User talk:Ptmccain/Archive July 1, 2006

Thanks

I just want to thank you for your nice comment on the talk page concerning Doright. I have to tell you, I immensly regret the little scuffle we had in the past, as now I see you as you truly are, a nice and decent man. I just want to apologize again for my folly, and I am looking for to working with you in the future. On a related note, what is Dorights problem with CTS? CTS is a great editor, and I wonder what makes Doright hate him. Whatever the case I will not let doright smear his name as I know you will join me in that fight. Finally, i want you to know that you have a friend in me, and therefore the the "jewish cabal" (hahaha, just kidding my friend). Thanks again my friend, and happy editing. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi "Truth" ... the feeling is mutual. I've learned that there are a handful of people on Wikipedia who seem to have made this "virtual" reality, their life. Sad, isn't it? I don't think engaging and responding to the person you mention is worth it. It actually is a disservice to him for it only encourages him to continue his unfortunate behavior. Take care.--Ptmccain 03:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is sad. Well, I am going to sleep, so maybe I will catch you later. Happy editing. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 03:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

Hey Pt! You were gone for a while but I am glad to see that you are back. Cheers! Thetruthbelow 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Truth, I've been in Germany for nearly two weeks. Good to be back.

Must have been nice. Is that when you took the pictures of Luther's tomb? They are great pictures. Thetruthbelow 20:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are two years old. I haven't processed my most recent photos. Also got some great shots this time.

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)

What is "FA"?

Featured article. The link is on the talk page. Thetruthbelow 21:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind voting? Thetruthbelow 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Book of Concord Article

You made a statement on the Talk:Book of Concord page that Lutherans do not consider the symbolical books creeds. I beg to differ. What is your source for this? I understand that the symbolical books have a descending scale of authority with the Ecumenical Creeds on the top; however, they are the norma normata, which is tantamount to creeds. I guess we can leave it out of the main paragraph, but I would like to know which Lutheran theologian says specifically that the Lutheran symbols other than the Ecumenical Creeds do not have credal status. Please remember that this is a joint project here. --Drboisclair 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

David, please read what I said more carefully. You are not representing my comments accurately. Lutherans do not regard the confessions of our church to be identical with the ancient creeds. I refer you to the introduction to the Book of Concord and the Rule and Norm of the Solid Declaration. That the confessions are "creedal" is true, but that they are regarded by Lutherans as equivelent to the ancient Creeds is not accurate. I would like to keep the BOC simple and clear. The interested reader can find a wealth of additional discussion by reading the suggested sources. Thanks. Ptmccain 02:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suppose that what is written later in the article shows the reader the "credal" character of the symbolical books, and, yes, the formulators Andreae and Chemnitz were modest in their claims for their Formula and for the rest of the confessions. As I said there is a sliding scale of importance in that the Formula was not to be considered the norm of the Augustana. The Ecumenical Creeds are also more authoritative in that they were formulated in the Christian Church when it wasn't as divided as it was after the 11th Century. Your version of the opening paragraph is good and sufficient to give the required information; however, we don't have to dumb things down too much. The joint venture also means for me that I should give my fellow editors more of a free hand in editing these articles.--Drboisclair 02:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In recognition of the fine contribution you make to Wikipedia

		The Original Barnstar
		I award Ptmccain the original barnstar for the fine contributions he has made to Wikipedia as well as the time he has devoted to this resource. Soli Deo Gloria. --Drboisclair 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks David. I'm all for not "dumbing down" but I also am aware that the words that you and I understand very well are words that are foreign and unknown to many folks. My goal is trying to communicate clearly and simply, for the sake of those who do not share our understandings. Thanks for the Barnstar award!! Ptmccain 10:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for sharing those beautiful pictures of places that I may never see in Germany. That is the wonder of the internet: you can go anywhere in the world when you are plugged into it. God's blessings to you as we enter the Semester of the Church.--Drboisclair 12:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Awards

I do appreciate the recognition. My User Page needed some more bling! 8-) --CTSWyneken 17:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Luther as Featured Article

Would you take a look at the nom page? We can expect more or less constructive critique there. I'm preaching four services this weekend and will be a little pressed for time or I'd do it. I'm inclined to make any changes we can live with. --CTSWyneken 17:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I really appreciate the barnstar with ceaseless motion that you were so gracious to award me. I will continue to live up to it. BTW, I appreciate the fine contributions you are making to the Luther article. I think you share with us an appreciation for the widespread use of Wikipedia as an internet resource, With kindest regards, your fellow Wikipedian, --Drboisclair 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Luther as monk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Luther as monk.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just forgot. It is tagged now.Ptmccain 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

TOC nightmare

Sorry about the first time i tried to move the toc. I finally got it right though, and It looks pretty good! Thetruthbelow 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I should not have reverted it. I was concerned though that they you may have left WIKI for vacation and I didn't want that picture lost. I would like the Luther seal back up near the top. I'm beginning to think maybe the infobox is not all that good idea after all. But we need to check with Bob first.Ptmccain 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I already asked him, and he said to keep it because it was recommended in the FA suggestions. Thetruthbelow 23:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, there you go. I wish the typeface in it could be made all the same size, as the text itself. Ptmccain 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Layout at Luther

I'm not committed to one layout or another. I've worked at it to try to make the folks at the featured article nom happy. I've gotten enough experience with it, I think, to do just about anything. The problems we had with the layout amounted to so many images that the text block was narrow and irregular. With the TOC at the beginning of the page and the info box at the right, this is especially true. On the other hand, all the white space next to the traditional TOC was distracting.

What would you like to try? --CTSWyneken 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it best when the TOC was flush left, the Luther painting flush right and below it the Luther seal. I thought it all looked pretty good that way. I don't have a clue how, technically, to do all that, but it was looking pretty nice to me last night or so.Ptmccain 01:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the version that looked crowded to me... I'll play with it in tne morning and see if there's a third way to look at it... --CTSWyneken 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try to get to it before I go on vacation. Thetruthbelow 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the Layout!!!

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 03:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks very nice. Thanks!Ptmccain 12:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything at this stage beyond moving up the seal image that you'd like to see? --CTSWyneken 13:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed by this edit to Martin Luther

The changing of the sentence in the section about Luther's grave destroys the effect:

Old text: He was buried in the Castle Church in Wittenberg near to where he had made such an impact on Christendom: his pulpit.

New text: He was buried in the Castle Church in Wittenberg, underneath the pulpit, "one of the important places of Luther's activity."

The reason given is that St. Mary's pulpit was Luther's pulpit in a greater sense than All Saints' pulpit. Technically, that is inaccurate. Luther was not pastor at St. Mary's, Bugenhagen was. Luther may have preached there, but that was not his pulpit. His call was to the University and to the Castle Church or Stift (Foundation) of All Saints. I don't understand why the work of others has to be changed in this article. I would remind my fellow editors that this is a joint project. The rhetorical point made here is that Luther preaching made the largest impact on Christianity. There was no reason why this had to be changed.--Drboisclair 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on the Luther talk page. I think that all the information that you provided was very helpful. Thankyou again. I think that this is misunderstood because we are always taught that Bugenhagen was the pastor there. He was, but Luther also had a call there according to this information. My mistake. --Drboisclair 23:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks David. Clearly after Bugenhagen was called there he was the "pastor" per se. Luther however was always a preacher, and helped out a lot there, that's why I like to regard him as an "Assistant to the Pastor." They were not as uptight as we are about nomenclature and titles and "calls" as we are today. Ptmccain 00:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I know we must be cautious about cavalier edits, but, for the record, here is how I responded to David's very legitimate concern. And his reply:

Hi David, no, actually Luther was a preacher assigned to St. Mary's, from the get-go even before the Reformation. The Castle Church pulpit was not "his pulpit." When he was sent to Wittenberg he was charged to be preacher to his fellow monks in the Augustinian cloister, but...he was also assigned to be a preacher at the Stadtkirche. I can understand why there may be some confusion. For, the Stadtkirche was actually, at this time, incorporated with the All Saints Foundation, hence the chapter's canon, Ulrich von Dinstedt, was supposed to fill the spot of preacher at the Stadtkirche, but it was Luther who took up the responsibility to serve as preacher at St. Mary. Luther himself would talk about his "charge" to be preacher at St. Mary. During the Invocavit sermons of 1522 he talked about it, explaining that he had not aspired to the task of being preacher at St. Mary, but "was chosen against my will to preach here." Elsewhere he was more specific and here we have insight into his "call" to be preacher at St. Mary: "In spite of my reluctance I was called by the council to preach."(LW 51:73). Luther claimed that the Wittenberg town council had appointed him preacher at St. Mary, and on this basis he claimed that Karlstadt had no business changing things as he did in 1521-15222 while Luther was away at the Wartburg in exile. The right to fill preaching positions at St. Mary belonged to the All Saints Foundation, again, no doubt leading some to assume that Luther's pulpit was the Castle Church, but that is not true. Until the visitation of 1528, Luther received nine old schock, equivalent to eight gulden and twelve groschen, amazingly, for a long time this was Luther's *only* personal income. He never received a cent for any of his writings. Yes, it is true that St. Mary's became Bugenhagen's parish, but Luther was always serving at St. Mary as "assistant to the pastor" as we might say to day and indeed St. Mary's was his pulpit. I checked the Brecht footnote cited and the person who used it did not use it properly. If you can identify a nicer way rhetorically to say the same thing, great, but it is inaccurate to say the Castle Church was his pulpit. The reason the change was made was for the sake of accuracy, since Brecht was cited as if he was supporting the claim made, when in fact Brecht does not. Brecht has a wonderful section in the first volume of his three volume biography on "Luther Becomes A Preacher" and I think you would enjoy reading it. Oh, and one other thing, the pulpit in the Castle Church today is not one original to Luther, nor the one in St. Mary's today. There are at least two pulpits we can say for sure were used by Luther: the Torgau Castle Church and the pulpit where he preached his last sermon in Eisleben. OK, too much information, I know. Hope this helps David. For more details see Brecht, Volume I, p. 150ff.Ptmccain 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this information with me. I think that it proves the point that you are making. It is not too much information. I think that all you have written here is helpful. Thank you.--Drboisclair 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing portions on the Luther page

Hello, Paul, there is a way you can cause text and images to disappear by putting an arrow like this "<---" before it. Bob uses this when he wants to leave a message for editors in the edit page without it appearing in the text. You can do it with images too. I will look at the page as well. --Drboisclair 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it may have been that in my edits I managed to erase a "ref" close note. Sam fixed it for us. Thanks for your response. Ptmccain 15:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Heartfelt thanks!

Thank you for the barnstar! I am enormously proud and honored.--Mantanmoreland 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology and Discussion

Greetings. I must apologize for my behavior of a few days back. I allowed a long-term problem I had with some of your actions on the wikipedia to stew and then come out in an unreasonable way. The reference to CPH was a cheap shot; I should have been more descriptive rather than choosing the term "dumbing down". I have been quite upset with what seemed to me to be an unwillingness on your part to play along with the rules of this site, stemming back to (and having mostly to do with) your deletion of --- and what was to me an apparent unwillingness to listen to --- items criticizing some of your edits, items which had been placed on this page by a number of editors, senior and otherwise. Rather than engaging you with this concern, I let my unease with what I saw in your actions fester; this was obviously wrong, and certainly unhelpful.

A couple points, now, concerning some of your recent comments: This is Wikipedia, not the Britannica. Certainly true. Yet, at the same time, stripping away non-English terms, cutting sentences down to the nubbin, and aiming the language of this tool for low-level readers does not well serve this project. Due to translation issues, the use of non-English terms may be useful, and passing familiarity with them can be of help to even basic readers. Short sentences get the point across, no doubt, but if the prose is not engaging, the attention of readers will wither, and they will likely, in their boredom, skip over information that could be of use to them. The same is true of sticking to low-level language; high-level readers will lose interest quickly, and ideas will necessarily be expressed in the simplest terms, with nuance and depth excised. Such does not make for a useful encyclopedia.

You choose to hide behind your anonymity... This is not hiding, as you put it, but a considered choice: while there is little I find of value from the Middle Ages, I do find the building of cathedrals to be a beautiful thing. Thousands upon thousands of individual people were engaged in the building of something that could take generations to complete, their names unimportant, their work remaining to be admired long after they themselves were forgotten. I see the wikipedia as a similar project, leaving the identities of those involved in it as unimportant, the product of their labors being what is important. Thus my name or your name means nothing to the project as a whole; useful and quality contributions to it from those who do work on it are what do mean something. Be Well. ---Rekleov 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rek, thanks for your note. And thanks for understanding that the actions that caused you concern were those of an entirely new Wiki user. I honestly had no idea, none, about Wiki procedures, etc. I think I've learned quite a bit since then, so thanks for your patience and understanding. I appreciate your desire to contribute positively to articles about which we both care deeply. I still do not agree with your opinion on the style of the Luther article. I believe the goal of the Luther article should be to present a summary overview of Luther, hitting the highlights. I believe that trying to make it as technical as you might prefer will dissuade many readers from working through it. I believe CTSWyneken has a good solution in place, to put more technical notes in the reference citations. These are matters of judgement of course, but I do bring to this some deal of experience in publishing and writing and editing, so thanks for hearing me out on these things. If you would at some point drop me a private note via e-mail I would like to a chance to get to you know you beyond your pen name on Wiki. Blessings. Ptmccain 14:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you. Undeserved, but thanks! --Rekleov 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock|I would appreciate it if somebody would let me know precisely how I violated the 3RR rule? This was an "autoblock" and I believe it was an error. * Your IP address, which is 172.152.164.194

   * The name of the blocking admin, which is Guettarda
   * The reason you were blocked, which is: claims it was a 3RR violation, but I note it was an autoblock, and ... Guettarda notes on his talk page that he is taking a Wikibreak now, so this seems far from appropriate. 

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Ptmccain". The reason given for Ptmccain's block is: "4th 3RR vio at Martin Luther".

re - email

The 3rr report shows four reverts within a 24-hour period. Why do you see this block as incorrect? Guettarda 03:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The autoblocker kicks in if you try to edit after being blocked. Please review the Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Guettarda 03:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to retire

Hello Ptmccain. 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 always nice to me, and for that I am forever greatful. Thank you my friend for everything. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)