User talk:CTSWyneken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives of older discussions may be found here:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Bob's Workshop Pages
Welcome Wagon, RfA Thank Yous, Policies, Interiot's Edit Counter, Wiki's Razor, Encyclopedias and Luther, LC Sandbox

Contents

[edit] Martin Luther

  • Yuck. Looks like the debate has gotten heated at times. How do you think I could best help? Are you looking for a sort of informal meidation, or just seeking outside views, or something else? I'll be happy to help if I can. Johntex\talk 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Augustine of Hippo page vandalized

Hi - just wanted you to know a fair bit of damage had been done to the page on Augustine of Hippo. I have reverted to the latest, undamaged complete page I could find - but some changes for the better may be lost. Could you take a look too? The repairs may take a while, and I have only a little time at the moment. Thanks in advance Cor Unum 10:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hey my buddy, how have you been? I would like you to take a look at the image of Rear Admrial Rafael Celetino Bemitez Image:Rear Admiral R.C. Benitez.jpg. Now, notice his Silver Star ribbon below his "Sub Wings". If I'm not mistaken, he was awarded more then one Silver Star Medal. What do you think? Tony the Marine 05:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Luther notes

I don’t understand your point, will ask in the Talk section.

--
Leandro GFC Dutra 16:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I might not be looking at the right diffs, but it looks like all he did was add maybe one or two "cite" tags and change a bunch of puncuation marks? Homestarmy 22:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well i've always done it the ref=name way, but if he's gotten them all out of order that can't help the article out, i'll read the conversation again. Homestarmy 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not really absent

Only two dust ups? You must be going soft!

I've not been editing at the cliff-face because I'm working offline on the sections from Wartburg to Peasants' War, getting the length down but trying to somehow fold in more substance, while tweaking out what I can't substantiate. It's very difficult. I do read everything at ML, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy getting into all the passing disputes (you see, I regard you as the sentry on the border, while I lurk in cowardly comfort with the port and the cigars). I must say, I'd rather hang-glide naked through a Borneo bat cave than get involved with the Luther and the Jews battle zone.

But I couldn't resist that "according to tradition" bait, even though I know you would have stepped in. I suppose "nailed" isn't strictly wrong, since it's part of the tradition (goodness knows why); but I somehow can't see Luther, confrontational chap though he was, marching up Wittenberg High Street with a bag of nails and a claw hammer and vandalising the expensive door of a church which employed him. qp10qp 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

They didn't have tacks? If that's the American word for drawing pin, you may be right, but they had tacks as I know them; delicate ones were used in leatherwork, for example, and in shoes. I'm aware of this bulletin-board point, and so I concede that Luther and others might have carried miniature hammers about their persons with which to tap pins into wood, but posted at least saves me imagining Luther as some mighty Thor of the door, his angry blows resounding through history; and it suits better his activity in the painting you describe. It's slightly annoying that we have to have this business in the article at all, but such a potent myth must be acknowledged, of course.
qp10qp 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Happy Veterans Day

I wish you a Happy Veterans Day. You are a true hero. Tony the Marine 03:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you. You know maybe you didn't serve however, the your dedication to all things military in Wikipedia has honored us who served and therefore in my book makes you a hero. For me it has been a great honor to have befriended a somebody like you. Oh don't forget to zoom in on Rafael Celestino Benitez's image and confirm what I suspect about his 2nd Silver Star Medal. Tony the Marine 16:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
About the image. I don't have a high res., but if you zoom it just a bit, yoou will notice that he has a devise in the middle of his Silver Star ribbon which is under his sub-wings. Now, I'm sure that it is a silver star devise which would mean that he was awarded two Silver Star Medals. If you notice the same thing then we have something there. Tony the Marine 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused about vandalism

Dear CTSWyneken,

I received a message at 11:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC) from you stating that "If you continue [vandalising] you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others."

I am confused about what was considered vandalism and why. I only contribute positively and constructively, and I have never vandalised Wikipedia. In fact, I have created a group on MySpace that worships Wikipedia...

Confusedly, Mavaddat

  • Thanks for the correcting the mistake, CTSWyneken. I was indeed correcting the link. The first link did not work, so I did a search on Google and found the second link (the one I posted) to have the referenced video clip. The clip itself is not obscene, except for some profane language by Penn (Teller doesn't talk), throwing Bibles, and impersonating the King.
  • Mav

[edit] GA article now FAC

Hello, Sometime ago you did the GA review of the Joseph W. Tkach article. Since then a lot of progress was made. I have favour to ask of you. The article is now a FAC. I am uncomfortable about soliciting votes (conflict of interest), so I was wondering if you could ask your colleagues to review and vote on it. Thanks. --RelHistBuff 08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Quoting sources

Just read you note, and I'm glad you enjoyed my contributions on the article on Martin Luther. However, I must confess I was puzzled at your request that I cite the source(s), since I did. I went back just a few moments ago to make sure, and, yup, sure enough:

"You plea to be heard..." [#47]

"I wish you peace and love in Christ....dear Katie..." [#105]

The only thing I can think of is the line or two I added to the beginning of Herr Luther's famous speech before the Assembly:

"Since your Majesity desires simplicity..."

I didn't cite a source b/c for the simple reasons that:
a)There was already a source cited for that speech itself and I didn't want to clutter the blockquote.
b)It was just one or two lines grafted on the main truck on the piece, and hopefully enhanced somewhat but distracted not at all from the body/message of the text.

However, if you feel those few lines merit having a source cited just let me know and I shall be happy to do so. Malplaquet 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your love ones. This year I have the whole family over (last year my daughter, son-in law and little Nina spent it in Iowa). We'll put up the Christmas decos after dinner.

I'm going to work on some of the MoH's soon. I created a Category: Recipients of the Silver Star medal and added some names. Maybe you know of some people who were awarded the Silver Star medal and who do not have that cat. on their pages. You can help me out by adding the cat.

Take care my brother.

Tony the Marine 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A problematic GA review

I was wondering if you might have the time to comment on the Agripinna opera GA review, the discussion is proving quite....contentious, and I think more editors might be able to help form a real supermajority one way or another. I have the feeling that a no consensus result would be bad, as some people don't seem to like how many reviwers interpret the good prose criteria more strictly than others :/. Homestarmy 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Review away! It's currently on the candidates list. I think you'll find that I tried to explain any technical terms, but if you feel that improvements can be made then please feel free to review/comment. Best, Moreschi 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei rewrite-- still a GA after rewrite?

I have done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. Although I personally believe the new article is a very good one, out of fairness, I went ahead and removed the GA tag. It was suchh a big rewrite, the article should be re-reviewed. Since you did the GA review, would you look over the rewrite and add back the GA tag if you feel the new article merits it? I also would greatly value any comment you'd like to make on the RFC. --Alecmconroy 08:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your help on the page. I think that once the article is stable and we get the NPOV tag down, it has the makings of FAC. If you have any suggestions for how to improve it, or would like to further help out in the ensuing discussion about the NPOVness of the article, it would be greatly appreciated. :) --Alecmconroy 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review Ebionites Article

Loremaster and I would appreciate it if you would look over the Ebionites article and provide suggestions to get it ready for nomination as a featured article. We recently finished incorporating the suggestions of Slrubenstein from peer review. Slrub suggested you would be a good person to work with to further improve the article and get a diverse perspective. I see you know Alecmconroy. Alec has been acting as our RFC to referee disputes over the article. Ovadyah 11:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Stop by when you can. :) Ovadyah 11:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick turnaround! Ovadyah 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would you look at this ...

... [1] and consider commenting (and also check out the new lead to the article; the edit in question has already been made)? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious copyright allegations on Image talk:Cilice3.jpg

Hey CTS, since you're looking into these things, I thought I'd point you to the discussion ongoing at Image talk:Cilice3.jpg. It's an image used in OD artile. There's a pretty strong consensus for using it in the article-- it's been in the article for several months, long before I did the rewrite last week. Nonetheless, User:Dominick has been trying to get the image deleted for copy.

In response, I've got an editor trying to say it's a copyright violation. Obviously, I won't ask ya'll to comment on the related issue of whether the image should be on the article, but could someone clear of the copyright issue. The history of the image is

  • I personally made the image myself-- it is a derivative work using GFDLed material I downloaded from Wikimedia Commons. I released the image I created under the GFDL (as, I believe, the GFDL requires me to do).
  • The original work I modified was downloaded from [2]. It was uploaded in August 2004 by its author(s) who released under the GFDL.

So, it's an open and shut case of an OK image-- apparently Dominick is under the impression that the original author can't properly release it unless he issues a web-accessable "official statement" of some sort. Could you look over the issue and confirm that the copyrightholder's written statement is all that is required, not a web-accessable formal statement.

I assume he's wrong on the issue, and I hope he is, because 99% of the images on Wikipedia are in the same boat. --Alecmconroy 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please comment

[3] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lutherans leaving / being left by the church

Hey - Quick note regarding your deletion of the "exodus from the church" paragraph. I think I take issue with the assertion that Lutherans believe the church "left them". In the sense that's obviously meant by the deleted text, I doubt I personally know any Lutherans who would have any issues with "left the Catholic church", and I know a few hundred.

Perhaps we could come up with a wording that better fits your take on things without losing the essential meaning of the paragraph? Brennen 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It hardly strikes me as "very biased", coming from a once fairly immersed LCMS background, but I shan't argue credentials. I mean no disrespect, but I think it's possible that your close relationship with a strain of Lutheranism is blurring your perception of bias here. At any rate, I'll probably try to come up with a version that doesn't set anyone off too badly.
I agree that the article could use some serious work, but refactoring what's already present seems to me like a workable approach. Brennen 22:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
On the infant baptism bit, the individual in question isn't arguing that Lutherans don't believe in infant baptism, or that it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. It's more that s/he wanted to include a rant about the "unbiblical" nature of said practice, which obviously has no place in the article. There's a chance it's just Stephen Colbert inspired trolling/vandalism anyway - see Talk:Lutheranism#Controversy_section. Brennen 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur. The logical outcome of this sort of thing is detailing the complete objections of every other denomination, sect, religion, & ideological position to the individual points of Lutheran belief listed in the article, and then do the same for every other article with ideological content... But I suppose the absurdity is self evident. Brennen 20:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/t/s/User_talk%7ECTSWyneken_68d9.html"