User talk:CTSWyneken

Click here to leave CTSWyneken a new message. It will automatically post your comment in a new section at the bottom of the page

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Bob's Workshop Pages

Welcome Wagon, RfA Thank Yous, Policies, Interiot's Edit Counter, Wiki's Razor, Encyclopedias and Luther, LC Sandbox

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

NP --Trödel 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are there really any coincidences in Wikipedia?

My wikstentialist journey began when an anonymous editor added two links (one pro and one con) to the naked short selling article. Fortunately, Mantanmoreland was quickly on hand to revert without explanation[1] (after all there was just no time for explanations...it was two LINKS after all).

At one point, Mantanmoreland left comments on the anonymous scofflaw's talkpage, which the scofflaw then edited[2]! What a coincidence, for I've actually seen that happen once before[3].

Mantanmoreland also got upset by the maniac editor's brazen use of the word "petulence."[4] Believe it or not, I'd actually seen that before too[5]!

As if that were not enough, the evil editor dared call Mantanmoreland a stalker and a vandal[6]! And though you may not believe me, I'd that before too[7]!

Before long, Mantanmoreland had reverted these terrible links not once, nor twice, but thrice, putting him in WP:3RR trouble. Was it coincidence that Tomstoner, until that moment absent from Wikipedia almost six weeks[8] -- possibly in drug rehab -- shows up out of nowhere just in time to take the baton?

Are there really coincidences in Wikipedia?

My mind harkens back to another near-wikatastrphe, only two weeks ago, when Mantanmoreland was doing his duty jealously guarding a non-notable article[9] as if to say "All articles on Wikipedia matter!", only to land in triple revert jeopardy (I'd link to the diffs but they've been permanently deleted).

Yet just in time, Lastexit miraculously emerged from a month-long retirement to fight that worthy battle[10].

Back to my wiksistentialist journey...Tomstoner asseses the situation and makes a wise observation: it's wrong to say something is vandalism simply because you don't agree with it. Aaaaaaaah! I've seen that very counsel given before[11][12]!

And with good reason, for it's a slippery slope, because the next thing you know, legitimate talk page comments are dismissed as "nonsense"[13] or even "trolling."[14][15]

Coincidence? Is there really such a thing in Wikipedia?

SlimVirgin would call it synchronicity which, she says, equates to sockpuppetry[16] -- unless you happen to be Mantanmoreland, in which case it really is just a silly old coincidence.

What do you think?

Pass this on to 10 other UserTalk pages or risk being found guilty of synchronicity by SlimVirgin, too. Unless you're Matanmoreland, Lastexit or Tomstoner in which case you don't need to worry about it. --StickyWiki 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Now at User:CTSWyneken/Library of Congress Classification:Class B. Tupsharru 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help

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

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)[reply]

Nocebo

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I kinda made a career out of my ability to notice such things... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,

<font color="#666666">[[Pagename|Pagename title]]</font>

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)[reply]

Five solas

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]