User talk:CTSWyneken/Archive 6

Christianity in mediation
Were you aware that this article is in mediation? This might be a good thing if it can finally settle some longstanding (3 months or more) disputes, but I wish I had known before I became active on the page.

Found a source re:Muslim critique of Christianity, still looking for sources on various views of the afterlife and the origins of monasticism. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  17:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question
Hi Bob, would you mind taking a look at Epistle to Yemen I'm entering in at Wikisource. All my investigation indicates the translation is now in the public domain, and I put a bunch of links and info on the title page indicating so. Since you're knowledgeable about copyrights etc, and before I put in all this effort (I'm currently 15% done adding it), would you give me feedback on whether I'm correct that this 1952 translation is public domain material? Thanks! : ) -- M P er el ( talk 19:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes there is the following copyright declaration: "Copyright 1952, by American Academy for Jewish Research". -- M P er el ( talk 19:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the original was not published by the Jewish Publication Society. Also the 1952 translation was by Boaz Cohen, and the 1985 translation is by Abraham S. Halkin (though Halkin was the editor for the original). From what I understand, the 1952 version expired in 1980, and it appears Halkin created a derivative version which doesn't protect the original expired version, does this look like the case? -- M P er el ( talk 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll check with JPS. Thanks! -- M P er el ( talk 19:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sending
Hi! I was wonderinghow do we send mail to others through wikipedia?

Thanks in advance --Gemini531 &hearts;

Doright
Regarding examples, I think I do need them. This whole Martin Luther / anti-semitism fiasco is entirely new to me, I just wandered into it yesterday. All I saw was what appeared to be a personal attack, but if you feel I should look into things more deeply, I will. :) Kasreyn 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the false charges, that is indeed weird. Let me see if I have it straight: Gooverup posted a threat on your talk page (which I found, and I agree was indeed a threat), you posted to a couple places regarding his threat, and then Doright either couldn't find Gooverup's threat, or pretended he couldn't find it, and suggested you were inventing a threat on Gooverup's part. So worst case Doright is a liar, and best case he's a fool who doesn't know how to use page history - and yet at the same time, obviously, does know how to use page history. Hmm.

I can see why this frustrates you! :P Kasreyn 19:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I just thought you might want to weigh in at Talk:Christian_views_of_Jesus. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Because people seem to be so much nicer there! Mperel and Andrew c and SOPHIA and drboisclair all seem to work well together. Mperel was inviting comment, but since she forgot to notify you, I thought I'd notify you myself. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  19:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies (excerpts)
You may want to weigh in on this:. --Drboisclair 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Protecting
Hi CTSWyneken, I have another question because I'm new at wikipedia.How can I protect my user page so no one could edit it?

Gemini531 02:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Gemini531

Userboxes
What are userboxes and how do you create one?

Thanks in advance.

Gemini531 23:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Gemini531

Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome. I love wikipedia and use it so much I figured I should start giving back. So far I've just made grammar and punctuation corrections -- I haven't changed any information.

Thanks again for the welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooks was here (talk • contribs)

Goodbye my friend
Just wanted to wish you a farewell. I am leaving Wikipedia for a while in light of my recent conversations with Ptmccain. I have been in arguments with him over various issues, especially on the Martin Luther page, and I am tired of this meaningless fighting. If you need any help with anything, email me, or leave me a message on my talk page and I might see it. Thanks for all your help and kindness. Thetruthbelow (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My User Page
Hey, do you like the new design of my user page? tell me what you think! Thanks, Thetruthbelow (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the remark about the banner. To some people, the size was correct, but on other computers it was too big. Thanks for the help. Thetruthbelow[[Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif|20px]] (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank your for your kindness
Bob, I want you to know how much I appreciate your kindness in awarding me the working man's barnstar. As you know what we do here is a labor of love. This is a great honor that I will strive to live up to. With kindest regards, --Drboisclair 09:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

help
I ask you, as a colleague, friend, and as a Christian, to help me here. Please review the recent edit history of the article. I did not think that using BCE and CE would be offensive to Christians, and the fact is the article has used these twerms for years. Moreove, I didn't think identifying the article as relevant to Jewish articles would be offensive to Christians. I appreciate your help, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Redundant image
The image You uploaded, Image:Cuspinian.jpg, is redundant since there is a copy in. As art usually is uploaded to Commons. Best, feydey 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I searched for "Lucas Cranach the Elder" in Commons and found Lucas Cranach der Ältere, the image was not there so I clicked at the bottom to the category, commons:Category:Lucas Cranach d. Ä. and there it was. I'd say the images are easiest found through the categories there. If You don't like the colors on the commons image, You can upload it (Image:Cuspinian.jpg) to commons and use it still. It is no problem to have more images of the same artwork on commons if the colors differ, just more to choose from. feydey 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:LucasCranachtheElderCuspinian.jpg just like in en wiki, the wiki searches for the file from en.wpdia and then from commons. It says: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." feydey 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Images
Can I copy images from a wikipedia artice and use them for my user page?


 * The answer is clearly that fair-use images may not be used on user pages. See Fair_use, point 9.  "They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." This only applies to fair-use images, but that is by far the vast majority of images on Wikipedia.  --Yamla 23:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

help
Codex Sinaiticus has angered me, something I regret. But he has accused me of suppressing Christianity, which deeply offends me. Do you share this view? I as you honstly and as someone I consider a friend. Would you mind commenting here ? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

209.202.75.74 report on WP:RFI
I'm afraid that header is out of date (it was subst: from an old version of the template). Vandalism reports should go to WP:AIV for fastest response. Anyway, that IP got blocked by another admin (probably someone on RC patrol). Cheers, Petros471 12:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll take a look sometime. As the opposition raised to your last RFA included some pretty serious reasons (true or not I can't possibly say) I'd advise leaving it at least another month before considering it. I'll give you some more feedback later. Petros471 12:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

more Jesus
I set out my own views, but I think John Kenney and FT2 represent most clearly two opposing approaches to the article. Do you agree with John, FT2, or see a third possibility? I think we need to sketch out basic options and then try to get a consensus. You should register your view here. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Thank you - i appreciate it, a lot. You and I will often differ in our views but I am really grateful that we have always been able to work together in a gracious and constructive spirit. As for the article, what I wrote at the beginning of the section reflects my views at the moment. I have an open mind but need to think about it. I'd like to see others discuss and see if others could reach a consensus. We have a number of people with very diverse approaches but all of whom are commited to (1) serious research and (2) our policies and I'd like to see if they - including you, John Kenney, and others - can reach a consensus. I will go with that.

I think the problem is this article is situated at the crux of two very divisive questions. First, how does one read the Gospels? As entirely reliable and historically accurate documents, or as documents that weave a story out of some real people and events, but in order to serve a religion that developed decades after those events? I agree that Wikipedia should include both views, I am only saying that this is not easy to do, especially in one article, because the views often lead to highly divergent readings that cannon be efectively summarized in a short article. Second, what is the relationship between Judaism and Christianity? For some editors, Christianity is simply the final version of Judaism. for others, they are two separate religions. I personally hold to another view, one shared by many scholars, that there was a brief period of time when Christianity was one of a number of Jewish sects, and as a Jewish sect was markedly different, in terms of beliefs and practices, from the Christianity that emerged less than a hundered years later. Moreover, the other Jewish sects at the time, especially Pharisees, were also markedly different from what Judaism came to be (e.g. Rabbinic Judaism). In other words, the time that Christianity and Judaism were part and parcel was a time before both the Christianity and Judaism of today. To me, the story of the birth of Christianity involves early Christians separating themselves from Judaism. BUT I equally believe that the birth of Judaism (Rabbinic Judaism) as much involves early Rabbinic Jews separating themselves from Christianity. This third view is one that I think people who hold to either of the other two views find very very difficult to understand - but it is the view that I think is supported by the best current scholarship. But anyone who holds this view is going to differ not only in how they describe 1st century Judaism and 1st century Christianity, they are going to differ in what even to include in such a description, compared to the other two views.

I am not asking you to agree with my own views on either of these two matters. I am just trying to diagnose what makes this article so complicated, not just in terms of complying with NPOV but in terms of deciding what it should contain and what does not belong in it. Does this make any sense to you? If so, can you articulate it more clearly? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't ramble at all, and I appreciate your comments. I remember one Yom Kippur, as a child, when our Rabbi gave a long talk about a conversation he had with a Christian colleague who finally convinced him that Christians are monotheists.  It was an epiphany for him, and he wanted us to share the apiphany.  It is true I do not think any Jew will ever "get" the trinity and how one can believe in it and be a monotheist - but at least we can believe that Christians are sincere when they say that they are.  I do believe we worship the same God.  Some of the rabbis in the Talmud make just that point.  I recommend Boyarin's book on Paul, A Radical Jew - he points out the paradox in Jewish belief that (1) there is one God for all and (2) non-Jews do not have to obey the Torah.  According to Boyarin, this raises a big question for any gentile who decides to worship (our) God: how does a non-Jew worship Him?  And for Boyarin, this is a question Jews need to take very seriously, and Boyarin considers Pauline theology a very very serious Jewish answer, one that (for Paul, but of course not for the Rabbis0 necessarily had consequences for how Jews worship God.  I wonder what you would think of that book.


 * As for the Background article ... I have been so active there my inclination is to lie low. I think FT2, John Kerry, you and others are all serious and well-intentioned editors.  If you could help orchestrate a compromise between FT2 and John Kenney, or if the three of you (and other serious editors) reached a consensus that was based not on the desire for consensus (consensus as an end in itself, the effect and value of which I have serious doubts) but based on a profoundly well-thought out shared understanding of what would make for the best article, accurate, reflecting scholarship, NPOV, well, I would applaud that, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Refs in lead-in
Hey, I noticed your edit comment about the lead in. Every time I approach Christianity it is with fear and trembling as well. :) I really very very strongly about lead-ins needing refs, and I'll tell you why. If the lead-in makes some kind of uber-controversial statement, shouldn't that statement appear in the body of the text? Shouldn't that statement be fully cited? Interestingly enough, the comment in the lead-in that you wanted cited was one that simply didn't appear in the body of the text. Kind of crazy that a summary would have some information that isn't contained in the body. It seems to me that requiring refs to not appear in the lead-in (or at least suggesting that course) forces a certain honesty. The lead-in cannot run far away from the content it is supposed to represent.

This is incidentally nothing to do with Christianity in any way, just a stylistic and structural thing that strikes me as a rather good idea. Let me know what you think. josh buddy talk 05:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, every stat needs to be referenced. But if the stat is directly in the article, does the lead-in version of it need to be referenced? There is some discussion at WP:LS. I do watch WP:CITE so I look forward to seeing what you have to say.


 * So why then does the lead stat in Christianity need a reference? Isn't it being contained in the article good enough? josh  buddy talk 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Smile 

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! --Bhadani 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

image bot
hey. actually that image is one that I want deleted, as I uploaded to show vandal proof moderators the problem it caused on my computer. I got a tutorial session,and now I understand image uploads. Thank you, Thetruthbelow (talk)  17:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Persistent Vandal User:209.204.112.73
You are best off posting on WP:AIV, following the instructions there. Its watched and gets frequent attention. josh buddy talk 13:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you!
Hey Bob, thank you so much for your kind comment about my user page. I worked hard on it, and with the recent help from Prodego, I think it looks good. Sorry for not contributing lately to the Martin Luther pages(except for reverting vandalism), but after my last argument with Doright I decided to stay away. It is always enjoyable to talk with you, so drop me a line when you can. Thank you again,  Thetruthbelow  20:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My hidden Link
Hey CTS, while you where on my user page did you find my hidden link? Just a test, because so far only seven people have, although it's not that well hidden. Good luck!  Thetruthbelow  20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: your latest message
I'm considering taking a break from Jewish and anti-semitism related articles. See my latest exchange with Doright on category talk:anti-semitism if you're interested in why. I simply find it too frustrating to deal with him. Then there is the fact that he's factually better-educated than I on the topic and takes every available opportunity to rub it in. Frankly, I'd rather do my contributing on articles where people extend me a basic presumption that I'm a rational and decent person. If you're still confused as to what I mean, ask Doright. He's surely reading this. Kasreyn 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. For that matter, on a glance at the changes, I don't even see a qualitative or POV difference between the two versions. I don't know the topic in enough depth to even risk an opinion. From my point of view, there isn't much difference between the two versions. Maybe I just missed it, though. Kasreyn 08:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I agree that he has once again made personal attacks, thats why I defended you. What is his problem with you? You worked hard, and he attacks. I just don't get it.  Thetruthbelow  15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and their Lies
I've weighed in.Timothy Usher 21:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Sorry I don't have more time to post more, but having gone through the evidence as presented, it seems like a no-brainer.Timothy Usher 22:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and their Lies POV
doright is at it again here. I reverted it, but I would appreciate it if you watched the page for him also. Thanks,  Thetruthbelow  04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * he has done it several more times since my message to you. Please help when you can,  Thetruthbelow  06:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Gurch
Thanks for the support and your positive comments – Gurch 16:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources
Hello; I noticed your request for comment, andwaned to let you know that Talk:WP:RS is a dead link since WP:RS itself is a redirect to Reliable sources. I fixed the link on the two talk pages for you, but I figured you may want to know. -- Avi 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources
I'd appreciate your comments on this latest dispute. Can't this guy just take a win and run? (I put this proposal forward, against the strong opinion of SlimVirgin, argued with reluctant editors to allow specifically quotes from mailing lists, only to have him replace the comprimise text with his own that ignored those opinions. I've now revert him a few times. If you find me not crazy, would you say so there? --CTSWyneken 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi CTSW, sure I'll take a look and comment. From reading Doright's edits/comments/ect. he strikes me as being, hmmm, how do I say this, militant and agenda driven :). Sorry not to assume good faith but that's my take on it. I really have to commend you on how you have handled the whole "Luther" thing since my head would have exploded along time ago trying to deal with all the different POVs and agendas and edit wars and err, what else? Unfortunatley ALOT of articles on this site are contraversial and editing so EVERYBODY is happy is VERY VERY difficult. There is defineately an evolution to how one views this project and edits in it. I really am trying to be NPOV in my editing. It seems the best way to do that is to edit articles you have ZERO "attachment" to, but where is the fun in that case. Also, if you did that, we would lose your expertise in the article you seem to edit the most. Anyways, enough of my rambling, I pop over to WP:RS and chime in. Cheers! --Tom 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Petros471/RfA reviews/CTSWyneken
Not sure if you've noticed that page, it's where I've been working on your contribs review. Basically it seems like opposition to your last RFA was in two parts- you the editor and you the admin.

As an editor you have a pretty narrow editing focus, and some people think you POV push. I haven't studied everything, but a quick glance seems to suggest your edits are pretty sound. I guess when editing articles like that, people who disagree with you (and vice versa) are often going to have problems... I'm not sure there is much I can specifically recommend here, apart from maybe try and have a hand at editing some articles in different areas. Personally, I have very little problem with people who's article contributions focus on one area (as they can be experts in that specific area). However, it does seem like other users place quite a lot of weight on this, so it is helpful to be able to point to other articles you have helped. Also to prevent accusations of POV pushing I'm sure you are aware that you should always maintain the very highest standards of WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV etc...

As an admin (and by that I mean potential admin, an editor who does admin type things), you basically need more experience. Go continue being more involved in things like xFD, reverting/warning/reporting vandals (all three parts important), discussions on WP:AN/WP:ANI/WP:RFA etc. Also an easy one to get bonus points- please make sure you always use good edit summaries. Your usage isn't too bad, but no harm aiming for 100%! Petros471 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I thought I'd replied to this one... I certainly thought about the reply at least ;-)


 * Ok, that seems to cover most of it. Now, to answer your question about, I have to admit on first glace (and I haven't looked in detail), they are not the worst personal attacks I've come across. Yes, they are less than WP:CIVIL and I can understand why some of those diffs you pointed out on Doright's talk page annoyed you (having your integrity attacked is not nice). However, it might be better to try and stick to arguing the issues rather than the personal attacks. If Doright does make personal attacks you can report them to WP:PAIN to allow admins to give warnings as appropriate, which might have more weight coming from an independent admin rather than you as the subject of the attacks.


 * Another thing that I might as well point out now, that if you become an admin you should never protect an article that you are heavily involved with (other than sprotect for obvious, totally blatant vandalism). Full protection is usually used for content disputes, and the admin protecting shouldn't be involved in the dispute. As you've contributed heavily to certain articles, it would be easy to argue you are involved in anything that happens on those pages, and therefore any protections you make on those would be subject to controversy. If you promised to stick to this (and of course stick to your promise) then this might help resolve one of the RFA concerns of you wanting to be an admin to help 'get your way' in content issues. Petros471 11:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in replying, but as you've been away hopefully it doesn't matter! I think you've convinced me enough that you won't abuse the admin tools. When it comes to RFA we'll have to do the same for everyone else :)


 * I think the comment you got in response to the report on WP:PAIN "It appears that Doright may have been uncivil a number of times, but looking at the diffs you provided on his talk page, I certainly don't see blatant personal attacks. Perhaps a user conduct RfC would be more appropriate if the long history on his talk page is accurate. Shell babelfish 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)" is pretty accurate. I.e. the attacks my Doright are not the most blatant I've seen, but a WP:RFC might be a good idea to try and get this issue resolved. Note that for a RFC you have to both show the dispute and attempts have having tried and failed to solve it. Petros471 16:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther
I was wondering if you could check out some edits that myself and Drboisclair have made to Martin Luther. He is a great editor, but we are currently unsure If we should leave a certain quote in, and it has been removed and then reinserted. all help would be appreciated.  Thetruthbelow  21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dorights Attacks
I have left him a warning and told him that if he continues I will report him to the Arbitration Committee. Can i count on your testimony if it reaches that point?  Thetruthbelow  21:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther FA
I recently nominated Martin luther for FA status. Would you please add your thoughts to the FA discussion? Thanks,  Thetruthbelow  21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you abou the negative attention thing, but I think more admins. will watchs the page if it is a Featured article.  Thetruthbelow  00:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright and JFJ
Hi Robert, sorry for the delay. Please feel free to take whatever action you see fit. Also, FYI, I commented at User talk:Moishe Rosen. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User page
Created it. Make sure to look at how I formatted the userboxes, so that you can do it in the future. Tell me what you think of it!  Thetruthbelow  18:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User page
Hey its me. You said the indulgence covers an info box? I didn't see it. Could you maybe explain it to me? Thanks,  Thetruthbelow  19:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I reduced the size of the indulgence, which reduced the white box. I have no idea how to get rid of it except for deleting the indulgece. Sorry.  Thetruthbelow  19:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User page
Thanks for the welcome and all the tips. Hopefully i can make some worthwhile contributions. Sandbreak 21:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

TOC at Martin Luther
I did it! I fixed the spacing! The only problem was that it wouldn't work if i kept the infobox, so I had to remove it. What do you think of it?  Thetruthbelow  22:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed it again leaving the infobox in. The first time i put the toc on the right, it took me about an hour to figure out. I tried all these complicated things, and I was about to quit when I tried something really easy that worked. Anyway, the TOC is right, so tell me what you think!  Thetruthbelow  22:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Going away message
Dare I suspect that you "borrowed" my going away message from my user page ;D. Anyway, good luck at the confrence, and I will see you after I get back on the 26th. Have fun!  Thetruthbelow  05:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a good time - we haven't crossed paths for a while as I've been embroiled elsewhere but I still try to stay true to Archies TCF! Sophia  21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Luther page formatting
Bob, would you consider restoring the format of the Luther page to what it was when we had Luther, and his seal, on the right and the TOC on the left? I appreciate the formatting things you've been doing, but I think it really quite unattractive presently with all the white space and awkward page layout. Ptmccain 22:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Gallery of Images
Thank you for not taking this personally. Since the majority of images are PD then a Category:Images of Martin Luther would be more appropiate. These categories exist in Wikipedia, for example Category:Images of Puerto Rico. Joelito (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally I fixed the Martin Luther page
Check it out. I moved the TOC to a great place, formatted the pictures, and also moved the wikiquote and wikisource stuff to the see also box. Tell me what you think! Thetruthbelow 03:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article
No problem. I am, right now, looking at the language of the document. I am continually amazed at the repetitive and dull nature of most wikipedia language --- it gets the facts across, but is a beast to read. --Rekleov 19:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm not trying so much to weed out unneeded facts as to make the thing readable (if not enjoyably so).  Hopefully no one will claim POV when all I did was reword a sentence!  Enjoy your break. --Rekleov 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther Gallery
I spotted your gallery of Martin Luther images in a proposed deletion category (and I think it is already gone). I thought it could be useful on Wikicommons, so I made a copy to my sandbox on commons. And now I have put it on commons:User:Konstable/Luther. However some of the images are not at commons and are quite large for me to upload (I have a slow upload, so a couple 2MB images is a lot to upload for me), so I couldn't get all the images there, so I did not merge it with the Martin Luther page. But if you're interested in recovering your old article, or if you want to have it on commons, please go ahead.--Konstable 14:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

sig
Hey I made a code for you. It looks like this: CTS Wyneken

If you like it, copy the code below and paste it in your prefences under sig.

 CTS  Wyneken 

If you want me to change anything, let me know.  Thetr u  thbelow  04:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please no. There has been a recent tightening of WP:SIG, so now is not the time for muli-line signatures that fill up the edit window. Thetruthbelow: your signature take up 4 lines in my edit window! My personal rule of thumb is <1 line is ok, which allows a change in font, colour, or talk page link quite easily. Petros471 12:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed my sig, but the one I created for CTS is fine. Thetrutbelow 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Is Doright's Behavior Here Out of Line?
''Would you take a look at Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies and advise if this post is out of line? If so, how would you advise I proceed? --CTSWyneken 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)''
 * By 'this post' I'm assuming you mean the "Email list archives" one. Yes, that looks like it is crossing the line, at least the WP:CIVIL one, if not quite WP:NPA. I guess after seeing many, many, extreme violations of WP:NPA (example) I've become less sensitive to the slightly gentler violations. What I'd do in that situation though is not to focus on the attack part of the post, i.e. ignore the attack completely, and just reply to the conent issue (but don't simply ignore the post completely). In that case Doright quoted "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise..." but if you read on it says "...so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." So basically if the information is only available in it's original from as published by the researcher, you're probably right that it shouldn't go in the article. My point there isn't the actual issue, it's how you deal with it. Always give thoughtful replies, backed up by policy where needed (and remembering guidelines aren't quite as strict as policy, so make sure you know which it is). Getting into arguments about who is doing what wrong is rarely helpful (like the classic case sitting on my talk page at the moment of two people giving each other warnings about removing warnings, neither had actually committed any 'real' vandalism...)


 * Also as I think I mentioned before, if you think Doright is persistently being unreasonable, and you and others have tried to resolve this, a WP:RFC might be useful. Petros471 12:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What you're expecting to be thanked for contributing your time for free, helping build a free encyclopedia for the benefit of the world? :O Yeah, it can be tough. I'm not sure exactly what to suggest. It seems like a lot of the problems aren't helped by there being so few of you editing this area. It's a controversial topic, but without having a large number of editors involved, it is hard for real consensus to build up if one or two of you disagree.


 * Looking back at my block log and searching for 'personal attacks' as the reason, I came up with some examples:     . As you can tell it didn't take too much effort to work out that most of those were totally unacceptable without a second glace. Some that were a closer call can be seen on User talk:Andrew Homer, especially the section "Request for comment" onwards. Petros471 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Any comments on this salvo, in which my intergity is questioned and my reply? --CTS Wyneken 11:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding this one: article talk pages are for discussing the article, so messages addressed to a person should usually go on their talk page. In this edit I see you put "Still waiting for Doright's explanation of his POV Flag" as a heading. A better heading would have been the more neutral "POV Tag" with the message saying something along the lines of a tag should only be added with a reason given on the talk page, it will be removed if one isn't provided- or something like that. The point is to always try and discuss the editing issues, not the users involved. On the other hand comments by Doright like "CTSWyneken, by "status", do you mean employment? As in, when you explained in On the Jews and Their Lies (on 04:01, 14 June 2006 UTC) that your full time paid "position" within the Lutheran Church included writing Wikipedia articles related to Martin Luther?--Doright 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)" are totally against what I just said, so yes, I think they were out of order. Petros471 16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you like the sig?
Hey CTS, are you going to use the sig I made for you? Let me know, <i style="background:#cc1100; color:white;">Thetrutbelow</i> 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FAC-related query
Your response here would be appreciated. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 12:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies
I thought the wording ("tract") was a bit POV, but changed that. I do think that the sentence now is proper, assuming the scholar quoted represents a point of view. I trust there aren't scholars who say, "no this work wasn't anti-Semitic."--Mantanmoreland 13:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the issue needs to be raised. If you have some alternate suggestion for this sentence please feel free to mention it or to put the changes in the article. It doesn't seem like a major thing to me, as clearly the book is very much anti-Semitic and clearly also is resonated into this century. --Mantanmoreland 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest actually moving this discussion over to the talk page of the article, so as to obtain wider readership from interested persons. You may want to post the materials you mention there. I think the article needs, high up, a sentence indicating the importance of this book to the development of anti-Semitism. I had inserted such a summary "topic" sentence and I see that it was removed on, in my view, incorrect grounds as "original research." OK, I didn't revert, but I didn't agree with that change and I still think that there was a gap there that needs to be filled, which I did through the sentence that Doright added and which I changed. --Mantanmoreland 17:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! I thought my sentence was stronger. Anyway I think that Doright has resolved your objection.--Mantanmoreland 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re the added materials, I reordered the paragraphs to put the two "pro" arguments together. It didn't seem right to have the "con" sandwiched between the two "pro" arguments. I think this is a good addition to the article.--Mantanmoreland 12:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Luther on the Eucharist
CTS, thanks for doing some work here. I am hampered by 3RR.--Drboisclair 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for what you have done here. I think that this "political correctness" is getting a little ridiculous. Have you seen some of my arguments? When you do an encyclopedia article you follow the usus loquendi to some extent, but, remember, because we are Lutherans and employed by the Lutheran Church nothing we post can be NPOV. This ungenialness is disheartening to say the least.--Drboisclair 00:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Question for you bob
Not to be rude, but you asked for help designing a sig, so I made one for you and you never answered my replies for a comment. I simply wanted to know if you were going to use it, and if you wanted any changes to it. Please let me know, Shalom--<i style="background:#cc1100; color:white;">Thetrutbelow</i> 01:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry. I did not see your previous comment on my page before I left one on yours. On the topic of the timestamp, if you just copy and paste the code in your preferences link, and click raw signature, than it should work. Shalom-- Thetruthbelow   02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm such a newbie when it comes to these things! Let's see how it works... --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:black;">CTS</b> Wyneken 02:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The colors you used on my talk page look great. It is very distinguished looking without being to complicated. Shalom-- Thetruthbelow   15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's my job ;). Hey, do you think the Martin Luther article will pass the FA process? Shalom-- Thetruthbelow   15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, even if it doesn't go through, at least we got some helpful advice. By the way, can I move the TOC so there isn't as much white space? Shalom-- Thetruthbelow   16:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

New TOC!!
Hey, what do you think of it? It took me a while, so lend me your thoughts so I can improve it. Shalom-- Thetruthbelow   16:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to retire
Hello CTSWyneken. I just wanted to come here and thank you for everything before I retire from wikipedia. I have decided not to stay for various reasons, mostly from the past. I have seen what this place has done to people, and I have decided to not let it happen to me. I don't know if I will come back, but regardless I wanted to thank you. You were the first person who welcomed me to Wikipedia, so therefore you will be the first person I say goodbye to. Thank you my friend for everything.  Matt B. "aka"  Thetruthbelow  04:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your username
First, thank you for the welcome message. I was wondering if your username comes from F.C.D. Wyneken? Ttb 17:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)