User talk:Str1977/Archive4

Note: Salisbury and Warwick

• Henry VI, part 1
  • Earl of Warwick (Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick)
  • Earl of Salisbury (Thomas Montagu, 4th Earl of Salisbury)
• Henry VI, part 2
  • Earl of Salisbury (Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury)
  • Earl of Warwick (Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick)
• Henry VI, part 3
  • Earl of Warwick (Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick)

DrPickle and Vicarius Filii Dei

You may want to keep an eye out for User:DrPickle. Dr Pickle is Bob Pickle, a Protestant fundamentalist given to adding in anti-Catholic conspiracy theories on websites. He has been trying to link his website to Vicarius Filii Dei and rewrite the article to suggest that that mytical title is real. He has been one of the internet's promoters of the ridiculous theory. Clearly he sees Wikipedia has another source to push his Catholic-bashing ("the Pope is the antichrist") viewpoint. Keep an eye out. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Eva Braun

Str1977 - YOUR EDIT: 18:23, 6 March 2006 Str1977 (differing theories notwithstanding, the relationship was most likely sexual)

This is your personal opinion and goes against the Wikipedia:No original research policy. I remind you what Wikipedia: Administrator Jtdirl said at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68 concering references to homosexuality or other such issues:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68

The claim is clearly sourced from published books with named authors and so belongs in the article. All it needs is more NPOV phraseology. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia: Administrator Jtdirl also said on this [[1]] article:

• I have to say as an academic I find Keith's stance mindboggling. The claims are from named sources in credible publications. There is more than enough claims to warrant inclusion. If this was an academic publication, the above quotes and references would make reporting of the claim automatic. Indeed failure to mention something with so many sources would be be looked at as either incompetent research or agenda-motivated censorship. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not reverse this important and well documented information from a qualified University professor and historian that is supported by other reliable sources. Karl Schalike 20:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Karl, the statment that the Hitler-Eva relationship was most likely platonic is a POV presented in factual language, hence my revert. This time I have only removed this contentious sentence but I still can't see why other editors should be burdenend with ploughing through your dirt to find the particles of gold that might be included as well. Please, learn how to write concisely and in NPOV language. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jtdirl, I thought you had posted to my talk page but I soon found out it was Schalike who used some of your posts to another page. [2]. He has posted the same on the Eva Braun talk page. Anyway, I have explained my reverts on that same talk page [3] and did what I had to do and did the minimal revert, removing the clearly POV sentence [4]. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And, Karl, be sure that Jtdirl will get to know about your misuse of his name. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now, Jtdirl, followed the links provided by Schalike for the quotes attributed to you and have found that you indeed said what he quoted, but that it was meant in the context of Cary Grant - with not a word in regard to Eva Braun or Hitler and with no appearance of Schalike in the discussion. This a clear misuse of your good name and your adminship for Schalike's purposes. Outrageous, IMHO! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vicarius Filii Dei

You might like to take a look at Vicarius Filii Dei. A user. Bob Pickle, who writes internet sites promoting the myth that the Pope has the title Vicarius Filii Dei and that that title is written on a papal tiara, is determined to push that agenda in that article. He does this using the "when did you stop beating your wife?" trick of insisting that WP prove there are no tiaras with the words. It is an old trick. It can never be physically proven that such a tiara did not exist and was not destroyed until you travel back in time. In reality there is not a single shred of evidence that such a tiara existed; no independent verification, no photographs, no reports by independent sources, etc. The only "evidence" is (i) POV claims "produced" by the Seventh-day Adventist Church which pushed the idea (all of it dodgy — claims that popes wore such a tiara at a High Mass when tiaras were never worn at Mass, a supposed witness statement by a former Catholic which suggests the guy is lying as the supposed former student priest got his terminology about Catholicism all wrong, something highly unlikely if one was a former priest who had spent a lifetime up to that time attending Catholic Masses and sacraments.) (ii) dodgy secondary sources such as a forged mediaeval document, a magazine article (yes! They "evidence" is something written in one Catholic US magazine published nearly century ago which the magazine itself admitted was wrong!!!) and a book by a nineteenth century cardinal that was famed at the time for its clangers and mistakes!

I have given up even communicating with Pickle on the talk page. I just revert his edits to the article at this stage. In true conspiracy theory style Pickle refuses to supply evidence for his claims, just demands you disprove his unevidenced claims. Your contribution would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the notes that I've included on the talk page, and the actual edits I've done on the article, can see that I'm not POV. Wikipedia policy requires NPOV, and the article as it stood was anything but that.

For example, Jtdirl doesn't want readers to know that the title in question appears in RC Canon Law. He doesn't want people to know that the alleged student in 1845 said nothing about seeing the pope wearing a tiara at a mass. He doesn't want his readers to know that the US Catholic magazine in question NEVER admitted it was wrong.

I say NEVER for the simple reason that when I ask Jtdirl for evidence for such an admission, which I would readily accept if he could provide it, he refuses to give any at all.

I'm a newbie here, but I think we're at the point where we need some mediation or arbitration. Otherwise, Wikipedia and its verifiability and NPOV policies are all a joke. --DrPickle 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I find it curious that you would revert my corrections this morning, claiming that they were inaccurate. Why would you do that? I had given the entire quotation of the alleged 1832 source, which states most clearly that the woman in question did not claim to have seen anything. It was a man who saw it, and he didn't see the title on the tiara. He saw it on the miter.

In light of how the quotation appeared in full in the footnote, for you to revert my edit to an erroneous version does not make you look too good. I respectfully request you to stop doing that kind of thing.

What should we do? Have a survey? Request mediation? What would you suggest? --DrPickle 15:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not allow pickle to foist misinformation in the article. He simply is unable to show that any legitimate source has ever officially used the title in question or that it appeared on any papal tiera. Error does not belong in an encyclopedia.Cestusdei 04:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a conspiracy promoter called Pickle
Who thought Wikipedia standards were fickle
So he pushed his agenda
To force an NPOV surrender
But support only came in a trickle.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Josephus article

Are you satisfied with the current state? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, please work on that some more; right now it looks like you're satisfied. I'm trying to achieve something more neutral for you, but I don't really have a dog in this fight. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Jesus-Myth

I've reported you for your out of control reverting (largely vandalism) on "jesus" myth. Please stop vandalising this article and stick to the rules. Robsteadman 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:TrumpetPower! has also been reported. KHM03 ^(talk) 22:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

TP was trying to proetct the page against the POV pushing, vandalism and reverts of Str1977 - it is ONLY Str1977 who should be banned - along with the TWO admins who have not taken action against one of their "edit pals". Robsteadman 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to 3RR page. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense about Messiah

Beat me to it by seconds! :-) Myopic Bookworm 16:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I think you will agree that it's all going silly again so we need outside help. I've decided to start up and RfC so we can all come together on neutral ground with neutral referees and really sort out what the core problems are. At the moment we are going round in circles at regular intervals with only the tenacity of the particular interest groups deciding what stands in the article. Not a good editing environment for anyone. Hopefully it will settle all the major points once and for all and give us a reference for new users so they can get up to speed without having to open old wounds. I would want this to be a positive experience that will hopefully save us all a lot of time in the future. As soon as I have the link I will let you know but that may take a few days as I don't know what I'm doing! Sophia^TalkTCF 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Message on the same plans on another user page:

Hi Giovanni - I've decided it's time to put an RfC together about the behaviour of the editors on the Christianity/Historical/Historicity/Jesus-Myth pages. I and I'm suer you have had enough of the "wheel warring" that happens every time the status quo is threatened. We seem to be going down the "my scholars are better than your scholars" route so we need external help.

I've been reading Pagels "The Gnostic Gospels" and she fully supports your view of the beginings of Christianity such as using relativistic terminology with regards to heresy and the lack of a clear othodoxy as the development of orthodoxy was driven by political not spritual needs. Even though she is a well respected authority in this area we have seen that these views stand no chance of being fairly represented here.

If you haven't already read this book I strongly recommend it. Sophia^TalkTCF 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"POV"

You reverted an edit of mine on the Christianity article which stated that the Bible clearly indicates that all one has to do is believe in order to be saved. You said in the summary that it isn't all that clear, and is POV. It is clear, and is not POV! It's not POV that the Bible says in Acts 16:31 that "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved"! That's exactly what it says! If you think I'm wrong go get a Bible and read it yourself! And the question of whether or not someone is saved is not a dark mystery. The theologians who believe this have done very little Bible research, obviously. I'm reverting the edit. Scorpionman 16:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Emperors

Hi. I see we have different point of views on several matters (Maxentius, Western Roman Empire, and possibly others). Instead of starting an edit war, I would like to settle this (controversial) matter.

I would like all the edits to keep consistency throughout WP, as far as possible. I think it is confusing (for example) defining Maxentius emperor in the List of Roman Emperors and in his own article, and usurper in Maximinus and Western Roman Empire. Let's choose a single definition of him, and stick to it.

You can answer here, I am watching this page. --Panairjdde 12:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande

I realized that I never sent you an E-mail despite your frequent edits on all the articles of the Roman civilization. Well, better late than never... Hi, I am Flamarande, I am a Roman-fan, and read alltoo much about ancient Rome. I am (somewhat) engaged in the reforms and improvements of the articles Western Europe, Barcid, SPQR, romanization (cultural), Roman republic, Roman empire, and, last but not least, Western Roman empire. I find that Wikipedia is fine idea , alltough far from perfect (as Jimbo also is). What I want of you? Well, nothing really, I am just saluting a fellow Roman-Fan. Flamarande 14:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Noch ein anderer verrückter Deutscher? Ihr seid wirklich überall :).

Ok, we trying to debate the issue: "Who was the first Western Roman emperor ?" at Template talk:Western Roman Empire infobox in a rational and civilized manner. Your opinion would be much apriciated. Flamarande 12:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we need your opinion in the debate, or we will decide the matter between ourselfes. What am I talking about? Read above, for chris´sake. Flamarande 10:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I can agree with your opinion about the motto. If you know latin, and if you have the time, would you check the article SPQR for any bad translations? Flamarande 12:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic politicians category in Hitler article

What doesn't matter is your wish to cast bad light on Catholicism by making Hitler a Catholic. We have to face up to the fact that Hitler came from a Catholic family, but you have to face up to the fact that you cannot legitimately use this stick to beat the Church. Go and get yourself another stick.

I never said anything derogatory or polemic about catholicism or its adherents. Why should you accuse me of using Hitler's catholicism (or in your case, the lack thereof) as a "stick to beat 'the Church?'"

And about the comment you made about him killing Jews, I have one thing to say. He killed a lot of people, and specifically stating he killed Catholics is a faulty defense. I know Atheists who killed Atheists (Stalin killed countless numbers of Russian people, and some were undoubtedly faithless when considering the severe persecution of theists in the Soviet Union), but that doesn't mean he didn't believe the same things they believed.

Even if his deeds contradict his catholicism, he still professed the religion. If you were to use this logic, professing Christians wouldn't even be able to say they're Christians. And George Bush (using the example you used) wouldn't be a Methodist, because he's done a lot of things that aren't Methodist norm (say, invading a nation and lying about WMDs).

I believe he was a practicing Catholic. And although you may think otherwise, this is not about my beliefs against the Catholic Church (whatever they may be), but rather Hitler's perception of himself. Please don't delete this comment and reply on my talk page, it would be much more conventional. Эйрон Кинни (t) 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Names of Jesus

Please join the discussion on the talk page. We are trying to educate an annonymous user who refuses to sign posts, but wants his way. --CTSWyneken 21:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

Hi. Sorry but I had to revert your edits. Its more than possible that some of your changes are OK but please: do not remove sourced information, do not add unsourced information, do not restore the POV fork section (i.e. "Angering Hitler" which is essentially a duplicate of "Relationship with Nazi Germany" where I merged it), and do not remove {{fact}} template until sources have been found. That said the article could clearly use some work. But it is obvious to me that you loaded the old version of the page before my edits to make your edits because you "changed" things like verbose section titles, etc. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Ignore the last. If you have aim capability please IM me at C6o6s6m6o. If you have 15 minutes I'm sure we can come to a consensus on this. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hypatia

I disagree with your removal of the attempt to turn around the burden of proof: the removed passage simply states a fact and is not an anti-Cyril piece of pleading. The article still has a lot of anti-Christian POV, but that passage is not part of it. Apart from that, the lengthy quotations ought to be cut down.--shtove 15:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

abortion opening

I have posted the new opening for abortion on the talkpage in the poll section. Please weigh in and invite others with interest in the abortion article to do so. The opening is not my idea. I support it, though, with the exception of the inaccurate word "nonviable". ____G_o_o_d____ 11:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

inflamatory editsummary

You refer to an edit that you don't like as spam [5] that could be viewed as a personal attack. I agree that a lengthy coment is not needed in that list - in fact no comment would be even better as the article sufficiantly covers the argument in question. Agathoclea 09:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Software bug?

One of my posts [6] was deleted - is this part of your software problems? It doesn't matter as Ann wisely removed the whole thing as it was going nowhere but I thought I should let you know. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 10:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

abortion opening pt. 2

I noticed you voted reject on a paragraph that already went through the hands of a large number of editors. I was wondering if you wouldn't join us on the talk subpage to work together with everyone to reach a finalized new version of the paragraph.--Andrew c 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

pro-life

You are invited to help remove POV phrasing from the article. Alienus is pushing. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, dear Str. I am taking the liberty of removing a comment from Alienus, based on my belief that sarcasm and sneering are not welcome on your talk page. If I have misunderstood your wishes, do please feel free to replace it. I promise I won't be offended! You'll find it in the history. But I thought it was just possible that you might prefer to see my name rather than his in the last diff. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 08:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Easter Greeting

Froehliche Ostern, hoffen dass Sie Brunnen sind und gelangen herum an einige meinen Fragen manchmal bald beatworten. Dr. Dan 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hiter and German citizenship

A lot of detail is in Dietrich Klagges. Agathoclea 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Counterproductive edits, and edit-warring.

Your recent activity on Christianity has been highly counterproductive and is verging on an edit war. Please take to to Talk instead of fighting. Alienus 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

May I add sneaking major edits under a misleading edit summary: [7] [8] (in both cases you deleted info you did not like elsewhere in the article totally unrelated to your editsummary) -- Agathoclea 21:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you may not. The first accusation is clearly false, the second was an oversight. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It certainly was. It took me a while to work out why you reverted the order of the intro ... you removed the link www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm way down the page at the same time. Agathoclea 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 has a rep as an extreme pro-Christian edit warrior. He lives up to his reputation. Alienus 22:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Extreme is right. He even stated his support for the murderous Crusades! Giovanni33 06:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

When was this, Gio? Alienus 07:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just recently on the Christianity talk page. He said:

"The Crusades were done by Christians and I may go on record that I don't have the slightest intention of covering them up, as I am not one of those who condemns the Crusades in general (notwithstanding the crimes that were included and notwithstanding the eventual corruption of the idea)." Str1977 (smile back) 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I responded:

"I find it most amazing that you said you are not one of those who condemns the Crusades despite the crimes you admit they committed and their "eventual corruption of the idea." It was a lot more than an idea--the crusades were mercenary murderers. So if you don't condemn the Crusades (in general) then does that mean you support it and defend it (in general)? How about a modern version of the crusades then? Its not often I run into someone with this hard-line POV. I'm interested." Giovanni33 08:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 did not reply to me, after that. I think he has a right to hold his POV, but it is an extreme one.Giovanni33 07:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hold it? Yes. Impose it on these articles? I don't think so.

I wonder if he's equally chipper about the Inquisition. Alienus 07:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, how nice. Gio, I did not respond to your post 'cause I hadn't seen it. I doubt you will be open to an explanation, but here it is anyway:

I have studied the crusade and know to distinguish between the actual idea of the Crusades and what they turned out to be, which included crimes and massacres. You may dislike both the idea (which you appearently don't understand) and the "practice" but not everyone must share your view. Now, if I said I don't condemn the crusades in general (which actually is not the same as I approve of them) while I condmen the actual crimes that occured (but not more than I condemn other massacres/crimes in other wars of that time) that isn't so shocking, IMHO. Now, I agree that such a nuanced take on things is extreme in the general public and even among some historians or clerics but that's because the crusades have become a topos of conversation apart from the actual facts.

Ali, if you have questions about the Inquisition (and please specify what you mean by that) than feel free to ask. But I guess you were only sneering.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I really want to know. In what way do you support them and their idea? I've looked and can't see anything worth any amount of support for the crusades. I'd like to understand your perspective.Giovanni33 09:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Resurrection question.

While I am not a an expert: resurrection appears once in the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, under the "Resurrection of Osiris," on page 378—which is only a brief description of a local festival of the Resurrection of Osiris on a lake outside of Sais. The only online references that do not concern Budge seem to involve early Christianity rather than a term from Egyptology. -JCarriker 14:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Formatting Bible references

Hi Str1977. I appreciate the hard work you're putting into this project lately. I noticed on Historicity of Jesus that you changed a couple places that the 'biblemacro' macro was used to be hardcoded references to biblegateway.com, and abbreviated a couple books of the Bible. I really dislike abbreviating books of the Bible, mainly because not all Wikipedia readers will be familiar with the abbreviations, and spelling out the books seems clearer. And even though I'm familiar with most of the abbreviations, I'm still not sure whether 'Phil.' is supposed to be short for 'Philippians' or 'Philemon'. :-) Now I don't feel as strongly about the bibleverse macro/template/whatever, but it seems like a good, consistent, easy way to provide links to the texts. Any special reason you don't like it? Wesley 15:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Dagger-thrust legend

I would kindly ask you not to remove relevant sourced material by a major historian in the field from the article. Wikipedia takes an NPOV stance in matters under dispute. While you may not believe what Steigmann-Gall said, the fact remains that he said it, so you are removing a relevant fact from the article. Furthermore, the rest of the article with one exception is completely un-cited, so you have removed the only thing in the article that is absolutely true. Finally, will you please stop misusing edit summaries to carry on polemics? Edit summaries are not the talk page; they are for telling people what you did, not why. A reader should not have to see arguing in the edit summary section.Drogo Underburrow 17:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"They are for telling people what you did, not why." On the contrary, Drogo. The very first sentence of the Help:Edit summary guideline says, An edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?". An edit summary that provides a brief argument for why a particular edit was justified or necessary is completely appropriate, as long as it's not abusive towards other editors. If others, having seen the brief argument, disagree with the edit, then discussion will presumably take place on the talk page. In my experience, Str1977 is always prepared to discuss things on the talk page; but nobody is forbidden to give a brief explanation of the reason for the edit in the edit summary before or while discussion is taking place. There is no misuse of edit summaries that I can see, though if your post is referring to this edit, there may be a misuse of the word polemics. AnnH ♫ 18:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the guideline page also states, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content"; it also says to keep discussions and debates away from the article page itself. In my experience, when people explain why they did an edit, they basically are saying things that should go on the talk page. However, I think that the guideline page is not clear on this issue, since you pointed out that it asks people to state why they made the edit. So, I'll withdraw my complaint. Drogo Underburrow 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and false statements

I am taking this discussion off of Talk:Christianity. It seems like you have accused me of putting "false statements" into the article, and I feel the need to defend myself. The statement in question was "According to Acts..." The way I saw the article was that there was a claim presented as fact that was footnoted, and when I read the footnote, the only source in the footnote was Acts. So, I added the qualifying clause and took my concerns to the talk page. My statement was not false in any regards, because the citation was "according to Acts". Since my concerns have been addressed, and modern scholarly sources cited, I feel totally fine having the qualifying clause removed. But I just wanted to clarify why I made my edits, and explain how I do not see them as being "false". Go to the Jesus page. When the only citation is a bible quote, the sentence is normally qualified with "According to the Gospels" or "Mark writes" or something along those lines. And when other, more factual, claims are made, such as the date of the crucifixion, or what languages Jesus spoke, we cite scholars like Meier and Brown. Maybe the criteria on the Jesus page is stricter than the criteria for the Christianity page, and I apologize if my take on citations was problematic for the context. However, I honestly do not see how my statements at the time were "false". --Andrew c 01:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I understand completely. Having the article say that ONLY Acts claims that Christianity started as a Jewish sect is factually false. I understand now. All I wanted was a couple non-biblical sources, and that what I ended up getting. Sorry for being a little defensive, and I'm glad that article has been sourced for the better! --Andrew c 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, in the end it improved the article and that's what we're here for, aren't we. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Adolph Hitler incivility

Your most recent edit to Adolph Hitler contained the following insult:

(tagging section rubbished by our most favourite POV warriors)

WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are two rules that are actually enforced on occasion, so it might be a good idea to follow them. Al 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Str77, your taunting of Giovanni33 on the Hitler talk page is getting out of hand. Repeatly calling him names is quite uncivil. Your latest taunt was calling him "Mr. Logic"; before that you called him "my parrot". Now you post a message completely off-topic on the Hitler page, taunting him by accusing him of violating 3-RR and that you might report him. Drogo Underburrow 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the first accusation, from Alienus, it is interesting to see that Alienus has just been blocked for a week for making (yet another) personal attack — this time referring to another editor's genitals in his edit summary.

With regard to the second accusation, from Drogo, calling Giovanni "my parrot" was prompted by three posts where Giovanni taunted Str1977 by repeating his words back to him, exactly like a parrot.[9], [10] [11] He has done that one other pages as well. Drogo, if you want to send messages asking editors not to taunt other editors, perhaps you should start with the editor who "parrotted" Str1977's words. AnnH ♫ 00:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. And what is the justification for the taunt about 3-rr? Just what purpose is served by threatening that he might report him, after Gio already said he would make no further edits? And why are you answering for Str77, how is it that you speak for him, when I ask him questions on his talk page? Meanwhile you ignore what I say on your own talk page about matters specifically concerning you? Drogo Underburrow 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think your comment on my talk page was one that required an urgent response, Drogo, especially since I had previously alerted you to the fact that your understanding of what edit summaries are for was mistaken, so there wasn't really anything new to say. It's perfectly okay to use an edit summary as an alternative to making a short post (and using up server space) on the talk page, as long as you are still regularly contributing to the talk page, and as long as your edit summary isn't abusive. As to why I answered here first, I have this page on my watchlist, and I just thought that this thread was more interesting than the one on my own page. By the way, Giovanni frequently carries on a conversation in the edit summaries. I have no problem with that, but I'm surprised that you don't, since you chastise the Catholic editors for it. But it seems to be part of a pattern — undermining my status as an editor on the Hitler page because I claim to be obedient to the Pope, but finding Giovanni's commitment to atheism and to discrediting Christianity (as shown in his contribution history) irrelevant to his status, demanding a source to say that Hitler wasn't a practising Catholic, but not turning a hair when the article says that he received the sacraments "devoutly", complaining about the use of the fairly mild word "parrot", but not caring about the provocation in answering an editor by reproducing his words several times, etc. Oh yes, and Giovanni did once before say that he wasn't going to revert again, and then change his mind. AnnH ♫ 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC) and 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

She always speaks for him and supports and reverts to anything he wants. They have even joked to each other that they are each others meatpuppets. I was not taunting Str1977, and never have. True, I adopted his vernacular and language structure but did not parrot him. Parrots copy verbatim, I was responding with my own view of the edit conflict and changed words as needed to expresss my words. The differences were simple enough so that a few words being changed only sufficed for the purpose of making my stand clear. Infact, it helps illustrate the similarities and differences of our repsective possitions. But I doubt there is anything Str1977 can do that will ever get AnnH's disaproval. For the record, I do not dislike Str1977, however much we find ourself at opposite ends of the political spectrum--and I never taunt him. I actually appreciate oppositional points of view in the tradition of John Stuart Mills. If Str1977 did not exist, I'd have to invent him! Giovanni33 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, perhaps you missed my posts saying that I couldn't support Str1977 about the fascist/totalitarian wording, because I didn't have enough knowledge to have an opinion of my own on the matter. So your claim that I "always" support him and revert to what he wants is clearly false. I also do a lot of editing (and voting) that he is not involved in at all, and have absolutely no involvement with many of the articles he edits. On the other hand, there have been several accounts that supported you and reverted to what you wanted and that did nothing or almost nothing else. Of course I support Str when you try to edit an article to make it seem as if Hitler was a devout Christian. That has nothing to do with Str1977; it has everything to do with resisting your bias. As for having not taunted Str, it's hardly something to make an issue of, and probably wouldn't even be discussed here if Drogo had not felt it necessary to complain about the use of the word "parrot" to address someone who had been imitating another editor, reproducing his words in three separate posts. But I think most people would agree that if you are disagreeing with someone, and you imitate what he says three times, you are more likely to be trying to annoy him than trying to find a simple and helpful way of expressing yourself. AnnH ♫ 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not miss your post saying that but what you said was not true. Str1977 said he would support "authoritarian" as he has supported it before. So that is why you could also support it. I have no doubt that if he opposed it, you would not support it. So, yes you do always have supported him--so far from what I've seen. Its fine if you do, but its odd that you protest, and made a big point about this instance. Doth protest too much. But, in anycase the example you cite doesn't work--not that I really care if you always support him. Its your right. You say it has nothing to do with Str, well, I don't know, but again,it doesnt matter. You may just share the same conservative POV--just like other editors share my more liberal pov. Laslty, I did not reproduce Str's words--he has no ownership of the words. I can use many of the same words to compose my own thoughts on here. The fact that my word choice mirrored his served the purpose of clarity by giving a parallel and symetric prose making comparison easier. As usual, you fail to assume good faith when it comes to my edits but instead assume the worst intentions.Giovanni33 06:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I said here that I wasn't going to support Str1977 because I did not know whether the regime was fascist, totalitarian, or authoritarian. I suggested that since you, he, and John could all accept authoritarian, it would be better to use that than to keep edit warring. Str's last edit to Hitler prior to my remark had been to change F to T; your last one had been to change T to F. I then edited, not to revert back to Str1977, but to insert a word which I had no liking or dislike for, in the hope of putting an end to the reverting. I later made it clear here that I had not supported him because I had had no knowledge of the subject. Besides, it's silly for you to constantly jump in with your comments about how I support Str1977 with your history of puppetry. Now before you start claiming that Belinda and Freethinker really are different people, there's no doubt that their purpose on Wikipedia was to support you — a clear violation of policy. And Kecik now has 30 reverts to your versions, out of 32 article edits. How, with your history of BelindaGong pretending to have no connection to you, starting her wiki-life by reverting to your version, following you around to support you, revert for you, and vote for what you want, can you keep making remarks about me and Str1977? And "inviting a friend", "showing him how to use Wikipedia" so that his first edit, with you presumably standing beside him, is one where he claims just to be new (nothing about his relationship to you), to have read the talk page and agree with you, and his second edit is one where he reverts the article back to your version while you're blocked, is so clearly in violation of the policy that it just makes you look silly when you keep on claiming that you did nothing wrong.

Here, here, and here, you copied the words from a whole paragraph (or nearly), just changing Gio to Str, or F to A. I'm not going to make a judgment as to whether or not you were making fun of him — and if you were, I think he's more than capable of dealing with it — but I'll just say that in most cultures, those three diffs would be seen as evidence of making fun of someone. I imagine that you probably wouldn't do that with your bank manager or with someone who was interviewing you for a job. AnnH ♫ 07:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Its the other way around. You keep bringing up my alleged socket or meat puppets, despite the fact that its not true, and I only point out that based on your own standards, you always support him. Never once have you opposed his edits. Again, nothing wrong with that, but you are the one that seems to think that is wrong, since you blame me for the fact that others support my edits (nothing to do with me, really). Anyway, the example you use is not valid since, as I said, Str1977 also support the A word. He was only going back to the T word to make a point becaue he was annoyed. But, he also supports the A word, so your supporting it also is not going againts what he support. I don't think that will ever happen. But, its ok. Don't over argue the case.

So you think I'm in a suborinate possition to Str, that he is akin to being a manager or a boss I'm trying to get a job from? Actually the status here is one of equality in terms of being peer editors, comrades, on Wikipedia. Even more so in the sense of it involving debates of sorts. So, in this context its not making fun of someone its using rhetoric to make a point clear regarding the similarities and the differences in as clear a manner as possible. I changed more than just one word, btw. And, I changed the meaning completely. It was interesting. John K said it was even clever. NO one seems to think I was poking fun at Str1977 except you. I don't think he needs you to come to his defense all the time either. I'm sure he already had a very good mom who will defend him when he is in need. He's a capable young man, as I am. Maybe you should let him answer for himself?Giovanni33 08:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo I was not taunting Gio. I called him parrot because he parroted my responses. He took it rather with humourously, so who are you to complain. I called him "Mr Logic" because he called a vote of mine lacking logic (completely uncalled for, since he is not the Wikipedia minister for interpreting or commenting quotes).

I was not threatening him - I was merely pointing it out to him, especially since I have never reported anyone for 3RR and wouldn't want to do so with having warned him. This was my way of warning him. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler response

Thank you for your recent response to some of the comments I made on my talk page and elsewhere pertaining to Adolf Hitler and his religious beliefs. Your extended post is much appreciated, as I made several points and allegations myself, some of which were in defense of my reputation here on Wikipedia.

"Let me first state that I in no way think you an anti-Catholic. I don't even need to look up your other contributions - I have no reason for believing you to be one. I also respect your disagreement with the Church on the religious field. That's a valid view to have."

1. I remember some time ago, perhaps in April or May when you accused me of using Hitler's being a Catholic "as a stick to beat the Catholic Church with". This is where I received the notion you thought I had something against Catholics, and I don't believe I was out of line in believing that you did. Hopefully, that matter is resolved up and you realize my edits relating to Catholic articles are very neutral.
2. I made the following very explicit, "I don't know about other contributor's edits, but this is certainly not the case when examining my edits [...]", because I could only speak for myself on this issue: "Now, unfortunately I cannot hold the same view in regard to all contributors or rather posters on this issue. If you look up the edit histories of them you will immediately see a certain streak. (So much for my "interpretations".)".
3. "I also see no "blatant vandalizing of cited sources" on my part." I apologize for that allegation, I now understand that I was mistaken in making it.
4. I did not know Bytewerk added the same quote to that section regarding Hitler's membership in the Catholic Church, so if you feel compelled to do so, then delete it, all I ask is that you add my source note to Bytewerk's quotation as a supplement.
5. I wrote "claimed" because I did not know if Hitler had indeed remained a member, but I only wanted to clarify there are differing views on his membership, a membership I had no knowledge of.

I hope this will help bring us to a mutual understanding while editing this article in the future. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarian

I did make my case on the talk page. Perhaps you should read it before accusing me of editing without explanation. Thanks. Stanley011 13:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you agree with me content-wise is irrelevant--the fact is, you actually did accuse me of something--you accused me of editing without explaining my edits, which is patently false. Whoever changed my edit back to "authoritarian" edited without first discussing his or her change on the discussion page because my response has yet to be answered, as you will see if you actually check the discussion page. Stanley011 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

German language scholarship and armour 500-1100

Excuse me to ask, especially as I am not sure this lies within your range of interests... but this is a matter I lack the necessary knowledge of German for. I do suspect that German language sources might confirm or infirm whether what is called in English ringmail, that is armour made of metal rings or small plates affixed side by side on a supporting garment was truly used during Merovingian and Carolingian times. I'm looking for sources that would specifically distinguish such armour from scale armour that is, overlapping plates affixed on the garment and chainmail, where the metal rings are interlaced together to form a mesh. I know chainmail has been used from times before christian era, but my sources hint that it's use decreased significantly during the dark ages, in favour of the ringmail that was less labour intensive and required less metal. English scholarship seems to ignore it all and decrees that all armour used by Germanic people and in Western and Northern Europe from the beginning of christian era, and the development of plate mail in the late 1300s was chainmail. So I'd like to know what the German speaking world says about this period of our history. --Svartalf 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[[12]]

Incivility on Hitler talk page

Please remove your uncivil remarks from the Hitler talk page, or apologise for them on the page. You wrote: Drogocracy (defined as rule by twisting, reinterpreting and making up rules). This is gratuitous personal attack. Thank you. Drogo Underburrow 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

{{TotallyDisputed-section}} in Adolf Hitler is totally disputed! Oooh, the irony

Several people are stating on Talk:Adolf Hitler that the section on Hitler's religion is not factually disputed, and that it is only the neutrality that is disputed. Do you agree with this? Several users are saying that the tag should be changed to a "neutrality dispute only" tag. Do you agree with this? I'd like to see if you object to this before changing the tag. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene

I would be grateful if you would defend you're reversion in relation to this question-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Magdalene#no_acceptance_from_scholarly_circles no acceptance] Many thanks!--Hontogaichiban 15:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Does your silence mean agreement?

This whole page and those statements are very funny! I like them! (Just a kind comment)

I think I'm beginning to revert myself to your side in the Adolf Hitler talk page disputes. Look at what I'm saying: Gio just follows suit of Drogo who treats you like a criminal here for your own good. That's selfish and wrong in itself of him. It's a dog chasing it's tail arguement. Let's see if what I say doesn't make that dog actually go somewhere. ^^ Colonel Marksman 18:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The dog will go somewhere, but who's going to clean up after it?--shtove 22:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case on Christianity

Hi, I have taken the Christianity case over at the mediation cabal. I am reviewing the case now. -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Jesus

Since you earlier were involved in some discussion on possibly merging this article, would you come to the Talk page and give some feedback to my suggestion that this article be redirected to Christology? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that you're off Wikibreak

We've been working on things since you left: Waiting on you to proceed further.

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15_Christianity

KV 13:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

I've been preparing a revision of part of the Christianity article at User:A.J.A./Tohu&Bohu/Beliefs. I'd like to get your comments on it before going "public", so to speak. A.J.A. 03:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:God

Thanks. This stuff is really getting on my nerves. He was already blocked for it last night. I'll post on AN/I if I must, but at this point reverting his vandalism (so it is) seems enough.Timothy Usher 22:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You should feel honoured!

Très cher ami, Il semble que tu deviennes très important! Ich glaube — nein, ich bin sicher — daß jemand dir wikinachstellt. (Je ne sais pas si wikinachstellt est un vrai mot ou non, mais tu sais ce que je veux dire.) Es kann unmöglich jedes Mal ein merkwürdiges Zusammentreffen von Zufällen sein, oder? Hast du noch Zweifel? Oh, und es gibt jetzt ein Puppenspiel beim Papst von Hitler! Ich bin noch sehr traurig à cause des événements récents ici à Wikipédia, aber ich freue mich sehr que tu sois toujours là. Je t'envois un e-mail dans quelques jours. Ich bin depuis lundi ein bisschen krank, mais je ne travaille presque jamais le vendredi, donc je pouvais me reposer un peu aujourd'hui. Aurelie. AnnH ♫ 20:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

German and French mixed together? I've very rusty in both my French and German but for the benefit of others, and to practice my understanding, tell me how close I've got it:

"My Very dear beloved friend, It seems that you become very important! I believe - no, I am sure - that someone, a parrot has wiki-stalked you. (I do not know if wikinachstellt is a true word or not, but you know what I want to say) It is not possible that each is a strange meeting of coincidences? Do you have still doubts? Oh, and there is now a puppet with Hitler’s Pope! I am still very sadly because of the recent events here at Wikipédia, but I am pleased that you will be always here. I you sendings an e-mail in a few days. I' ve been a ill since Monday but I almost never work Friday, therefore I could rest me a little today. Aurelie. AnnH."

How close did I get it? I will say that I do think I was wikistalked to Hitler's Pope. I'm sure now that anywhere I edit on anything related to Christianity I will find you, AnnH, and Timothy there. Is this the new elite special forces unit of the alleged Christian cabal? hehe. Giovanni33 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a lousy translation, Gio, but quite frankly, despite my wiki-friendship with Str1977, I'd rather have you trolling at his page than at the page of a female editor who is the victim of more serious threats and stalking in real life (resulting from her involvement in Wikipedia) than KHM03 was, who did more to help other victims of real life stalking than almost any other Wikipedian, and who, quite frankly, does not need you to take up residence at her page and taunt her with obnoxious remarks about how she's only bluffing and pretending to leave, and how she won't admit it yet but her edit to her talk page is just a baby step on the way to editing other articles, about how you know she's going to come back but that she's holding back for the emotional impact, and about how if you're wrong, you'll convert and be a good Christian. Quite frankly, Gio, you don't have to be a "good Christian" to know that it's poor form to taunt someone who's down, and that it's obnoxious to keep up a running commentary on something when you don't know the background — especially when the running commentary is taking place on the talk page of the person that you're criticizing and belittling, without knowing the background.

Isn't it funny — I have spent most of my online time in the last few days helping people who have been threatened, deleting large amounts of material from histories of pages (where even now, people are posting links to stuff that one of the blocked users Gio wants to welcome back gatherered about another editor and publicized in the last few days), making random edits to pages I had no interest in, in the middle of the night, so that a senior Wikipedian could remove the bad versions permanently, sending supportive e-mails, offering, if needed, to write to people's employers, while Gio has been taking up residence at the talk page of one of the victims, and making posts like this, this, this this this, and this, and then revert warring when the editor removed the posts from her talk page.

Str, if you get more unwelcome posts on your page, you can at least take comfort in the knowledge that while he was posting it, he wasn't harassing and taunting a victim of threats and stalking. AnnH ♫ 11:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Lousy indeed. Maybe he should look up adverb first. But maybe, judging from his name, he can at least speak Italian? But then again, maybe not. Your German parts, Ann, were almost Job 33,9. "Papst von Hitler" should rather be "Hitlers Papst" (note there are no apostrophes for the genetiv in German, but never mind the greengrocer's). I don't think Wikinachstellen exists - "stalking" has been imported into German so I think wikistalking is wikistalking.

Regarding your occupation and his: Everyone does what he can. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, lots of assumptions. I dont think my post was unwelcome, nor were my other posts you mention harrassing, taunting, or trolling. They were honest, direct, and civil observations and criticisms well placed and warrented. Its true I don't know about any of the so-called real life wiki-stalking so I can't comment on that. But it has nothing to do with my comments. That I was censored is what is wrong. Also, that good things editors do are good but they are not excuses to overlook bad things they do, either. Indeed, I think Job 33,9 applies to me in this case: "33:9 I am clean without transgression, I am innocent; neither is there iniquity in meGiovanni33 05:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this is my talk page I haven taken the liberty of striking out a false statement (and a typo). Please, remember 1 John 1,8 and also Exodus 20,16.

Also, since this is my talk page I am free to delete whatever contributions posted here. That has nothing to do with censorship just like whitewashing a graffiti on wall has nothing to do with censorship. Please, feel free not to post here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Though I imagine you didn't intend to delete Sophia's posts, which I may restore myself in a few moments, if you're not online, as I'll be posting another quotation in that section. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is fun, its like talking in code. Although I shouln't be encouraging you to read this particular book of such depraved moral instruction, I respond by saying to you: Exodus 20:16, Exodus 23:1; Exodus 23:7;Leviticus 6:2-4;Leviticus 19:11;Deuteronomy 5:20;Proverbs 12:22;Proverbs 24:28;Ephesians 4:25;Revelation 21:8. Ofcourse for everyone of these more better sayings, I can find something in the bible that directly contradicts it and says the very opposite. Ah but such is the nature of the book and what makes it fun to use it to communicate: it says anything you want it to say. Giovanni33 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The fun ends here. No need to lecture me, I have read all of these and have in fact finished with my second time of Deuteronomy. However, I am sorry that your skills in reading the Bible leave open much room for improvement. Maybe your contradictions are not contradictions, maybe things are just "complicated", y'know? But anyway, let me reiterate what I said, in different form: Don't feel free to post here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio is merely advocating original research: "it says one thing, but it could (and surely does) mean..." Or is that Dan Brown? They're all heart. Apologies to Str for abusing his user page.--Shtove 20:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is nothing original about such research. It has been known for a long time. :) The excuse that its just "complicated" is not original either but the standard approach by believers is to suppress the topic as intolerable. Professor33 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ironicaly, Professor, your message will probably be suppressed and "disapeared" in line with your comment about how such thoughts are usually dealt with. I can vouch for a fact that does happen here, on this page.Giovanni33 23:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, Professor, you will find that Gio regularly makes logic "disappear" up his own backside. This assertion is original research and ought to be ignored. Apologies to Str.--Shtove 00:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I insist on logic. As for original research I'm flattered that you think I am the first to come up with such an insight. Unfortunately, the reality is that this observation was made by countless other thinkers centuries before me. Its probably the least original research there is! Talk about calling day night and night day!Giovanni33 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Touchy! Of course it's not original research: your sources, had they been cited, would have come from the ISBN published circus of look-at-me anti-Christian shouters - both reputable and verifiable. Is Gio one of those structuralists that English-speakers hear so much about? How exotic. Apologies to Str.--Shtove 00:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Shtove, it is not original research but merely repeating something acquired uncritically from some atheist authority.

One should not speak about things one has not enough knowledge, Professor. Gio perfectly well knows what "It's complicated" refers to and I could give full answers to real and alleged contradictions from the Bible. You might be able to bug a fundamentalist with these but not yours truly. Only, neither do I have the time for that nor is this the proper place.

For those crying censorship I have a question: is a spam filter in your e-mail programme censorship? Or is throwing away some leaflet posted to your mailbox after you have read it censorship? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio, i think these words are most apropos for what we are seeing here: "The facts of life do not penetrate to the sphere in which our beliefs are cherished," writes Proust; "as it was not they that engendered those beliefs, so they are powerless to destroy them; they can aim at them continual blows of contradiction and disproof without weakening them; and an avalanche of miseries and maladies coming, one after another, without interruption into the bosom of a family, will not make it lose faith in either the clemency of its God or the capacity of its physician."Professor33 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

KJAV

I understand that the term KJAV or AV refers the the Bible with the Apocrypha. while KJV refers to one without the Apocrypha. Since their removal was not authorised by the crown. Hence I revered your edit. Trusting that you understand my reason. Regards ClemMcGann 16:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bells

A bell without a clapper, makes no sound. Dr. Dan 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan, for providing me with another bell-related proverb. However, it does not actually say the same (not that it needed too) and since I only want to display quotations that make a statement I move it to my talk page. PS. If you know a better wording for "my" bell proverb, feel free to enlighten me. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is how I've heard that quote "The empty vessel makes the loudest sound" and it turns out it's good ol' Shakespeare again. [13] Sophia 09:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But it looks like he may have got it from Plato. [14] Sophia 09:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That one exists in different forms. The version I'm most familiar with is "Empty barrels make the most noise." Here's another one, from Alexander Pope, with the same kind of meaning:

Words are like leaves; and where they most abound,

Much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found.

Some nice quotations here. I particularly like the one from F. Scott Fitzgerald. It seems quite relevant to some of the posts I've seen recently. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Language and Nationality

Hi .. i think it was you with whom I had the discussion about whether the German speaking people in 18/19th century Czech lands were ethnically German. I would like to point you to this article: http://www.expats.cz/prague/article/books-literature/czech-language/ by a norwegian journalist, which explains why many of the ethnically Czech inhabitants were German-speaking in that period. Greetings ackoz 14:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's Religious Beliefs

I merged the sub-article in with Adolf's main article, since there was no discussion about it on the talk page. Themillofkeytone 20:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please try and keep a cool head! This is not about what content is the "correct" content. This is merely a discussion about where the content should be located. If we want it as a separate page, then we should summarize and let it be a separate page, and we can discuss and NPOV it there. If not, we should change that page to a redirect and keep the content on the Hitler page. Personally, I think the Hitler article is getting a bit long, so I think we should have the separate article, at least for now. That way, the discussion you two are having can be focused on a talk page specifically designed for it, and other Hitler issues can be discussed on the main talk page. Themillofkeytone 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Trinity article

Str, could you please review the "Per Se" section on the discussion page. I don't think the phrase in the article is quite right; it does conflicts with my understanding of the absolute oneness of the Trinity. I would appreciate your comments. Thanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Eintracht Frankfurt

Hi! I also name the SGE ground Waldstadion but I think it's (unfortunately) consense that the new names must be used.Looking forward that you help to make the Eintracht articles better -Lemmy- 19:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Theodo I and II

I just wanted to ask why you decided to combine Theodo I and II of Bavaria. There seems to be some evidence that there were two: One as the son of Garibald and the other Garibald's grandson. See http://www.mittelalter-genealogie.de/agilolfinger/familie_der_agilolfinger.html Agilofinger. imars 10:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry. I was aware of the link have studied it comprehensively. The thing is, that there is no evidence and no reason from the sources to assume the Duke Theodo mentioned in Emmeram's vita to be a different Theodo than the one mentioned in Paulus Diaconus, Corbianian's vita or in other sources. The distinction is merely a historians' construct that, to my knowledge, is no longer widespread. The only argument for it is that Lantpert and Uta are not mentioned in necrologies of Theodo's family (where the four sons are mentioned). That however might be because of their involvement with Emmeram's death. The thing about the fathers is that we have no reliable notice about whose son Theodo was. These are mere speculations. This, BTW, is also what the link tells us: if you follow the link to Theodo I you will find an almost empty page, whereas all the information is at [Theodo II, which combines all notes about a Duke Theodo - just like I have done. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation! --imars 10:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation Cabal (Christianity)

I was skimming through the Christianity case because it looked like the mediators involved were unsure of what they were doing and noticed that activity dropped after a certain point. Skimming through, it doesn't look like any compromise was reached and that discussion became less and less productive as time went on. Therefore, I'd like to know what came of it. Has the discussion migrated elsewhere or has it been resolved? If you are still open to mediation, I'd be happy to take a stab. Cheers! --Keitei (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for not readding the tag. Can you explain the book thing on the section of the talk page that I started. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since that source was added recently as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Regarding this edit and edit summary: See WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF; your edit summary had me extremely upset and using nasty language, nearly on this very page, for a few moments, and I would appreciate an apology. Regarding the fact that you've reverted Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) four times in 25 hours: WP:3RR. And finally, some unsolicited advice: Pick your battles. Does it really matter if the article uses "AD" or "BCE"? As long as it's consistent. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Borghunter, let me address the points raised on my talk page:

• "your edit summary had me extremely upset"

I am sorry to hear that, especially since it is based on a misunderstanding. My edit summary consisted of two parts: a) "revert substandard pov pushing" and b) "date warring" - the former referred not to your edit at all, but to this edit, which is substandard for many reasons. Only the latter wording refers to your making the dates consistent. If you were offended by the former, I am sorry for the misunderstanding (I might have made two separate edits), if by the second I am sorry about that too.

• "And finally, some unsolicited advice: Pick your battles."

I pick my battles and this was none of them. I don't go around changing the dating format on other pages. In this case I only defended the status quo.

"Does it really matter if the article uses "AD" or "BCE"? As long as it's consistent."

No, in the end it doesn't matter and WP policy rules that we should keep the original choice of the article. This always has been an "AD article", there is no reason to change this, and the only occurence of CE was in a passage currently warred over. There, the CE only appeared because another editor, who has been repeatedly admonished not to post it, disregarded that advise. I am sorry if his brazeness misled you into thinking that there was some inconsistency. To preclude that in the future, I have removed his insertion of CE.

I hope you understand this. So no hard feelings? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

You earned it by your very thorough and clear reply to the request for details. In these heated times it's a model of how to collaborate successfully. You have stuck to the facts and been very detailed despite having gone over this a million times already. You must have sighed when you saw my request for you to summarize it again as we all have so many competing demands on our time. Your post betrays none of this - it just gets on with the "job in hand" and shows others how it should be done. Sophia 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Montanism

Are you still watching Montanism? Have you been following the mess over there? For the past few days an incredibly feisty editor who has never edited the article, has wandered in out of nowhere and been insisting at all costs that the article not specify whether "second century" means AD or BC, claiming that it is "redundant". I have taken the position that while a clever reader might be able to figure out that it is AD, a casual reader might benefit to get the correct perspective faster, and it wouldn't hurt to specify "second century AD" since that what the article had done all along before he showed up. He has been issuing ultimatums, debating every minute and petty point on the matter, and won't let go of this bone, reverting something like 8 times now, every time he finds my reasoning insufficient. We need to break the one-on-one deadlock, so I'm just asking for your input since you have actually contributed to the article in a meaningful way. Thanks for looking in. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourg

Hi, I noticed you changed the Low Countries template. Did you check the talkpage first? I proposed some changes to it myself. Crix 18:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jürgen Grabowski

Could you please add citation for the sentance you added please? Thanks :)--Tiresais 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :)

---

Stop Vandalising my talk page

If you do not stop I will take you to the proper dispute resolution channels. Please leave me out of these games you are playing between Giovanni33 and yourself. I took the liberty to revert your other vandalism to other user talk pages. You have been warned.MikaM 19:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni!Timothy Usher 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Timothy. Hi Mika. Hi Str1977. Can we all just get along? I'll throw a big wiki-party and invite everyone. What say ye?Giovanni33

Munich Jesuit

You might be able to help, there was a Munich Jesuit that was imprisoned by the Nazis who was beatified the same time as Edith Stein. I have been trying to remember the name for a while, but can't find it. Agathoclea 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

See Rupert Mayer. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 05:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Agathoclea 07:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hairbrush

Thanks for editing the spanking part in the "Hairbrush" article. The version you wrote is the version I wrote too, before Fastifex reverted it. loulou 13:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)