbill 22:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The movement to rename Roman Catholic Church "Catholic Church"

CTS, you may want to have a look at this poll: [1] and vote. --Drboisclair 09:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

i keep removing incorrect tags from a page. thanks

culturaland historicxla Jesus

Please comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#Proposals Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

News

I have some great news that I want to share with you. Istarted a movement to have the names of Capt's. Manuel Rivera and Humbert Roque Versace inscribed in "El Monumento de la Recordacion" , which is a monument located in San Juan, Puerto Rico dedicated to the solidiers born in the island or of Puerto Rican descent who served in the Armed Forces and gave their lives for the United States. For some unknown reason these two names were not in the monument.

The thing is that my quest has paid off and the President of the Puerto Rican Senate invited me to attend the unveiling in Memorial Day of 2007.

Pretty cool,huh? Tony the Marine 22:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Schlosskirche vs Castle Church - pledge to use the original names instead of translations.

Hi CTSWeyneken, I noticed you reverted my edit on 95 Theses by changing Schlosskirche back to Castle Church. Wouldn't you agree that Schlosskirche and Stadtkirche are used as names and should be cited in their original form? Castle church is just a translation. Regardless of the language of a particular wiki I would prefer the original names in the articles and a translation added in brackets. What're your thoughts on this? - Cheers, MikeZ 08:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Misery Synod"

Pr. Smith, I phrased that as "civilly" as I could. If you have a better way to word it, please share, but it is certainly not "irrelevant". Certainly using the nickname is uncivil, but reporting its use is not so. Carolynparrishfan 00:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again. My position on this is that it comes under the scope of the general "lore" of the denomination/school/company/whatever is at hand. As unfortunate and uncharitable it may be, it is the sort of thing that Wikipedia records:

From Mountain View College: "Locals often derisively refer to the school as 'Harvard on the Hill'."

From Huron Heights Secondary School: "Locally, the school is known as 'Heroin Heights' for widespread allegations of drug use amongst the student population, as well as some instances of reputed trafficking."

From Agincourt, Toronto: "It is often tongue-in-cheek referred to as 'Asian-court' by Torontonians due to the overwhelming Chinese and East Asian immigrant population residing there."

By the way, I took the liberty of copying the code for the "interested in Lutheranism" userbox, and I thank you for that. Carolynparrishfan 12:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we have different ideas about "what goes in", beyond just this specific article. I don't have strong feelings about this particular item, so I won't challenge your omission of it. I look forward to futher collaboration with you on Lutheran-related articles. Carolynparrishfan 16:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect on Martin Luther

Looks like SlimVirgin added the {{Sprotect}} tag back. No idea why, but I've removed it again. -- Steel 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Inad reverts

I did notice. We could hardly have done more in offering our changes up for discussion on the Talk page. Best to take a deep breath and not overreact. I don't like reverts and have never done it. Nothing moves forward that way.

Congratulations on all your good work: until today we'd got the article down from over 100kb to 77kb in a month. I think we should aim for 50kb, which is when reader-friendliness kicks in. One day all the notes etc. will be hidden, I believe, so they won't go to waste.qp10qp 18:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

71.254.210.160

g'day mate- You left a warning with this user about vandalism (I and others had already left multiple warnings) but he is still at it! I am not sure of the process to get him blocked. Can you do it or, perhaps, let me know the procedure?

cheers Downunda 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:505th Parachute Infantry Regiment

Took a look and will do today.

Cheers! Tony the Marine 16:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Done, take a look. I didn't make any links since those were already made within the article. Tony the Marine 06:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

LCMS logo

Are you a representative of the trademark holder of the LCMS logo? If so, the suggested course of action is to identify yourself as such on the talk page of the article. If not, I am still highly confused as to your vigorous actions to purge this very normal fair use of a logo from the encyclopedia. —ptk✰fgs 15:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The church's guidelines for the use of the logo, in this case, do not seem particularly relevant. As I noted before, anyone owning a logo will have a list of approved uses; these are necessary to prevent the dilution of the mark. Using the mark for identification of the organization in the nonprofit Wikipedia article about that organization does not come anywhere near diluting the mark. Remember, fair uses are those uses which are permitted with or without the express permission of the mark owner.

If Wikipedia's practice for logos were to seek out documents detailing the requirements for permission to use logos, there would never be any logo used for identification in an article. Fair use offers us a set of circumstances under which those requirements need not be considered. An unaffiliated congregation using the logo on their publications to represent themselves is an example of a use which would require permission (i.e., compliance with the document issued by the LCMS). Using it here for identification is entirely different and has nothing whatsoever to do with the market for the logo.

Hope this helps. —ptk✰fgs 16:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate that for some reason you don't want the logo to stay on the article, but you are actiing against the consensus of the Article Talk page. I count 6 editors saying that the image should be on the article, and only one other editor agreeing with you that it should not be. You have misreprented the discussion there, claiming it was a 2-2 tie when it clearly is not. You have shopped around on different pages to get people to agree with you, and they have not done so. You have even tried, unsuccessfully, to ammend policy to prohibit use of a logo such as this.

I came to the article page in the first place because you posted on the policy page and because I am an administrator who is familiar with issues relating to image use policy. I have explained to you why the image falls within policy. Wikipedia is not going to be bound by the results of some off-wiki attempt that you are making to find people who agree with you. We have a right to use the logo.

If you want to keep trying to find evidence to support your position, that is fine, but in the mean-time, you need to leave the logo on the article because that is the consensus of the editors. Johntex\^talk 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your message on my Talk page. I appreciate that you are trying to be courteous to the logo-owner, that is a good thing. However, our primary aim is to inform our readers. Having the logo there helps with that. If Wikipedia were to bend to the wishes of every group out there, (forgive the delibertately extreme analogy) then the page on Adolf Hitler would white wash his crimes, all our articles on corporations would shy away from mentioning any controversy about them, etc. We simply can't be hostage to what a group says on their website, especially when it contradicts the legal doctrine that is so important to us in building the encyclopedia.

I do see your point about whether those other voices are active in the debate or not. We have no set criteria for how much time after a post is made before we should more-or-less dismiss that post as being an "old" opinion and no longer part of the discussion. In my viewpoint, those posts are rellevant because (a) the question at hand has not changed (b) that particular Talk page is not high-traffic, so it is reasonable for us to have kept those comments and not archived them. Opinions could vary on this point. However, you are trying to play both sides of that argument by quoting the portion of Cecropia's post that you like, and then trying to ignore the other posts from the same general time period.

If and when the church makes a formal complaint, then it will be out of your hands and my hands as well. The paid employees of Wikipeida will have to make the call at that point. Until then, there is certainly sufficient claim to leave the logo in place. As an administrator, it is my job to interpret our policies until/unless I am over-ruled by a larger set of admins or by the paid employees of Wikipedia.

Since you feel so strongly about this, I will post a neutrally worded request back to Wikipedia talk:Logos to see if anyone else would like to join the discussion. Johntex\^talk 17:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! As far as this particular article goes, we'll see if anyone comes to add their views and go from there. As far as changing the policy, WP:LOGOS is the right place to try to make a change in the policy. Johntex\^talk 19:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry it took so long to say it but.. thanks for the welcome. Michaelas10 14:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War

It was recommended on its Military history A-class review. If you want to see it I have placed a link [[2]] Kyriakos 02:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The copy edit request has been removed. Kyriakos 23:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Resilient Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Although we have not always seen eye-to-eye on outcomes or methods, I appreciate your resiliency of spirit and your graciousness in accepting that (for now at least) things have not turned out as you would have liked. I wish you many happy edits and I hope you will let me know if I may be of service to you in the future. Johntex\talk 22:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome - you earned it. And thank you for your remarks on my talk page - you are very kind. I think I was actually a little less than gracious at one point in the debate, but I appreciate the sentiment and I do think we reached a good understanding of each other along the way. I am sure I will see you other places - possibly at GA. I have been fortunate enough to have a few article's I have helped with reach that honor and I hope to have something new ready for submission in the not-too-distant future. Not yet though - more work needed... Best, Johntex\^talk 03:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

Some of the notes were after punctuation, some before. This sort of inconsistency pops up a lot even on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates -- which may have 100+ refs. I've been testing an automated tool to make all refs consistent with Wikipedia:Footnotes, which says notes follow punctuation with no space between. Martin Luther was a useful test case due to the cite tags within the ref text. Gimmetrow 12:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it in detail, but my impression is that it looks really good, and that's from a professional footnote checker. (I correct references for our faculty journal) --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your response means, but if you want to see what was changed without reading the diff, check out the this permalink to the version immediately before. Notes [39], [60] were before period, but [62], [65]-[69] after period. Likewise [50], [59], [63], [70], [74], [76] before comma, but [31], [33], [55], [67], [78] after comma. All notes were placed after punctuation. Also some spaces (such as before [53]) were removed. Gimmetrow 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

logo placement

Well, we can stick a {{clear}} at the end of the lead section, like this, but it looks pretty horrific at 800x600, and not too great at 1024x768. Try to pretend that the penguin is the actual logo; I can't use it in user space. —ptk✰fgs 02:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Like this? I dunno. Images on the left tend to look pretty bad, due to headings being shifted into the middle of the page and such. The infobox tends to be a pretty good place for them. —ptk✰fgs 22:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

just below infobox header and just above infobox header —ptk✰fgs 00:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, logo just below header looks the best. at 800x600 it's a little cramped, but at 1024x768 it looks pretty good. by the way, feel free to edit my tmp page however you want; it's just a tmp page. —ptk✰fgs 15:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Archola

Have you heard from Archie at all? He hasn't edited for a month and I e-mailed him a few days ago but had no reply. I know he's got the busy banner up but a month with no word is a long time. Did he indicate that he's be networkless for a while before he stopped editing? Sophia 06:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The e-mail didn't bounce but Homestarmy says Archie's been editing on some of the Christian wikis in the last few days so he's ok - just very busy I guess. Sophia 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

can you chime in

here [3]? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

Sorry, the What ??? seriously comment allthough it came ofter your last comment was not aimed at you. I very much do appreciate your well reasoned thoughts. JohnShep 12:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your note

One of the reverts was vandalism. I'm already discussing it on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)