User talk:CTSWyneken

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, Luther and the Jews versions, User talk:CTSWyneken/On the Jews Copyright

Copyright Note

In regards of a recent copyright related note you left, the text I had added was inspired by a translation of the initial article [[1]] and similar. Very close indeed to the article you pointed, some historical facts would be worth remaining. In light of the rather directed comment left in the history, I believe this is the first and last contribution of mine to those pages talk.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Would you look at this ...

... [2] 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)

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 [3]. 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)

please comment

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

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)

A (Small) mionorty

The phrase is being challeneged. Cf Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Small_Minority. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Also Talk:Jesus#small_minority.3F. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Wagon question

Thanks for the welcom wagon message, it was very helpful. I have a question for you. I recently created the Future of Forestry page only to have it nominated for deletion. It's been several days since any discussion on its AFD page and the last few people all said it should be kept...so can I just go onto the entry page and delete the "This article is being considered for deletion..." code?

Thanks again for helping out us newbies :-) Nothingcorporate 06:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad

Tony the Marine

O.K., so maybe you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones a "Happy Holidays" and all of the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merry Christmas in 100 languages

Trinity

Hi, CTSWy. I'm inclined to revert your addition to the second paragraph, which implies that it is only a matter of some scholars' opinion that the Trinity is not expressly stated in Scripture. If it were, opinion would not be concerning whether the Trinity is taught, but whether the teaching is Scripture. As it is, the controversy is concerning whether the the doctrine should be concluded from the Scriptures as a whole, not whether the doctrine is anywhere stated in the Bible.

I've followed your editing for years, now (especially admiring what you've done on articles concerning Lutheranism), and would not wish to provoke you by a hasty revert. Shall we discuss this? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about the paragraph, and about how to express it in a way that doesn't imply that the question of whether the doctrine is biblical has been decided to the satisfaction of modern scholars. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Ebionites article passed GA. We are having a 2nd round of peer review to get it ready for FA nomination. Your perspective on changes needed to make it FA quality would be appreciated. Ovadyah 16:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Happy Christmas and a merry New Year! Keep up the good work at ML!

(I've made the mistake of trying to rebuild other articles from scratch and have become distracted from the Luther article, for the time being. Will be back, for sure.) qp10qp 18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Real Presence

Hi. I was reading over the article again, and wondered if the word "ubiquity" is still used in Lutheran definitions, to understand "Real Presence". The article does not use this word, which has been a cause of difference between the Calvinist Reformed and the Lutherans. Is the omission an error? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

(Feliz Año Nuevo)

Happy New Year from Tony the Marine 02:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year.

R. Nelson Snider High School

Oh, my apologies - if you'll note from my contributions, I was doing a lot of editing, and was kind of on autopilot. Upon reviewing it, I think the article meets most of the criteria for WP:NPOV just fine - I was mainly focusing on comments like (especially notable due to the use of our):

In December 1995, the staff voted to restructure our educational day to the 4x4 block format. The 4x4 scheduling format at R. Nelson Snider High School has students taking just four classes every day. There is more time for instruction and learning, with less time used for getting to and from classes and for classroom management. This productive use of school time translates into potential for additional labs, field trips, interdisciplinary activities and intense focus on subject matter.

This isn't exactly a cut-and-dry issue, as it's portrayed here, but it's hardly a serious POV problem - which is why I didn't go so far as adding a POV-related template. The clean-up is probably still necessary, though. I apologize if I came off as vindictive, or anything - it was mostly meant as a note to any clean-up editors. Thanks for calling it to my attention, though. --Haemo 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

moving things around

I'll let you fix the broken link to a talk archive for May 20, 2006 for Book of Concord now that someone has decided to move it (but not all of it) to a different name. Keesiewonder ^talk 03:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent; that's what I thought too. Keesiewonder ^talk 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't last long, though. Keesiewonder ^talk 15:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if...

Since you're a Seminary teacher type scholar person, (I'm bad with labels when things get all collage related heh) I was wondering if you might perhaps know of any good, general sources on the history of Christian Evangelism, or certain types of notable evangelism. I have recently come into the acquisition of a large amount of free time on my hands, and assuming my school does not once again rob me of two more successive weekends and all the weekdays in between with mountains of busy work, I want to dedicate my efforts to Approaches to evangelism. It was a very poor article when I first saw it, and it still is, but as I go look up references for each type of Evangelism I thought you might know some sources which might be highly, well, scholarly-ish for the task :/. I've already re-written the intro, which i'll probably end up changing as the article grows, and started working on the Open-air preaching section. I've only used a single article written by Charles Spurgeon and the Bible as references so far, and look how much Spurgeon alone got me from just one of his articles.... Homestarmy 22:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Would the History of Christianity volumes be hosted online somewhere like Google Books or something? Homestarmy 13:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reguesting your opinion

Someone wants to rename the Categories of the Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Silver Star and Bronze Star Medals, to something like this: "Category:Recipients of the United States Purple Heart medal".

I personally oppose this move because these military decorations are only awarded om the United States and therefore cannot be confused with some other country's decoration. I see no need for the move. As a person who has been involved with United States military related articles, I invite you to express your opinion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Thank you, Tony the Marine 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Christendom"

Hi! I just wanted to give you a few examples of how JWs use the term "Christendom." It is a special usage, not common usage. That is one reason I think it is POV. Check these examples out. They are the tip of the ice berg:

http://www.watchtower.org/library/pr/article_04.htm and http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2004/3/1/article_02.htm (read the paragraph under the subheading entitled "They Are United By Love").--GFrege 01:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

E-mail for you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lutheranism Project

You are invited to participate in Lutheranism WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Lutheranism. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

further

The Project page is up and running (bare bones at least). Come on by and sign up if you are still interested. -- Pastordavid 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

I think that I have a pretty good article here and I would like you to take a look and tell me what you think: Puerto Ricans in World War II. Tony the Marine 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think that I have made some improvements in the intro, but you know me, I'm not that great when it comes to prose. Do you think that it has the makings of a "GA". Tony the Marine 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted

FYI. --Keesiewonder ^talk 02:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

John Chrysostom

Bob, seeing that you have looked at a number of GA nominees, could you have a look at this before it is nominated - just to see if it is ready. I know we have a couple of refs to fill in - but I have seen articles go through GA without perfect referencing (perhaps because perfection - as such - is more expected of FA's). If there is anything besides the ref that would be needed for the GA, could you leave a note on the peer review? Thanks. -- Pastordavid 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

O Sacred Head

Not to step on anyone's toes, but just how is "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded" specifically Lutheran in a way that many other popular hymns among Lutherans are not? I just ask because it's not one we sing very often (this coming Friday being the exception), in my experience it's not very popular, and it's use is far from restricted to Lutherans. If there's some overarching reason for keeping the Lutheranism tag on it, I'm all for that, but I have to say that as I understand the subject now there is little specific reason for keeping it. jackturner3 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First, if you look the article states that St. Bernard is the author of the hymn and that Paul Gerhardt is the translator. If this is incorrect, I would encourage you to fix it. Second, I can understand that in your experience the hymn is imminently popular. Third, you are correct that this hymn would a tighter association with Lutheranism than some/most of the politicians that are also tagged, but maybe that says more about tagging politicians and celebrities than it does about this particular hymn. Like I said, I personally have no problem with keeping the tag. I just think that the "Lutheran" aspect needs to be emphasized in the article if at all possible. Maybe you're just the person to do that.

jackturner3 19:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Since I'm almost done with the assessment of articles in the project (and I'd hate to leave just one without assessment), what would you recommend its importance as?

jackturner3 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll err on the high side and put it at mid. Like you said, some people can't imagine Lent without it, and then there are parishes like mine where it never gets sung. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

jackturner3 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites nominated for FA

The Ebionites article has been nominated for Featured Article. You are invited to show your support or suggest further improvements to the article. Ovadyah 08:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Justification (theology) assessment

Hi, thanks for providing feedback to the Justification (theology) article. Please leave comments as to how it can be improved. jrcagle 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore Lutheran School

I am trying to fix up the BLS page so that the NPOV and No Source tags can be removed. I've started working on it but I don't really understand what the standards exactly are. I mean, when all the information is on a website, and you have a link to that website, how many outside sources do you need? --Uac1530 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning Vandalism and Harassment

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise the userpages of other users, as you did to User talk:Doright, you will be blocked. Harassment is a violation of policy. Doright 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob, I don't know that I would call your edit harassment or vandalism, but it is probably best to just let it go. The consensus seems to be that, while blanking one's talk page without archiving is frowned on, it is still allowed. -- Pastordavid 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It was harassment in the opinion of the administrator who reverted.[5] I would suggest taking that edit summary seriously.--Mantanmoreland 13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless, the warning doright given is clearly innacurate, as his User Talk page is not a user page. Homestarmy 13:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The good news is, it is still all there in the article history for anyone to see. Pastordavid 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, After being away from WP for nearly a year. I had no intention of having any contact with you whatsoever. Wikipedia is certainly large enough. Unfortunately, within approximately one hour of my return, without warning or discussion I find you improperly reverting me on my user talk page. When asked to stop by an admin, you then make defamatory posts about me on the talk pages of others. Please do not stalk me or make gratuitously disparaging statements about me.

Please read WP:HARASS. "Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely."

"One of the tendencies of harassers is to come up with new and inventive ways to plague their victims."

You have been politely asked by a highly respected admin that is familiar with this case to, "Please don't harass him." And, I have cited you the administrative consequences if you continue. I hope there is no need to discuss this further. Just leave me be.Doright 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Doright -- Please stop harassing me. This has been your pattern throughout your editing on Wikipedia. I do not have the time or the energy to pursue this with you. So, please, just drop it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Restoring Doright's Talk Page

Folks, I do not intend to pursue this point. I restored the page because I thought blanking was against the rules and we were supposed to do that. In fact, I once had a user restore my talk page I had blanked in the process of archiving it. Since JayG reverted it, I assumed I was in error here and just dropped the matter. The above warning is a case in point as to why user talk pages should be archived and not blanked. As Homes said, it is certainly out of place. Well, you can certainly look at my talk page archives if you want to see why I do not intend to engage either Doright or Mantanmoreland on this. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Luther WikiProject Collaboration

On another topic, I am setting up a collaboration for WikiProject Lutheranism. I am torn between choosing a big topic (like Lutheranism) or improving the Lutheran section/perspective on another article (something like Ordination). Thoughts or suggestions? -- Pastordavid 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion (Pastordavid 01:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)):

The current WikiProject Lutheranism Collaboration article is Lucas Cranach the Elder.

Help us improve the information about Lutheranism on Wikipedia.
CAST YOUR VOTE for the next collaboration

Baltimore Lutheran School (again)

I undid some vandalism of the BLS page - they changed the school motto to "All to the Glory of allah."

There have been problems with anonymous editors since I put the page up. Some of them are high school students - either from our school or other schools, but there are also many opponents of the school (you can check out the links on the site if you wish).

Can we block unregisted users from editing the page? How do I go about that?

Thanks.

--Uac1530 18:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Lutheranism

Bob, I responded to the current thread on the talk page, and I also posted a notice on the editor's talk page. Hopefully this will be quickly dropped as counter-productive. I apologize that you have been subjected to this sort of questioning of your character - you have not done anything to deserve it. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 16:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars

Please offer your opinion on the two proposed Barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, CTSWyneken. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:CTSWyneken/Archive 4. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You All

As you all know, some hacker cracked my password and I have been stripped of my admin powers. I can understand an admin. being blocked, but stripped of his powers without a fair hearing or consensus, I can't. I have stated that I changed my password and would like my powers back, however the chastizing going on in [[6]] has sadden me. It doesn't matter how many articles you have written, contributions you have made or how many years you have dedicated to making this project a credible one. A hacker, it seems has the power of making people consider you an untrustful person and turning some people in the community against you.

I have never abused of my powers and I have used Wikipedia as a medium to educate others. Yes, I have no regrets about having made so many contributions to the Pedia. I exhort all of my friends here to make sure that their passwords are strong ones so that you will not have to go through what I am going through.

I did promise some of my friends a couple of articles and as a good Marine I will keep my promise. To my friends here, Thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your editing

Do not interfere with the talk page anymore, and do not remove any more criticism from articles related to Martin Luther. As things stand, you should probably not be editing that article at all, at least not until this discrepancy is resolved, so I hope you will do whatever you can to clear it up. This is a serious matter of what (on the face of it) appears to be a deliberate attempt to distort what the last sermon said, although I very much hope there is another explanation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not an attack on your church. Do not raise that particular straw man again, because it is offensive.

It is a criticism of your editing, your writing, your poor use of sources, your constant defense of Martin Luther, your filibustering on talk pages, your admission that part of your job description is to create online resources about Luther, and now what appears (on the face of it) to be a deliberately distorted description of Luther's last sermon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is there already. It is on the page. Don't post it twice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't good enough. You knew that was a seriously distorted account of the final sermon, and you let it sit there for 18 months. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What faulty citation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I intend to look for a knowledgeable academic to review your edits about Luther, both on Martin Luther and elsewhere. Whether I'll find one willing to do it, I don't know, but I'm going to start looking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther Revisited

Are you off the ML article/discussion or just on vacation? When are you planning to come back? Perhaps soon. Griselinia 04:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this

Bob, I started this: [7]. Take a look and make changes if you so desire.--Drboisclair 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmyn infobox

Please, take a look a the new Template:Hymn infobox and give feedback on any missing item or any other possible improvements. (See also A Mighty Fortress is Our God, where it is used as a test). Thanks! Awolf002 12:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

NOR

There has been a big debate over this policy. I think you have valuable experience that makes you an important interlocutor on this matter. I suggest you forst go here for a very concise account, and then depending on how much time you have read over the WP:NOR policy and the edit conflicts that led to its being protected, or the last talk to be archived ... or just go straight to the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey there. I miss you. What have you been up to lately? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this in passing -- life in the real world has gotten very busy, mostly in creating online classes, but also in personal life. That, and I'm experimenting with Facebook. 8-) I don't miss the abuse one bit. I may come back to this again someday, but for now...

--CTSWyneken 14:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Facebook? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

GA sweep: Pedro del Valle GA status on hold

I have reassessed Pedro del Valle as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. We are currently revisiting all listed Good articles in an effort to ensure that they continue to meet the Good article criteria.

In reviewing the article, I came across some issues that may need to be addressed; I have left a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put Pedro del Valle's GA status on hold. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the article's status.

I have left this message because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article please accept my apologies and feel free to ignore this message ;)

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 12:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcomee passes 25,000 edits

You welcomed me to Wikipedia over a year and a half ago. I recently passed 25,000 edits and wanted to let you know that I still appreciate your early kindness in welcoming me to Wikipedia. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Library, Archives, and Web 2.0 Research Guide Template

Consider giving your opinion on the research guide template.Shannon bohle (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)	Season;s greetings, Lutheran brother The Brights movement seems to be a British thing. I once said, "I seem to be pretty bright (intelligent) but not too Bright (naturalistic thinking)." In other words, I don;t seem to have much cnfidence in my sense of common Sense. Can you tell that my typing skills are rusty? I wish I could hire someone to take dictation, I would like you to send word to my sister, Dawn Marie Vanderhyde, nvywfe72@ yahoo.com, NAVy WiFE, DMV, &c. She is my durable power of attorney for medical affairs. We've talked enough that she knows I consuder you to be another sister, or at least a tolkienish Elf-friend. Dawn knows who SOPHIA is, anyway. I'm going down the membershio roll at User:Archola/The_Centrist_Fellowship. Dawny Dawny Doo, where are you? I am suffering from lung cancer that invaded the human brain and required brain surgery. Trying to coordinate information in my environment is like waiting for the Pony Express. (Coordination is going to be difficult suce the lung tumor invaded my brain through the Cerebellum-Spinocerebellar tract complex. Oh, joy! Not to mention that I heard the doctors here at Skilled Neurosurgery discussing with my sis that they were planning to remove a bone from my skull and let my neck muscles support the back of my head. new article Would you consider contributing to this? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC) WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Please Help With Vandalism Hi, noticed you have a anti-vandalism barnstar. Would you mind talking to your fellow pastor Bob Waters? You welcomed him to Wikipedia a while back, and he has vandalised my user page twice now: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABobby_fletcher&diff=186377368&oldid=186359980 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABobby_fletcher&diff=166000773&oldid=163891959 Thank you for your help. Bobby fletcher (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC) WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC) April GA Newsletter The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC) WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC) WikiProject Good articles newsletter Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) can you comment on on the criteria for notability of accademic books? If you have time could you comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC) WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC) NOR Hey, I think this policy has changed a bit in the past year and have just made some new proposals, maybe you would comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC) RFC against me [If you have time will you look over this? Did I do wrong? I care what you think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlrubensteinII#Response] Slrubenstein | Talk 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Feliz Navidad <font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk) Man I've missed inter-acting with you here. How you been? I'm sorry for the late greeting, but my wife is hospitalized and that is where I spent my Christmas. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC) request for suggestions here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Alphabetization and collation I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as a librarian, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Jesus and Nicene Crede Hi, I think there was considerable discussion as to how to represent Christian views at the Jesus article; just wanted to make sure you know about this recent edit. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC) GA Sweeps invitation Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC) AfD nomination of Indiana High School Forensics Association An article that you have been involved in editing, Indiana High School Forensics Association, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiana High School Forensics Association. Thank you. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Abductive (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research CTSWyneken, Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case. In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community. This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut. Take the survey Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page. CMUResearcher (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC) ping Hi CTS, It has been a long time and I hope you are well - Merry Christmas. Are you still actively editing at WP? If so I have a favor to ask. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC) name dispute There is a discussion going on whether the name of that German church body can be translated or not (it appears like this on the english pages of this church's homepage). One user changed the name of this Church (actually a federation of several Lutheran, United and Reformed churches) and it's regional member churches to the German form because he says their names can't get translated. so the article on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria now appears under its German name because he says the "concept" can't be translated into English. Please go to the discusson page of the Evangelical Church in Germany and have your say --01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)