Archived talk[edit]

Talk previous to 21 December 2005 is archieved at the links below.
Talk to 8 Dec 2004 9 Dec 04 - 26 Feb 05 27 Feb 05 - 17 Apr 05 18 April 05 - 21 Jul 05 19 April 05 - 20 Dec 05

Current talk[edit]

This is a "public" type IP address. If you ban it, about 1,500 people that use computers here on a regular basis will be banned from aiding Wikipedia. Also, I didn't vandalize it. I simply made it more truthful then it was. I also added some useful scholarly articles. There are some things wrong with it, some that people in the ELCA reject. If I have an extreame POV, then so do you. But hey, you seem to think that your extreame opinion is right. How come mine can't be, huh? Because you have administrative power or whatever? Might doesn't make right.--192.160.64.49 03:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks[edit]

Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or request, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, LETS TRY THIS.[edit]

Somebody has fixed the wellstone article.I'll leave it there.Saltforkgunman 04:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM?[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks)#SPAM? for a discussion thread I've started about your move of Spam (food) to SPAM. Thanks. --TreyHarris 02:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks?[edit]

Calton, please discontinue personal attacks.

1) As far as I'm concerned, they're lectures. If he can't pay attention to the most basic of details in ordinary English (including something as straightforward as my name).

2) It's none of your business. You don't like my lecturing, then you don't get to reserve the privilege for yourself. So please discontinue personal nannyism.

3) You do know the difference between a Talk page and an Archive? [1] You're lucky that I had accidently clicked "Watch This Page" when I saved it, or else I would never have seen it. Or was there some point to posting to an archive? --Calton | Talk 11:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hennepin County[edit]

Thanks for the kind message. Very glad that's cleared up. Sgt Pinback 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: United Evangelical Lutheran Church; Roman Catholic Diocese of Winona; Rock Against Bush; Lutheran Churches of the Reformation; Coffman Memorial Union; Colorado gubernatorial election, 2006; Concordia University, Saint Paul; Jessica Walter; Nick Coleman; Bethlehem Baptist Church; Church of the Risen Savior; New Mexico gubernatorial election, 2006; South Tarawa; Bruce R. McConkie; Hillcrest Lutheran Academy; Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil; Real Time with Bill Maher; Japan Lutheran Church; Gutnius Lutheran Church

Cleanup: List of Jewish superheroes; Nauvoo, Illinois; Sex segregation
Merge: Pyinmana; Swing vote; Restorationist (Church of Christ-Elijah)
Add Sources: Conservative Christianity; Target (Australia); Subincision
Wikify: Aaron Brown; Roksan Audio; Socially responsible investing
Expand: 1924 World Series; Washington Wizards; Low-carbohydrate diet

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Kelly_Doran_-_Duluth.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kelly_Doran_-_Duluth.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soli Deo Gloria[edit]

Ok, look, I'm tired of fighting with you over this. So can we please come to a reasonable agreement? For the record, as you probably guessed, I am a Luther alum, so I'm not about to defer on that account.

Your translation is not wrong. But neither is mine. I studied Latin while I was at Luther. Taking Latin 101 doesn't make me an expert, I'll admit, but I know how to translate something as simple as "Soli Deo Gloria." (By the same token, having studied it beyond 101 doesn't necessarily make one more capable of translating a simple phrase like this.) Gloria is glory, obviously. Deo translates as "to God" (as opposed to Dei, which is "of God"). And Soli means "only" or "alone." Put them together and you get "Glory to God alone" (or "only," but "alone" sounds better).

Our disagreement is not about how to translate the words, however, but how to arrange them. You think it should be "To God alone the glory." I think it should be "Glory to God alone." I'm well aware that people at Luther often translate it your way, but that does not make it the best way. Few people actually know how to translate Latin, so they just look it up, as you did, and see how it has been translated in the past. That doesn't make that translation definitive, it's just what people are told. I feel that my translation is superior because it is cleaner, sounds better, and rolls off the tongue easier. It's also one word shorter, making it more concise. I think "To God alone the glory" is just messy. No one says "To God glory," we say "Glory to God." Forget the fact that yours is the "traditional" translation for a moment, and think about it. Say mine out loud and/or in your head a few times, and see which you like better. I bet it will be mine.

"Soli Deo Gloria" has been variously translated on the Internet as well, sometimes poorly. Here are some pages that show the prevalence of my translation:

http://www.ligonier.org/sdg/history.php
http://www.sdgbooks.com/about.html
http://www.family-crests.com/coat-of-arms-library/family-crest/translation-motto.html
http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.h.Degroat.SDG.html
http://my.homewithgod.com/romi/bach.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000F6ZEKA/qid=1152213018/sr=8-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-7226671-6232851?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130

Finally, as I suggested in my last edit, look at the Wikipedia entry for "Five Solas." That page translates it to "Glory to God alone," and I am not the one who wrote it that way.

As I said, I'm tired of fighting about this. So I'm going to change it back to "Glory to God alone," and I hope you will leave it that way. If you choose to revert yet again, I ask that you at least offer a reasonable and well-thought-out response to what I have said here. Simply telling me that you found your translation in a book is not convincing, much as I respect the book's author. And if you refuse to accept my translation, perhaps we can work out a compromise to avoid either of us wasting any more time on this. I suppose we could put both of them up there, though that might not look very good.

--24.196.82.58 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Georgia Move[edit]

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota[edit]

I see you have reverted a number of edits to this article. Were there any in particular you disagree with? Answer here. (In the meantime I have restored the article to my last version.) Kablammo 04:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion at Minnesota[edit]

Could I ask why you reverted the last several edits at Minnesota, done by User:Kablammo? I don't think there was anything particularly wrong or bad-faith about his changes. Several of us from Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota are working to get the article up to Featured Article status, and even though Kablammo is a new user, I think he's made some good edits so far. If there was some problem with what he edited, could you let us know on the talk page of the article or on his talk page?

Also, if you're interested in helping bring Minnesota to FA status, feel free to come and join us. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Rudy perpich.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rudy perpich.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help please![edit]

Hi, I recently created the article Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X. As you can see from the original copy (actually the second was the original, the first was me hitting save page instead of show preview), that I had worked long and hard on opening the article.

A day after opening, user Alistair McMillan proposed it for deletion. I feel this is rather outrageous, especially because comparing Windows and Mac OS X is a much more widely-regarded topic then a Comparison of Windows and Linux... Either way, the article has had a rocky beginning, but with proper editations I'm sure it could be a great one.

I also have recieved much shunning from Mr. McMillan, for he seemed to sort of treat me as a less intelligent individual, being extremely snobbish toward myself (I can often make mistakes such as forgetting to sign), and it seems his judgement is based on a bias and shouldnt be well noted.

I am only 14, and do much work throughout the summer: so I cannot spend a long time on protecting/enhancing my articles; so I'd be very happy to see some help & support.

Thanks alot,

--Alegoo92 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]