User talk:CTSWyneken/Archive 7

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

returned from my retirement because of you all[edit]

Hey CTSWyneken. I just wanted to tell you that I have returned due to your’s and others kind messages and emails. I missed this encyclopedia, and I have missed you as well. I really appreciate all that you have done for me. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 06:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luther[edit]

Hi Bob, I have always kept away as I'm not knowledgable about this subject. I would however say your interpretation of WP:V is correct. If wikipedia relied on on-line sources only we would have loads of articles on conspiracy theories and pornography and nothing else! As for the quote - if it does unbalance the article it probably should be precised but I do prefer to see the true quote if possible. You are quite correct that this is the discussion you should be having as you seem to have enough links to justify inclusion.

If you wish I'm happy to say on the talk page that as someone at ideological odds with you, I feel you are always true to your sources and can be trusted to fairly sumarize a quote. I don't want to flame the debate but if it gets bad I'm happy to get up to speed and try to make a dispassionate assessment. As a complete non-expert, the main influences I generally see quoted for the holocaust are Richard Wagner and the pervasive europe wide anti-semitism at the time. Legends such as Ivanhoe and Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice testify to this. Again - without knowing indepth the subject I always thought Luther was just agreeing with what was commonly thought of as "right" at the time. Not a justification but an understanding of historical context. Sophia 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aww - are you saying I have no loyalty to my friends? Seriously though as I have no passion in this area I would be happy to mediate if it becomes necessary. Your explation seems very plausible and should be easy to verify - as I'm sure you already have. I can also see why it looks like whitewash to the "otherside" so as you are currently doing the only way to handle this is to work from the sources. Good luck :) Sophia 06:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther Question[edit]

Hey CTS, I have a question about the Martin Luther article. The following quote from the heading Martin Luther and the Jews concerns me. It says

"Luther never organized any campaign against the Jews, and, as Heiko Oberman has said, despite the ferocity of his tirades against them he never truly renounced the notion of coexistence between Jews and Christians."

CTS, you know my feelings on whether I think Martin Luther was an anti-semite, but I have to object to the quote. While he launched no military campaign, he did start a literary one. In On the Jews and Their Lies you must know of where he, and I quote from the article,

"advocated harsh persecution of the Jewish people, including that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. Luther argued that Jews should be shown no mercy or kindness, [1] should have no legal protection, [2] and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time."

This seems to contradict the quote in the Martin Luther article, and I would like for you to address it. Please let me know what you think on my talk page. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 03:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I understand completly what you mean, I was just concerned about whether that quote was factual. Good luck, Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I didn't know if you knew about Pt's and myself being friends. I saw your warning, and I thought I should tell you that we have been working together very well. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 18:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alburgh[edit]

CTSWyneken,

In Vermont, the Vermont Board of Libraries is, oddly enough, in charge of geographic place names.

In April of 2006, after long-standing requests by town residents to revert to the original spelling, "Alburgh," the Board gave Alburgh back the "h" that a postmaster had removed over a hundred years ago.

See http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20060419&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=60419002&SectionCat=&Template=printart for documentation that Alburgh did in fact change its name in April of 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelfurr (talk • contribs)

Luther and Justification[edit]

How about the preface to Luther's commentary on Romans? It is available, for free, on the Internet here. I found some things mentioning justification and Christ here.

http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html Ptmccain 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed[edit]

I'll weigh in on some of those footnotes, but it strikes me that it may be worth soliciting the editors who are warring over some of these things to participation in an informal mediation on the article. It just looks to me like no one is getting past the disputes and focusing on making the article better - and every article can always be better. Sam 22:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning re violation of WP:POINT[edit]

Please don't clog my or other user pages with meritless accusations. They are disruptive.WP:POINT.

Reporting that I had received an email from an unnamed editor that contained vicious anti-Semitic comments, such as that certain named "Jewish administrators" were making "anti-Luther" comments in the Martin Luther article, is not a "personal attack." I did not name that editor. However, if it is permitted by Wikipedia poilicy I will post that email in full, so that its contents may be judged by the community. --Mantanmoreland 16:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This material should be kept to yourself. It is not appropriate here. CTS's warning to you was justified by the post you made on Talk:Martin Luther --Drboisclair 16:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be, and will be, fully aired. It is germane to a discussion that you commenced. You contend, without evidence, that unnamed editors are "anti-Lutheran." That't not a personal attack, in your view. But I am saying, with evidence, that two editors are anti-Jewish. One is the edit summary I quoted and the other is the personal email. Now you and CTS are screaming, without merit, "personal attack!" You opened the door. I walked through it. Don't silence discussion that is not going your way.--Mantanmoreland 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mails are not posted on Wikipedia and are off the record. I do not think that it is appropriate to disclose their contents on Wikipedia. I think that disclosing them violates confidentiality and demonstrates incivility. Although, there is no law that says that it cannot be done. You put yourself in danger of not being trusted with confidential communications.--Drboisclair 16:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am hesitating because posting emails is ordinarily a violation of netiquette. But there are extenuating circumstances. I am awaiting further guidance on this. However, quoting from an email without naming the author is perfectly OK, in the discussion that you started. Note that I am not posting a meritless accusation of NPA on Drboisclair's page, as that would be prohibited by WP:POINT. His allegations of anti-Luther bias, while absurd, are not personal attacks in my view. If they are, then they should be pursued by Doright but I think such back-and-forth accomplishes nothing.

While we are on the subject of that discussion of bias that you started but don't want to continue any more, I suggest that you substantiate your allegation of "anti-Lutheran" bias or withdraw it and apologize.--Mantanmoreland 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an onlooker who is not involved in the dispute, i would suggest keeping the e-mail confidential. i don't have a problem with anyone discussing an editors bias or opinions based on edit summaries and content included in the article. Or based on edits made on other related pages in wikipedia.

Everyone needs to bear in mind that we all come to the table with a POV. This is not a bad thing. Our job as editors is to find a version of the article that is acceptable to as many active editors as possible. Pointing fingers never works it just leads to bad blood and edit wars that achieve nothing. The best strategy is always to convince the editors on the 'other side' why your own version is better/more balanced. Unfortunately, this often means the articles can be hard work to craft since finding the right balance can be very difficult. However, a stable article will only be possible with compromises from both sides. David D. (Talk) 17:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These characterizations come up in conversation on the talk pages, and are at times warranted as a warning. Apologies are not necessary in this instance if they are accurate characterizations.--Drboisclair 17:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and once such POV is on the table negotiations with respect to content should be more transparent. Hidden agendas will always sink a good article. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, David, and that was precisely my feeling when Drboisclair alleged that certain users were "anti-Lutheran." I trust you would join with me in agreeing that that allegation was improper. On your point re the email -- you may be right, although I have received emails from adminstrators urging me to make the whole thing public. I must say that identifying the bigot rubs me the wrong way, but then again, maybe I would feel differently if I were Jewish.--Mantanmoreland 17:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, CTS. I am not the one who commenced a discussion on the Martin Luther talk page of supposed editor religious prejudice. That was commenced by Drboisclair, impugning the motive of editors who disagree with him by saying that such and such "is the view of those who have a strong POV against Luther and Lutherans."

I have seen similar irresponsible, manipulative comments made in the past in Martin Luther-related articles. They are a real problem and I have spoken out on the subject in hte past.

Drboisclairthen stated "Jewish POV is acceptable, Lutheran POV is not. That is what is going on here."

These are appalling comments.

I responded to this ugliness by pointing out, inter alia, that bigoted remarks were made to me in an edit summary and private emails by two separate editors. Rather than condemning or apologizing for them, you and Drobisclair compound matters by screaming "personal attack."

You show no outward expression of dismay at comments of the kind I just quoted when expressed by people who are allies with your position on Martin Luther, but jump up and down at even the slightest hint of lack of sympathy toward Luther. So please spare me the condescending lectures. --Mantanmoreland 19:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Siemon-Netto[edit]

Thanks for the invite, but I have nothing to say. Looks like the same debate over who qualifies as a reliable source. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:May I ask your opinion of this?[edit]

WP:RFC time? If you have several editors with complaints over repeated incidents of behaviour RFC is probably the place to bring it. You may also receive outside view responses with varying degrees of moderation, you can probably see from those if you're doing the right thing as well. Petros471 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

I was looking at you current signature, CTS Wyneken ^(talk), and wondering why you have a redundant link to your talk page?

You could write it as follows with no change to function.

The following code:

[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]][[User talk:CTSWyneken| Wyneken(talk)]]

Gives this signature: CTS Wyneken^(talk)

Another advantage is that it reduces the signature by 84 characters. David D. (Talk) 17:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luther, the Pope and Catholicism[edit]

Frankly, this particular issue gets me close to home because I am Catholic. Just as Lutherans are put in the very uncomfortable and self-challenging position of having to deal with Luther's anti-Semitism, Catholics have some uncomfortable and fairly catastrophic things of our own to deal with, high among them being the state of the Church that led to and caused the second great split in the Church and the persecutions that occurred before and after that split. I do believe, however, that the introduction I wrote gives appropriate coverage to the anti-Semitism issue, which needs good, solid coverage. Sam 17:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A separate issue: I find "Papists" to have a strong negative connotation in current parlance, and so avoid it, even though I know it was often used at the time. I try to remember to stick the "Roman" in front of Catholicism because I know there are a number of Protestant denominations that still claim to be catholic, but would object strenuously to the use of "Papist". Sam 18:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ad hominems in various talk pages[edit]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Mantanmoreland 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your question[edit]

Forgive me for what will be a long-winded response. I have been holding my tongue on these issues very consciously, since, among other things, I like to really know what I am talking about before I weigh in. But, since you have asked, I will answer (and I would answer and answer the same way regardless of who asked).

I have not read Siemon-Netto, so I don't have a strong view on the quality of his work. He is on my reading list, but it is a very long list and I haven't gotten to even tracking down his CV and seeing what is easily available. I have read Shirer, and my view of Shirer is that he writes an exceedingly good book, and that, for a journalist, he is reasonably careful on historical issues. I think Manmoreland's summary overstates Shirer's credentials as an historian, though it should be obvious that Shirer is one of the more important popularizers of history around and he is more careful about his work than many popularizers. My understanding is that Shirer follows, to a great degree, A.J.P. Taylor on these issues (though, again, I would have liked to have done more spade work on this before making that conclusion). A.J.P. Taylor is both a very thorough and very controversial historian. While I personally would not hesitate to cite him, any cite to him is likely to result in an ad hominem attack against him, which I view as regrettable, inappropriate and inevitable. In terms of statements on the relative credentials of historians, I posted some thoughts in the FAC process, the bottom line of which is I see no need for any credentials to be recited in the body for any scholar.

I believe there are good ways to get a rough measure of the weight accorded to academic works within the profession. The first and most useful is to look at reviews in academic journals. Reviews of individual books are useful, but broad historiographies by authorities in a field are even more useful. I had earlier posted two reviews I found, one of Shirer and one of Siemon-Netto; I will see if I can find that posting. A second approach is to look at how they are cited in academic journals (not just how many times, but also how favorably). Siemon-Netto, of course, will be cited less frequently because he is more recent, but still, a pattern of regular favorable citation in academic journals establishes legitimacy. But it is also essential to read these authors before judging their work. Obviously, the question of the underlying causes of the Holocaust is among the most important questions of our time, and there is an enormous body of work on it, and some level of survey of that body is essential to determining importance and legitimacy of scholarly work. Establishing credibility requires much spade work, reflecting the fact that good history is hard. Sam 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grunberger not Shirer.--Mantanmoreland 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I confused authorities debated over. I've been mulling over this whole dust-up on sources. So, my views on Shirer are thrown in. My views on Grunberger: I read what was assigned to me during an upper level history course on Resistance Movements during World War II, and it seemed a good book written for a general audience. I wouldn't hesitate to cite it. That brings up another way of getting to underlying credibility: something that shows up on course syllabi in specialized history programs. Sam

Yes, that is one way of making the distinction. I.e., major, recognized notable historians are on course syllabi, as compared to minor, unrecognized, non-notable journalists whose works are published in religious journals and specialized publishing houses for the audience of one particular religion. Also this whole subject has been discussed before, as noted on your talk page. Putting Siemon-Netto in the same class as Grunberger is only slightly more absurd than putting him in the same class as Shirer.--Mantanmoreland 15:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I noted on my talk page, have you read Siemon-Netto or done the spade work on citations? There are very good historians out there working in narrow areas with small followings. Sam 15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I am thoroughly familiar with his work. However, I don't think it is necessary for Wikipedia editors to be nerds the way I am. If it did, I and other nearsighted, hunchbacked fools such as myself would be running Wiki, and thank heavens it is not. There are other criteria to judge reliable source such as the ones you cited. Otherwise you shut out the viewpoint of good and objective editors who want a neutral and not biased article.

One last thing: it is bad practice to discuss articles at length on user talk pages. Why not shift the discussion to where it belongs? --Mantanmoreland 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it would be a good idea; I'm under the gun on something, but if no one moves it by tonight, I will. FYI: I don't think it's necessary for us all to be nerds (but good to see the club is strong) to edit, but I do think it is important to know the stuff before attacking it. So, what should I read to see these flaws in all their glory? Sam 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion doesn't matter. Let's see some third-party, objective sources indicating that this person has any status at all as a historian or scholar. Anyway, I'm signing off for now. If you want to move, fine, but please try to advance the discussion over what was previous and not go over old territory.--Mantanmoreland 16:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Sam, I'm not talking to Mantanmoreland to avoid loosing my temper. I tire of all out attacks on scholars, my church, myself and others. If you wish to take it up on the talk pages of the articles themselves, I will respond to you. I just want you to know why I'm not responding directly to him. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should edit articles in which you are not so passionately involved? I make this suggestion in the friendliest way possible. You have devoted approximately fifty times the energy to me as you have to demonizing User:Doright, and he is still editing Luther articles. These tactics (such as the flamebait above) do not work. They just inflame the situation, and do no good at all to the point of view that you represent.--Mantanmoreland 16:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CTS has shown that he does not allow his passions to dictate how he works here. He is a good resource. The only reason to have him or me recuse ourselves from editing these articles (for which we have expertise) is to allow other editors to have a free hand to push their POV.--Drboisclair 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps, a free hand to write an objective, NPOV article.--Mantanmoreland 16:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOPHIA's gone[edit]

Just let you know, User:SOPHIA has retired. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a shame. She was a great editor. Even though she differed with us as an atheist/agnostic, she was fair, true to the sources and always polite. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oracle 10g installation[edit]

Hi all,

I installed oracle 10g in RHEL-3.0 AS update5 .After that i created one DBA role user in that oracle server.Now i can login into that user locally,but through remote machine i cant get the connection.what will i do for this problem. Please reply me as soon as possible

Regards

Blessy

The Editor's Barnstar[edit]

For diligent and unbiased research and editing with fairness and equanimity, I award this Editor's Barnstar to CTSWyneken. Drboisclair 05:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I think that you deserve this as well as any honor that this website can afford. It is my honor to edit with you. Soli Deo Gloria.--Drboisclair 05:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse?[edit]

Re your mail... not sure what you mean. If you mean this [1] then I can't see that as any problem. I don't think you were justified in removing it William M. Connolley 20:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]