User talk:Str1977/Archive6

WW2

I changed the intro, as I though there was duplication. I also tried to move the complication down to the (new) participants section. I fully expect (and hope) that these two parts will change for the better. Sometimes if things get too complicated, then it is best not to go into too much detail. The readers are able to think for themselves, and can delve deeper themselves, if they want further explanation. Wallie 11:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WW2 and the SU

I don't understand why you think the war was only in two "theatres". I cannot imagine dismissing the Great Patriotic War as a non event. Also, you describe the Soviet Union as being in Europe, which I find very strange, given that you live in Germany, and Germany has never really considered it as being part of Europe. In reality, much of it is in Asia. Also, I cannot understand why you do not consider this important, as the move into the Soviet Union involved many more participants than did Poland or Pearl. However, if you insist on this, it is OK, as many other issues I was irritated with have got smaller, and I am interested, as you probably are, in keeping the intro small. Wallie 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Luna Vachon's children

I went on Luna's website and found this information. It's in with the interview section.The site didn't say who the father was but I suspect it wasn't Gangrel.I thought she had children with him but in the interview section (The RAW magazine article) it seems state that Luna and Gangrel had the children before they got together. That's all I know. I thought I would add it to Their pages.Okay.MgHoneyBee 00:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pius XII

Hi Str1977, what are we going to do with User Savidan, who is behaving like a dictator over his very site Pius XII ? I don't mind dealing with different oppinions, but I specificly do not like this near-subtile suggestion of the image of a cardinal steping on a Jew. Wikipedia is not made for this kind of biased and suggestive information. --UAltmann 10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Für den Fall dass Du es noch nich weisst, ich bin auch deutscher Muttersprachler. Mein Benutzername in der deutschen Wikipedia ist derselbe. --UAltmann 10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note the newly initiated discussion about the Hirshberger - Image on the discussion site of Pius XII. --UAltmann 06:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Billy-Goat Bite Theory

In the words of Rosenbaum:

The billy-goat bite story first came to light in 1981 in a memoir published in Germany under the title Tödlicher Alltag. Its author, Dietrich Güstrow, who was then a prominent attorney,...tells us that in 1943 he served as a military-court martial defense attorney for a certain Private Eugen Wasner before a military tribunal that tried the soldier for "maliciously slandering the Führer". In fact, according to Güstrow, Private Wasner was being tried for an embarassing explanation of Hitler. According to the lawyer's memoir, the occassion of Private Wasner's slander was a barracks bull session in which Wasner boasted that as a youth he had attended the same school as Adolf Hitler, in Leonding, Austria. Bitter about recent defeats on the eastern front, the private told his buddies, "Adolf has been warped ever since a billy goat took a bite out of his penis". Wesner proceeded to give a graphic description of the bloody consequences of young Adolf's attempt to urinate in the mouth of a billy goat. (p.xxx)

Of course, if true, this could explain the newly raised claims that he was a virgin... Paul B 08:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's Religious Views

Someone finally recognized that I was talking. :P You got it. Is the page making anything called "progress". I've long since abandoned it. Colonel Marksman 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea not doing it yourself, but then again, what good will it do if someone ELSE does it? The same nutcases will change it back and bark.
• I'll see what I can do. Colonel Marksman 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Michael has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Crusade

Hi - could you clarify what Footnote #2 is? Not sure if its a typo or I'm mis-reading it. Thanks! -- Stbalbach 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi! Wenn du willst,kannst du dich ja hierdurch {{User sge}} auf deiner Benutzerseite "brandmarken" ;-) Gruß -Lemmy- 15:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Constantinian shift

I sympathize with your effort, Str, but I simply don't have the time to look into it right now. Maybe if you want me to comment on some specific point (such as a diff) I will get round to that, otherwise I will just make a mental note to revisit the article come some idle moment, some time. regards, dab (ᛏ) 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Sacrilege Act mediation

Hi, I’m the volunteer mediator working on this request for mediation. Please participate in the discussion so we can resolve this issue. There's also a new section for discussion on the article's talk page. If you need to reach me, leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, and have a great day! Tsetna 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dein Revert von de:Justin der Märtyrer

Woher hast Du die Erkenntnis, daß es sich um einen anderen Justinus handelt als den, über den ich hier geschrieben habe? Es sind nachweislich die Reliquien dieses Märtyrers Justinus, die Otgar von Mainz nach Höchst in die Justinuskirche brachte und deren Schicksal durchaus nachvollziehbar ist. Einen anderen Justinus gibt es nach sämtlichen Heiligenlexika übrigens nicht. Insofern wäre ich Dir dankbar, wenn Du den Revert wieder zurücknimmst. --EvaK 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Der Justinus, den ich ich meinte, ist Justinus der Bekenner (noch kein Artikel), ich hab mal etwas nachgefragt. --EvaK 10:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, I'm puzzled

Hello my buddy. I happened to have stumbled across your page just now, and I noticed the below comments on your main user page. I have not kept up with Wikinews, I guess, so Im completely in the dark about what happened. Are you really forbidden from editing certain topics while exrpressing your religious views? That seems to be unjust. Was this an arbcom decision? I don't know anything about Jim62, but what was his "religious racism," and why was that allowed as a basis for you to be punished in anyway? Do you mean racism based in religious belief? Please forgive my ignorance on this matter and its ok if you don't want to talk about it. Im just suprised to read that on your page and had to ask, in case I might be of help in some way. Well what better place to ask than here? Be well and dont let the wikistress get the better of you.

"Due to religious racism by Jim62sch (in clear violation of Wikipedia policy), I am forbidden from editing certain topics while expressing my Christianity - therefore I have replaced the Labarum with this "Christianity banned" symbol. Long live the Emperor Diocletian!" Giovanni33 10:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. I'm glad to know that it was nothing of an official nature! Your reasoning seems reasonable to me. Be well.Giovanni33 11:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael II.....

Dear Str1977,

Thanks for your comments on my sentences. It is a waste time for me to attend like a discussions. I know that almost all religions use power (including rock/sword/gun)on nonmembers/paganists. Christians and Muslims also. How some Turcs accept islam and some others(Magyars,Bulgars,Fins) Christianity?-it is a good example-. I know the story/history. But, here, in Pope's speech something is wrong. It is not Popes's business to make reform in islam (which is needed). This words guide the pure christian people against to Muslim.To speak about fundalism is ok but to speak about another religion is another matter. Pope has no right with that spech as a religion lider or a president. I believe there will be some reform in islam, but muslim will do it not anybody. Regards. Mustafa Akalp 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Str: He pasted the same splat on my Talk page. Oh well...I hope he feels better, at least. Doesn't he realise the Pope has a right (even duty) to talk about whatever the hang he likes.DocEss 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes

The Jews were exiled completely, becoming known as the The Ten Lost Tribes

I'm probably doing this wrong so excuse me in advance. I just had a question on an excellent article in Wikipedia and thought this may be an inobtrusive way to pose my question.

Why are the Northern 10 tribes of Israel being referred to as "the jews". I thought that the kingdom of Judah was comprised of Judah, Benjamin and 1/2 of the tribe of the Levites. This remanent eventually became known as "the jews" being an abbreviation for the southern kingdom. Thanks for any insight and education. Shalom from Charlotte. You can e-mail me @ jashofat @ yahoo.com Todah (Thank you)

Well, I don't know whether this relates to an article here on WP, so I'll just go straight ahead at the question:

"Jews" is a form of "Judaeans" and originally only referred to the tribe of Judah, but later also to the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah (the southern kingdom) and later the region of Judaea. Among the latter two groups were also Benjaminites, Levites, Simeonites (whose tribe had merged into the tribe of Judah) and splinter of other tribes (see the Prophetess Hannah of the tribe of Asher in the gospel of Luke, or Tobit in the book of the same name of Naphtali - the latter's narrative of course occurs in exile but the tradition had to come down in one way to some inhabitants of Judaea writing it down).

Judaea took is name from the tribe of Judah, as this was by far the largest tribe that survived.

And because the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom were lost, Judah made up the largest group within the surviving people of Israel and the name Judaeans (Jews) was transferred to the entire surviving Israelite people. In that sense, Jews has been used in the sentence on top: "The Ten Lost Tribes of the Jews" of course contained no Judaeans but Jews here stand for Israelites.

Why above setence says that "the Jews were exiled completely" and became known as the Ten Lost Tribes is beyond me.

Yes, the Israelites, meaning the whole 12 Tribes, were exiled completely. The Northern Tribes (of the Kingdom of Israel) disappeared from history (at least the largest part, see Hannah und Tobit) and hence are known as the Ten Lost Tribes. The Southern Tribes (of the Kingdom of Judah) were exiled too but they came back from exile. Hence they are not lost. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought many of the poorest class (non land owners) were not exiled, but were left in place, as indentured/enslaved farmhands/ranchhands (Jeremiah 52:16). I read somewhere that the Samaritans claim to be their descendants. By the way, I restored something you deleted, because I think it serves a purpose. If you disagree, and re-delete, I won't re-restore it. -- 70.171.14.133 14:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Anfrage zu Papen

Ich schreibe an einer Arbeit über Franz von Papen. Gerne wüsste ich, wo ich Informationen zu seiner Tätigkeit als Geheimkämmerer des Vatikans (was ist das genau?) finde. Insbesondere wie er dazu kam, dass er gewählt wurde. Könnten Sie mir Buchtitel nennen, auf die sie sich stützen?

Mit freundlichen Grüssen R. Fischer (raffiniert Wiki-Benutzername)

Adolf Hitler

Hi, I admire your patient determination with 'Xanon' (whom I believe to be a sockpuppet-is that the right term?), but this is not a matter that will-sadly-be settled by debate. The user at best has a highly eccentric point of view, not open to persuasion, and at worst is a straightforward Nazi revisionist. I suspect the latter is closer to the truth. Best wishes. White Guard 05:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

EffK

I checked the logs. His talk page has been protected. I will see if it needs reverting. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

explain

do you mind explaining how the hijacking, or whatever you want to call it, had nothing to do with the pope thing? dposse 17:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Divinity of Christ

Str, would you please share with me your meaning of the divinity of Jesus Christ? I think I may be missing a deeper meaning. When Jesus asked, "But whom say ye that I am?", Peter responded, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." To me this is a declaration of Jesus' divinity. However, I sense that when a Catholic uses the term, they are not only defining Jesus as the Son, but also that Jesus is the same essence as God the Father. Is that accurate?

For a Latter-day Saint Jesus is divine because he is the only begotten of the Father. He was mortal because he was the son of Mary, but he was divine because he was the only begotten. If he were not divine he could in no way have provided the atoning sacrifice that allows all mortal men and women to be forgiven. The fact that he was crucified and rose again is testament to his divinity. Though I think these beliefs are held in common, I still think I may lack a full understanding of the Catholic perspective. I would appreciate your thoughts. Storm Rider ^(talk) 11:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_20#Category:Bavarian_Soviet_Republic

Could you please take look on the CfD? It is about Munich vs Bavarian Soviet Republic name. Pavel Vozenilek 15:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

PPXII cites

Some citation stickler has descended upon the Pope Pius XII article. Please add in-line citations to the information that you added to the Reichskonkordat section as soon as you are able. If you can't, I will try to do so (once I finish will all the other nit-picky requests), and if I can't I'll move whatever I can't find an in-line citation for to the talk page. Thanks. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I took care of all the other citation checks. The three in the RK section are all that remain. Hopefully, you'll be able to help me out with these. I'd hate to have to prune this section down to what I can reference. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that guy has gone through and strucked out the ones I took care of yesterday. All I would worry about if I were you is the three in the RK section. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You are responsible

for bothering me. I will complain to God against you in the judgment day. --Aminz 11:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And you are responsible for bothering me. I will ask God to forgive your offenses and mine as well, for the sake of His son's cross and the blood of all the martyrs. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is extremely dramatic. Thank you.

The scientist specialist saying this is not known and also that is not known, but this we can be reasonably sure of because of this. THat is how one talks who knows something. But with things where NO ONE really know. Funny people only sound more certain! Maybe its the overcompensation?

Me I dont know much about God but Id be REALLY SUPRISED Aminz if he didnt ignore your histrionic complaining and judgement day revenge fantasy and Str1977 your self-righteousness passive agressiveness request. If youre angry you should just say so and if you really forgive someone whats the point in telling himOpiner 07:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Was to ask only Str1977 since hes usually more reasonable BUT since Aminz is here LOOK at the most ridiculous UNneutral of the article Hinduism. Its saying God IS this and that llike the pamphlet of Dawa! No neutrality at all!Opiner 07:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mein Gott Aminz recent edits are SO NOT NEUTRAL! Muhammad the lover of the children and the animals!Opiner 08:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Str1977 please look at my report of latest Aminz 3RR on WP:ANI/3RR, hes saying his first one of you is not a real revert just a misunderstanding SO your input is asked here. Did he revert you or only misunderstand?Opiner 10:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Now hes breaking 3RR AGAIN with a bunch more reverting! but no ones doing anything to the report so what can we do??Opiner 00:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Christianity

Ahh. I didn't know if you realized it. Per your concerns I have reverted myself. Good day. —Aiden 12:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Sorry for the confusion. —Aiden 12:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Aminz

Well I've noted to him that its a 'suspended' block. If he breaks the 3RR again - or indeed, any other related rules - then I would be happy to block him again, for at least the 72 hour period. He has started talking to a few people - look at his recent contributions and a lot of them are on talk pages. The 3RR is not just policed through blocks; if a user can be persuaded to change his behaviour, that's so much better.

So I'll keep a watch of Amniz's beahviour. If we continue to assume good faith for now, then maybe he will return the favour and follow our guidelines. --Robdurbar 15:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[1] Hilfe haelfe. Arrow740 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't look at the latest version by me. They have removed a lot of referenced material from there. [2] compares my last one with the latest version. If we get this article in hand I'll get sources and work on the frontline articles. Arrow740 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Maybe you'd like to express your opinions about these two guidelines I suggested [3]. Arrow740 10:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We have one more obstacle to overcome, then I think the article will be under control. Aminz has insisted that before we begin discussing the criticism of the violent verses in the Quran, we have a summary academic opinions on the subject of war an violence in the Quran. Obviously, he has chosen an academic that shares his POV and is stating her opinions as fact. I've suggested that we summarize relevant material already found in the Islamic military jurisprudence and jihad articles and link to them for the full treatment, but he is resisting. See the discussion here about this section. Thanks, Arrow740 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an RfC over this. Please read Tom's comment. --Aminz 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not (currently) whether or not there should be a summary. The issue is your summary. Arrow740 07:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In the War and Violence section in Criticism of the Quran, we used to have only cited criticisms, and cited responses. Aminz unilaterally decided that this should be prefaced with an "academic" viewpoint (you know what that means). Someone filed for an RfC eventually, and the admin said that we should have a short summary of the general Islamic viewpoint. Aminz is using one scholar exclusively, and you can find his summary here. I recently mildly reverted his version back to someone else's, and no doubt, when he wakes up he'll revert it back. Arrow740 09:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation

Str1977, I appreciate your efforts to keep the discussion focussed on the topics at hand.JustAnIdea 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not response

Str, [4] is not a response to criticisms. It is just the academic view on this section. --Aminz 08:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello! I've requested for a mediation, here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661). Please join it and sign your name. Thanks --Aminz 08:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aws and Khazraj were now a new community, Umma, the relation of which with Jewish tribes was specified. For example when Qurayza were attacked, Aws didn't helped them (cause they were on the other side; the Umma). You may also want to read the source. Can I put previously back? --Aminz 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Watt says:"Indeed there seems to have been a strong desire in various sections of the Aws to honour their old alliance with Qurayza. Muhammad met this feeling by ..." --Aminz 09:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Concilium

Str, I was reading the Pope Benedict XIV article and came across a link for Concilium that did not exist. I find it very dissatisfying to find red-lettered links that go nowhere. After researching the issue I wrote a brief article taking the bulk of the information from the English website. It is very brief and could use a review of someone with more refined Catholic scholarly awareness. You represent one of those people. When you have some time, please see if you can improve the article. Thank you. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks

I am just glad that we atleast agree on something. Cheers! :) TruthSpreader^Talk 13:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit

Hey Str - you made an edit to Christianity here that probably shouldn't have been marked as minor. Just a thought. standonbible^Talk! 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Singer's Campanion to Ethics

Hey Str1977, As I am sure neither of us are interested in editwarring or arguing about NPOV on Aquinas through edit summaries, I thought I'd leave a relpy here. The reason I removed the line, "According to Peter Singer," is becuase the Companion to Ethics is not authored by Singer but edited by him, meaning I believe, that it is the combined work of many academic philosphers. Because of this, I don't think that it is correct to claim that the statement on Aquinas's beliefs regarding our duties to animals is attributable to Singer alone. Also, since the statement is referenced clearly, I do not see it as sneaky or subtly POV. It may be biased towards the opinions of contemporary academic philosophers as recorded by the Oxford Companion to Ethics, but bias is natural while POV is eliminatable. Thats my two-cents. Hit me back, and we'll figure something out. If we can't agree, perhaps we can at the very least include an additional sentence about the nature of Singer/the Oxford Companion as a source, instead of tagging the point on as a dependent clause. - Sam 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar

Str, thanks for coming to the Jesus Seminar page and contributing to it. Personally, I don't see why you made the change you did and think the paragraph was better before. But I don't want to be defensive, and I want you to feel welcome contributing to the page, so I'm not going to argue about it. See you around. Jonathan Tweet 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran

We need more voices to speak up here. Arrow740 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RFM

I have volunteered to mediate your case. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee, but have some experience conducting mediations. I'll only do so, of course, if all the parties consent. Please indicate on the mediation page whether you agree or not. Cheers, JCO312 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your comments and contributions at talk:God. I thought your proposal was fine, and I implemented it in the main article. I also tweaked a couple of bits in other paragraphs for better flow. If you would review it when convenient, that would be great. Thanks again : ) Doc Tropics 16:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we've wrapped that up, and I wanted to thank you again. When editors of differing opinions cooperate to produce a stronger article, that's a benefit to the project. I suspect we could all agree that it's still not perfect, but it's better than it was. Good luck with your other projects, and happy editing. Doc Tropics 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

John the Presbyter

Would you add to the article the quote from Irenaeus as to the identity of the "John" who taught Papias? It seems most relevant. --Wetman 01:22, 10 December 2006

Vladamir: I felt this article was fair.

3rr report

Sorry! I should have spoken up so you didn't have to waste your time. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity

Str, I noticed you recently edited this article. I don't have time to straighten outthe formating of the quotes near the picture of Luther. Could you look at it and correct the problem. THanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Carl Jung -> C. G. Jung

Hi, I'm confused about your vote/comment in the move survey at Talk:Carl Jung. You voted to oppose the move of Carl Jung → C. G. Jung, but your comments,

This really should be uncontroversial, as there is no notable person called "Carl Jung". There is CG Jung or Carl Gust Jung but no Carl Jung.

if I understand them correctly, seem to favor leaving the article at Carl Jung. Did I misunderstand, or did you accidently vote Support when you meant Oppose? --Serge 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Just wanted to commend you for your hard work in maintaining this article and keeping it free of sensational and/or dubious content. The article, for the most part, is well-written, NPOV and accurate. LotR 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Gray

Well done. The grave was Charles McNeill Gray. The Colchester connection was an MP who seems not to have an article yet. -- Beardo 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article and category

I recently noticed the new category added to the Jesus article of "Christian mythology". When I review the category, I am puzzeled by the category and do not feel it appropriate for this topic. Jesus and demonolgy or any of the other listed articles have nothing in common. Under proper context I am not opposed to the term mythology, but in general I oppose the term because of the difficulty of providing the proper context outside an academic environment. I would be curious to hear your thoughts; I might be completely off base. I will check back here to maintain a constant, more easily understood thread. Thanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian mythology

This editor has methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology, removing them. Not in the interests of the non-indoctrinated Wikipedia reader. --Wetman 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this visitor to this talk page thinks that this owner of this talk page would prefer to be addressed in the second person rather than referred to in the third. Sorry, no disrespect to Wetman. Just feeling a little flippant because it's so close to Christmas.

Also, this owner of this talk page did not remove "them"; he removed "some of them" — presumably the ones that he thought did not fit.

Actually, Str, if you wikistalk me, you might find something interesting here!

I'm cutting down on Wikipedia for a while. I know I keep saying that, but I really mean it this time. Apart from that paper that I have to write, my mother isn't very well. She had a discouraging result of some test — something to do with her heart. I don't actually think it's serious, but, as you know, I'm not the panicky type. She's very discouraged by it.

Oh, and if I do keep my promise to cut down, could you keep an eye on repeated attempts to remove a certain word from the opening paragraph of a certain article? ("Leading to or caused by . . .". See the talk page, and the sub talk page.) Thanks. AnnH ♫ 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to tell you — I just got my results for my German certificate this afternoon. I passed! Actually, I got distinctions in the exams, but not in the courses, because I didn't submit all the assignments (and consequently got zero for the ones I missed). I took the two courses in the same year, because I wasn't really a beginner. So I'm now officially about school-leaving standard. Mais je trouve que le français est beaucoup plus facile. AnnH ♫ 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Str1977, I've posted a formal apology here for my many errors and bad lapse of judgement that caused this non-issue to become an issue. I feel quite badly that I mishandled things, and caused you difficulties. I hope you'll accept both my apology, and my assurances that I've learned from this and it won't happen again. Doc Tropics 22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(crossposting from my talkpage) Thanks, you're very generous. I still feel like I owe you something for having precipitated this. If you ever want a bit of help with an article, or if you'd like me to watchlist specific pages for anti-vandalism efforts, or whatever else, just let me know. Doc Tropics 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation -- Adolf Hitler

You have been named as a respondent in a mediation case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-18 Hitler. Do you have an interest in participating in this voluntary, informal mediation? If yes, please click the link, state that you wish to proceed and sign your name in the discussion section. Alan.ca 06:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi Str1977,

Merry Christmas!! It is the birthday of the Lord, the Savior and the embodiment of God's love.

Apparently, we didn't get along with each other this year (and probably won't in the future:P ) But at this moment I wanted to at least request you to forgive whenever I have lost my temper, or have made comments that has irritated you in the past year. Please forgive me because of the gift you have recieved from God.

Have a nice New Year,

--Aminz 09:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It is the season of forgiveness. Our disagreements may continue but at least once each year we can clean up our accounts and start over. :) Str1977, I am very happy to see that you have studied much about Islam. Our disagreements now are more sweet. --Aminz 00:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmitude

Hi Str1977,

Can you please help with that article. I would like to add this to intro [5].

My argument is that WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

If you find the argument sincere, please help with its addition.

Thanks --Aminz 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I opened a voting on Talk:Dhimmitude. Please join in. --Aminz 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sealed Nectar

Str1977, I link this again with some comments I wrote several months ago that I can't think to improve upon:

Beginning with, "Beyond a shadow of doubt, the biography of Prophet Muhammad manifestedly represents an exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message that he communicated in order to deliver the human race from the swamp of darkness and polytheism to the paradise of light and monotheism," the book goes on to assert a wholly implausable account of the origin of Arab peoples, without reference to archaeology, population genetics or any other scientific methodology, but based wholly upon the Qur'an, which is taken as inalterable truth.

I can also provide examples of very tendentious statements that have been justified on the grounds that they are sourced to this pile of nonsense. We are not talking about a book that happens to be written by a Muslim from a Muslim point of view.Proabivouac 09:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hadith of

Wow.[6] There's a whole world in this box.Proabivouac 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Double wow - leave the search box blank and see what you come up with. WP has thousands of pages that give insight on how it works.--Shtove 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Offensive comments

Saw your deletion from Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy of the link to the Offensive comments by famous people article - but that article still links here [7] --Shtove 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The "insulting" link doesn't seem to work now - what I meant is that this controversy is still part of the "Offensive comments" article.--Shtove 23:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Arafat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Quote_farm_.282.29, i provided reference to another academic opining similarly quite a while ago. thus, the conclusion that he is "the only historian", besides being original research, is incorrect. ITAQALLAH 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

please see the quotes at the bottom of that sect from two reviewers relating Barakat Ahmad's position on this particular incident. ITAQALLAH 22:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

they don't. the point i was making, and the reason for my edit, is that Arafat isn't the "only historian" who questions the narrative- Barakat does too. ITAQALLAH 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry. wasn't aware that i hadn't provided enough clarification. ITAQALLAH 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

More your line of expertise I believe

see [here]. Agathoclea 12:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Hello Str1977, I posted a request[8] for discussion on part of the disputed material that was removed. From what I saw, you are the only one that seemed to have presented some sort of arguments against the quote. Would you like to join me (at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Recent_additions, number 4) in the discussion, and perhaps attempt a compromise?Bless sins 03:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to know what to do about reliable sources stating wishful history as facts like this. Arrow740 06:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in Islam

Whenever it is mentioned that slavery is permitted (and implicitly encouraged) in the Quran, the reader is immediately comforted by the fact that the situation is the same in the Bible. I have a good book that addresses the fundamental differences, i.e. slavery in Islam is a way to get sex slaves, while in Christianity such sex is adultery and forbidden. Could you give me your opinion on Murray Gordon Silberman and his book, published under the pen name Murray Gordon? A blurb about him can be read at the bottom of this page. It appears he's a professor at the Austrian Diplomatic Academy and publishes in peer-reviewed journals. The book was originally published in French. What do you think about using this book as a source in the Islam articles? Arrow740 06:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean, do you think it is a reliable source. Arrow740 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact this is exactly what happened in the Caucasus and Africa. White women were worth the most. I'll add this stuff. Arrow740 08:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Indent

Please explain what do you exactly mean. I go one step further each time. I don't get it. --Aminz 08:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Str1977,

Thanks very much for your detailed explanation. I think I got it now and will try not to forget it. Cheers, --Aminz 10:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There was an RfC filed by an admin on Proabivouac during a content dispute here. Arrow740 05:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Proab first didn't obey the indent rule. Not me. And I didn't know you are going to comment there. --Aminz 10:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aminz

Please be informed that a request for comments has been started. Beit Or 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Heaven

Hi, could you comment on Talk:Heaven - I am in dispute with a user called Big Brother who created a new section on 'Atheist views of Heaven' and filled it with quotes, taken out of context, from various authors including Edward Gibbon and George Orwell (neither of whom was ever a spokesman for atheism, or even known to be atheist). I cannot convince him that this is a novel synthesis, unless he can show he is not the first person to come up with this approach and can cite some published source that has. What do you think? I also tried trimming the section down to just one quote as "undue weight" since his version of the article now seems to give disproportionate attention to atheism, and to the people he alleges are speaking on behalf of atheism. We are in a terrible revert war for several days. Thanks! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: James, James, & James

Regarding your questions on Wikiproject Saints: James the Less is almost universally identified with James of Alpheus. It is the minority opinion that links James the Less with James the Just (the brother of Jesus).

As for Saint in the article title. I have actually been moving articles away from that, per naming conventions for saints. However, the apostles might be worth keeping Saint in the title, as the few exceptions mentioned in the naming conventions. I say your choice - put it on the article talk page, and handle it the way you see best. Regardless, Saint James the Less and James the Less probably need to be merged.

As for James the Great, I don't know that that is the best title for him. I would actually go with James of Zebedee myself, since that is how most people know him (e.g., James and John, sons of Zededee). Hope this helps and doesn't just muddy the waters. Pastordavid 16:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just re-read your question. I agree. Lets go with articles for (1) James the Great (whichever title), (2) James of Alpheus, (3) James the Just, and (4) James the Less. Then have (4) explain the various identifications with 3 & 2. I would be consistent across the four in the use of "Saint" in the titles (all or none). Pastordavid 16:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all happy with you renaming James the Great to James of Zebedee, especially not because this was never discussed on the article talk page. Can you explain why you did this; and where you got actual evidence his most common name is James son of Zebedee (as above remark by Pastordavid is not referenced)? Thanks Arnoutf 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A response is posted on the article talk page. Thanks, -- Pastordavid 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Arnoutf 08:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The second part of moving a page involves cleaning up all the double redirects that one has created. To leave that to other editors is discourteous. Thank you. --Wetman 04:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wetman, that was probably my fault. I wasn't sure if Str1977 was going to take care of that or if he needed me to. I think I got them all. -- Pastordavid 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summ

A classic.[9]Proabivouac 10:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Hello, Firstly, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to my request to quote the part of WP:RS that is relevent to your argument that Maududi isn't reliable. Secondly, I'd like it if you stopped accusing me of "hatred for Jews"[10].Bless sins 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, may I request that you stop calling me "BS"[11], rather refer to me by Bless_sins, my proper username. In addition may I also request that you stop referring to Muhammad as "Mr. M"[12] (esp. now since there is Maududi as well), rather please refer to him as "Muhammad" like all respected non-Muslims refer to him. Thanks.Bless sins 17:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point you have not made too many offensive comments like other users, who have accused Muhammad of "rape"[13]. SO I would say yes you are a respected member of the wiki community. But the moment you, me, or any other user descends ot the level of mudslinging, justifying reverts with false statements (like those on Banu Qurayza) and being uncivil, you will lose your respect. And hey, smile back :-)Bless sins 22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

References tagging

The article List of German monarchs has been tagged as "unsourced" (true) since October. Since you had a great hand in compiling the immense set of (accurate) data there, I'd thought I'd notify you (if you haven't already noticed) and ask you how on earth an article like that is supposed to be sourced? Would it be sufficient to post a note directing people to look for sources for the information at the pages of the respective monarchs? Srnec 06:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

God

The reason I wrote religious extremists rather than Muslim (or Islamic) is because the 9/11 attack is seen by these authors (and many others) as an extreme example of the harm that general belief in God can cause, and is not necessarily particular (in their view) to one religion. --Serge 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Abortion article

There's some discussion here about the accuracy of the first paragraph of the abortion article, and you're invited to participate.Ferrylodge 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sixteenth-century German

Hi, Str1977, I don't know if you have an account at Commons or not, but if you have, you might be interested in the discussion here. ElinorD (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reported you

Just here to notify you that I have reported you. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Hungarian rulers

I only reverted, your edit b/c you deleted too much of the article in one go (1100 chars). If you are still intrested in the article please take smaller steps, or explain your changes. Hobartimus 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Kingdom of Germany

The claim is again being made that the Kingdom of Germany did not exist. Thought you might be interested. john k 03:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.brepolis.net/login/overview.cfm

Ebionites RGG

Ebioniten, seit Irenäus (adv. haer. 1, 26, 2) in den christlichen Häresiologien gebrauchte Bezeichnung für das aus der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde erwachsene Judenchristentum, das sich nach dem Auszug von 66/67 n. Chr. abseits von der Großkirche im Ostjordanland zur Sekte zurückbildete. Die Ableitung dieses Namens von einem Ketzervater Ebion (Tertullian, Epiphanius) beruht auf einer Fiktion; wahrscheinlich geht er auf den Ehrentitel der Jerusalemer Gemeinde zurück (die Armen = ptôchoi, 'æbjônîm; vgl. Röm 15, 26; Gal 2, 10), der seinerseits an die Selbstbezeichnung frommer jüdischer Kreise (außer Ps 25, 9; 68, 11 bes. PsSal 10, 6; 15, 1; 1 QpHab XII, 3.6.10) und an die Makarismen Jesu (Mt 5, 3; Lk 6, 20) anknüpfen konnte ( Armut: I, 2). Der eigentliche Anwendungsbereich der Bezeichnung E. bleibt freilich unklar, da die widerspruchsvollen Nachrichten der Kirchenväter (in erster Linie Epiphanius, Panar. 30) keine genaue Abgrenzung gegen andere Ketzernamen (z. B. Nazoräer, Elkesaiten) erlauben. Auch sonst bleibt die Geschichte der E. in vielem dunkel. Sie haben mit ihrer Theologie die Entwicklung des Christentums nicht mehr beeinflußt, wohl aber auf den Islam eingewirkt. Zum ebionitischen Schrifttum rechnet man neben Fragmenten des Ebionitenevangeliums vor allem gewisse Partien der [Ebioniten. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, S. 7434 (vgl. RGG Bd. 2, S. 297) (c) J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/band12.htm ]

Pseudo-Clementinen ( Petruskerygma), außerdem das Werk des Symmachus (Schoeps). Die Kirchenväter werfen den E. christologische Irrlehre (Ablehnung der Jungfrauengeburt; Christologie: II, 1b) und häretischen Legalismus vor. Weitere Kennzeichen sind: Ablehnung des gesamten Opfer- und Priesterwesens, Polemik gegen die Samaritaner, gegen Johannes den Täufer und bes. gegen Paulus, ferner eine tendenziöse Textkritik: die E. benutzten einen von »falschen Perikopen« gereinigten Pentateuch sowie ein umgearbeitetes MtEv ( Ebionitenevangelium). Sie kennen rituelle Taufbäder ( Taufe: II), Gemeinschaftsmähler (mit Brot und Salz – vielleicht eine alte Sitte der Urgemeinde) und strenge Arkandisziplin. Der Prozeß der Rückbildung zur häretischen Sekte hängt damit zusammen, daß sich das transjordanische Judenchristentum allen möglichen gnostisch-synkretistischen und jüdischen Einflüssen öffnete. Man wird die E. sicher mit der verbreiteten gnostischen Taufbewegung in Syrien und Palästina in Zusammenhang bringen müssen; die starke Berührung ihres Gedankenguts mit dem der essenischen Sekte von Qumran ist offenkundig. Möglicherweise sind Reste der Qumransekte nach der Katastrophe von 70 n. Chr. in den ebionitischen Gruppen des Ostjordanlandes aufgegangen.

H. J. SCHOEPS, Theol. u. Gesch. des Judenchristentums, 1949 (Lit.) – S. G. F. BRANDON, The [Ebioniten. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, S. 7435 (vgl. RGG Bd. 2, S. 297-298) (c) J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/band12.htm ]

Ebionitenevangelium. Daß die Ebioniten ein Sonderevangelium benutzt haben, berichtet Epiphanius, Panar. 30, 13 ff. Aus den dort mitgeteilten Einzelheiten ergibt sich nach Ansicht der meisten Forscher, daß dieses identisch ist mit dem bei Hieronymus (Mt-Komm., MPL 26, 16; ebenso Ambrosius, Theophylakt) wohl im Anschluß an Origenes, Hom. in Lc 1, I, erwähnten »Evangelium der Zwölf (Apostel)«, jedoch nicht verwechselt werden darf mit dem Hebräerevangelium (nach Epiphanius lief allerdings das E. unter dem Titel kata Hebraious). Aus den zwölf Aposteln, die zu Beginn des E.s gesamthaft als Erzähler der Geschichte Jesu erscheinen, ragt als eigentlicher Gewährsmann Matthäus hervor. Dazu stimmt, daß z. T. in der Väterliteratur das bei den Ebioniten gebrauchte Evangelium als MtEv gilt (Irenäus, adv. haer. 1, 26, 2; 3, 11, 7; Euseb, h. e. 6, 17, weiß von einer polemischen Schrift des Ebioniten Symmachus über das MtEv, Epiphanius von einem »verstümmelten und gefälschten« MtEv der Ebioniten). Ob dem E. die zahlreichen Evangelienzitate des pseudoclementinischen Petruskerygma zuzuweisen sind (Waitz), bleibt unsicher, auch wenn diese Quelle ebionitisch ist. Die bei Epiphanius erhaltenen Bruchstücke lassen unschwer erkennen, daß das E. wohl synoptisches Gut (Mt?) verwendet, aber dieses im [Ebionitenevangelium. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, S. 7437 (vgl. RGG Bd. 2, S. 298) (c) J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/band12.htm ]

Sinne ebionitischer Anschauungen korrigiert: die Jugendgeschichte Jesu fehlt; erst durch die Taufe wird Jesus zum Gottessohn (Ablehnung der Jungfrauengeburt); Johannes der Täufer verzehrt keine Heuschrecken, und Jesus lehnt auf die Jüngerfrage Mt 26, 17 den Fleischgenuß beim Passamahl ab (Vegetarismus); in dem Wort Mt 5, 17 bezeichnet Jesus sich als den, der gekommen ist, die Opfer aufzulösen (Verwerfung des Opferdienstes).

Die Fragmente bei KLOSTERMANN (KlT 8, 19293, 12-15) u. PREUSCHEN, Antilegomena, 1901, 9-11. – Dazu HENNECKE2 (WAITZ), 3 (VIELHAUER) – HENNECKE, Hdb. 42 ff. (A. MEYER) – H. WAITZ, ZNW 36, 1937, 60-81 – ALTANER 49. O. Cullmann [Ebionitenevangelium. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, S. 7438 (vgl. RGG Bd. 2, S. 298) (c) J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/band12.htm ]

---

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/ebionites.php

Ebionites

Hello Str1977, I've worked hard editing the Ebionites article in order for it become a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article featured on the main page of Wikipedia. I'm happy to leave this article in the hands of someone that will ensure that it remains neutral in face of editors interested in giving the views of fringe scholars undue weight. --Loremaster 15:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust but I cannot do this alone. Please keep your eyes on it as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try my best. --Loremaster 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

I see Musical Linguist has not posted for a while, and her email seems not to be working. Have you heard from her if anything is wrong? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Request

You're very knowledgeable in general about Christianity and I was wondering if you'd like to help out at early Christianity. It needs a good chunk more of cleanup (paring down, removing original research, etc) and the accompanying referenced expansion. It'd be great to have you over there. Thanks! Vassyana 01:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Essenism section in the Ebionites article

It would be very much appreciated if you could improve the Essenism section in the Ebionites article by adding a critique of these theories implying that John the Baptist, James the Just and the Jerusalem church were Essenes. --Loremaster 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bishopric of Havelberg

there seems to be a walled garden with articles around Bishopric of Havelberg. Could you take a look and see if that is for real? No interwikis to de-wiki which is kind of worrying. Agathoclea 11:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your assistance please

Hello STR, would you mind adding some direction to the Christianity article. You will recall our past conversations on monotheism. As I recall you had some excellent counter points to the silliness of the statement that Christians claim to be monotheistic. That comment has been raised again on the discussion page and I would appreciate hearing from you again when you have the time. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bahtory LexMA

Báthory, Hungarian noble family

weitverzweigte ung. Adelsfamilie aus dem Geschlecht Gutkeled, die vom 14. Jh. an zahlreiche kirchl. und weltl. Würdenträger stellte.

Andreas B., 1329-45 Bf. v. Großwardein, begann den got. Neubau der Kathedrale.

Stefan I., B. v. Ecsed († vor dem 3. Juni 1493), war 1471-93 Landesrichter, seit 1479 auch Wojwode v. Transilvanien. Analphabet, aber tüchtiger Feldherr, schlug er mit Paul Kinizsi am 13. Okt. 1479 die nach Siebenbürgen eingefallenen Türken auf dem Kenyérmezö, am 4. Juli 1490 besiegte er → Johannes Corvinus bei Csonthegy. Als Wojwode versuchte er, die freien →Székler zu unterjochen, wurde aber Anfang 1493 v. Erzkanzler →Bakócz zum Rücktritt gezwungen.

Sein Bruder Nikolaus B. (* um 1440, † nach dem 24. Febr. 1506), Bf. v. Vác, war bedeutender Humanist und Mäzen, befreundet mit Marsilio →Ficino.

Th.v. Bogyay

Source: Lexikon des Mittelalters, Verlag J.B. Metzler, Vol. 1, Col. 1550 (To cite this page)

Bathory Numerals

Anittas, I found a book with much information on that family. It uses numerals for the various members of the family, going across the border of the two branches. This would enable us to clearly identify the various Stephens, Georges and Andrews. I will implement this on the Bathory page. Would you agree to use it in article titles as well? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same, but didn't want to get involved. I think it's a good idea that you should implement. --Thus Spake Anittas 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boldizsar_B%C3%A1thory

http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02113/html/92.html

http://susi.e-technik.uni-ulm.de:8080/Meyers2/seite/werk/brockhaus/band/51/seite/0489/brockhaus_b51_s0489.html

Bäthory, ungar. Geschlecht, dessen ununter- brochene Genealogie mit Andreas de Rakomaz (Ende des 13. Jahrh.) beginnt. Dessen Sohn Bric- cius erbielt von König Ladislaus IV. (1272 - 90) die Ortschaften Abram, Batur und Kis-Bata; von Vatur (magyar. Imwi- ˆ kühn, tapfer) nabm Briccius seinen Geschlechtsnamen. Um die Mitte des 14. Iabrb. zerfiel das Geschlecht in zwei Zweige, den zu Ecsed und den zu Somlyö.

Stepban B.sgest. 1493), aus der Ecseder Linie, ist vorzüglich bekannt durch den Sieg, den er als Woiwode von Siebenbürgen 1479 bei Kenye'rmezö über die Türken erfocht.

Stcpban V. von Somlyö war unter Johann Zäpolva Vaida oder Woiwode von Siebenbürgen. Sein Sohn Stephan V., geb. 1522, erst am Hose Ferdinands I., dann im Dienste der Königin Isabella (Zapolya), wurde 1571 zum Fürsten von Sieben- bürgen gewählt; 1576 bestieg er den poln. Königs- thron und wurde in Krakau gekrönt. Er regierte in Polen bis 1586. Dessen jüngerer Bruder, Christoph A. von Somlyö, war 1576-81 Fürst von Sicbeu- bürgcli. Er rief die Jesuiten ins Land und ließ seinen SohuSigismund durch dieselben erziehen. Sigis- mund B. vermählte sich 1595 mit einer Tochter des Erzherzogs Karl von Steiermark, des Oheims von Rudolf II., vernachlässigte aber alsbald seine Ge- mahlin und übergab Siebenbürgen dein Kaiser Ru- dolf (1598). Er selber zog nach Oppeln, um in den geistlichen Stand zu treten, bereute aber bald wieder die Abtretung seines Fürstentums. Während die kaiserl. Kommissare noch in der Übernahme des Lan- des begriffen waren, erschien er verkleidet in Klausen- burg, nahm jene gefangen und schickte Bocskay (s. d.) nach Prag zur Beschwichtigung des Kaisers. Plötzlich übertrug er die Regierung seinem Vetter, dem Kar- dinal Andreas V., der sich aber gegen den Verbün- deten des Kaisers, den ehrgeizigen walach. Woi- wodcn Michael, nicht halten konnte und 1599 ums Le- ben kam. Sigismund nabin 1601 selbst den Fürsten- thron wieder ein, mußte jedoch, von allen verlassen, 1602 abdanken. Er starb 27. März 1613 in Prag.

Der letzte V. war Gabriel (Gabor), ein Sohn Stephans, Königs von Polen, der als Fürst von Siebenbürgen 1608 -13 regierte. Wegen seiner Grausamkeit empörten sich viele Großen wie die siebenbürg. Sachsen, so daß es zum Kriege kam, in dem Gabriel unterlag. Er entwich nach Groftwardein, wo er 11. Okt. 1613 ermordet wurde.

ElisabethV. (aus dem Ecseder Zweige), die be- rüchtigte Gemahlin des Grafen Franz Nädasdy, glaubte die Entdeckung gemacht zu baben, daß das Blut junger Mädchen die .haut verschöne. Sie be- wog deshalb mehrere ihrer Dienstboten, ihr fort und fort solche Opfer zu vcrschaffeu, denen man zu den Bädern der Gräfin das Blut abzapfte. Nach- dem Elisabeth 1604 Witwe geworden, setzte sie die- sen Frevel auf dem Schlosse Csejte im Neutraer Komitat fort. Die Verbrechen wurden erst ruchbar, nachdem mehr als 80 Mädchen ermordet worden waren. Der Palatin Georg Thurzö überraschte die Mörder auf frischer That. Während man Elisabeth zu ewiger Gefangenschaft verurteilte, wurden ihre Helfershelfer 7.Jan. 1611 lebendig verbrannt. Elisa- beth V. starb 21. Aug. 1614, wahrscheinlich an Gift. - Vql. von Elsberg, Die Blutgräfin, Elisabeth B. (Bresl. 1894). ' ˆLitteratur.

Polish history

There's lots of silliness like that in Polish history subjects, and I fully agree with you. I assume that those articles have some prickly guardians, and that it'll be impossible to actually get rid of them, but I'll back you up if you try to go ahead with it. john k 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent chnages to the Ebionites article

Hello Loremaster, please have a look at my recent changes on the Ebionites. I have read the above and understand but I want to ask you whether you can at least keep half an eye on the situation. The article is not yet in the shape it should be. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Str1977, due to ideologically-driven edits of some editors, the Ebionites article has become a source of fustration rather than pleasure. Therefore I won't be (counter-)editing or keeping any half on it anymore except to ensure that the Jesus sub-section as well as the caption under the Sermon on the Mount image stay the same. --Loremaster 03:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Str1977. I have now gone through all your changes and left comments on the talk page. I made further additions of my own where I felt it was needed. A copy of my recent version is also on Ebionites/wip. I have wrapped up my time on the Ebionites article, for many of the same reasons as Loremaster. It's been nice working with you. :0) Ovadyah 00:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Str1977. I posted the following notice to Loremaster's talk page:

I left some comments on Meta's talk page if you care to add to them or correct anything I may have mistated. Ovadyah 15:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Meta indicated on his talk page that he is currently very busy off-Wiki, I left the same comments with Jayjg. Ovadyah 15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Metamagician3000 and Jayjg are admins. I extend the same invitation to you to add to my comments or correct anything I may have mistated (Michael didn't hesitate, although I didn't ask him). I see that you are being drawn into the same type of edit-warring that Loremaster and I endured for months. It got so bad in January that Metamagician locked the article. The agreed upon solution was for everyone except Michael to withdraw from the article for the month of February. Michael had the entire month to make whatever changes he wanted, and he did almost nothing. When we returned to the article in March, the constant edit-warring resumed. I am most likely leaving the article after this as well, but I didn't want to leave it without any oversight. Ovadyah 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you should know that Michael tried to trap you in a 3RR so it doesn't come as a complete surprise. So much for collaborative editing. Ovadyah 03:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Result: No Violation. Glad I could help. :) Ovadyah 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael the Brave

Hi, I have given several arguments supporting both the de facto and the de jure title. Note however that de jure in Transylvania during the Long War is a vague notion. Michael conquered the country (fact), the nobles subsequently swore fealty (probably out of fear), then the Diet met end the Estates swore fealty to the Emperror, to Michael and to Michael's son. O course Rudolf proposed governorship but Michael refused and continued negotiations both with Rudolf but also with other powers such as the Ottomans and Polad. the Sultan did recognize Michael as Prince and awarded him the isgnia of power. Rudolf did end up by recognizing Michael as Prince in a letter he send on Sept. 2 1600. Michael never got it, he had already bean beaten at Miraslau.

Note that if you lounch a purely "leagal" issue over Michael's title, than the second and third reigns of Sigismund Bathory, the reign of Moses Szekely, that of Emeric Thököly and those of a certain number of "Princes" are also an issue. Further more calling Michael a governor does not correspond to the actual political situation and would confuse the reader, Michael never openly oposed Hapsburg policy but he governed as any Prince before him and not as Basta or 18th century governors. Plinul cel tanar 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Listing Michael as Basarab... now that IS controversial. Petre Panaitescu even questioned him being the son of Patrascu the Good. Even if he were the son of Patrascu, his only solid link to the Basarabs is, if I am not mistaken, a female branch (Lady Chiajna). Unlike his successor Radu Serban he never used the name Basarab, remember he was trying to establish a dinasty of his own. Of course, I suppose that on the other hand in the light of the Byzantine inspried traditions of Wallachia you could call him a Basarab without being too far off... it's as you feel best. Plinul cel tanar 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I will consult with other wikipedians whether it is apropriate or not to call Michael a Basarab. In the mean time I saw you were working on Bathory related articles. You may want to check this out http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/Europe_Orientale/Transylvanie.htm , I don't know if you knew the site or not. I still have a lot of work on the Michael the Brave article, afterwards I may give you a hand. The Sigismund Bathory article in particular needs further details. Cheers. Plinul cel tanar 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

Please see new developments at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#A_technical_problem, which IMO are in danger of running in circles again with the title. ... Kenosis 15:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Replaceable_fair_use_to_be_decided_after_16_August_2007

Pretender

Why did you remove the pretender section from the List of German monarchs page? Those people would have ruled Germany were it not for WWI. The Hohenzollerns claimed 2 titles. German Emperor (ruler of the entire country) and King of Prussia (ruler of one of the states). Emperor001 01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Metropolitan of Hungro-Wallachia

Hi. Please don't delink the redlinks to that: it is bound to become an article at some point. It is the official title of a division of the Orthodox Church, and it would be absurd to delink and then hunt down the links in about 1,000 articles. Dahn 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Then add the full title to both, but please keep the links. Dahn 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is wrong. Please let's not turn this into a tiresome discussion about how and why, and let's not squabble over details. The point is that the article should be created eventually. Dahn 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites FAR

Ebionites has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Avi 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Prince and Prince

For the love of me, I don't understand why you remove the link to the country from the articles. For starters, it is common for synonyms to be told apart by redirects, and it is common sense to have a link to the country where "the action is taking place". There is absolutely no problem in linking a simple title to a more complex list than the title would suggest - since the person wanting to click it is most likely interested in "who the princes were", and since anyone is likely to be interested in "what the country is" (you are effectively moving the link to that country more clicks away). Please don't do it anymore, I find it disruptive (and I also believe it to be in breach of conventions). All your other edits are fine, btw. Dahn 09:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your concerns, and I do not understand why it is "no good" - just that you believe it is "no good". First of all, the links are not necessarily to explain terms, but are always used to explain terms in context. This is, for example, why users are asked to disambiguate - the expectation is that there is a direct link between a concept an a certain article. Nobody is fooling the reader into assuming that he will find the explanation for the term "prince", and, if that is what he or she is looking for, it is available one other click away (as opposed to the proper term, which is available where it should be available). I really see no need to "copyedit" what doesn't need to be copyedited, especially when we lose links or move them from their logical place in the text. Furthermore, nobody seems to care that the links in, say, here are "hidden". Please, let's be reasonable. Dahn 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it messed up to indicate both title and country, without having to merge the two into the link? Especially when this is done in numerous other contexts (one is indicated above). The issue I take is with preserving a format that gives as much relevant links to the reader, instead of assuming that he or she already knows what the article is about. That is why I consider the alternative unreasonable, and that is why I cannot tell what was "messed up" about the previous version. Furthermore, if you didn't object to the links because they hid their destination under a generic name, then, really, what was your objection? Dahn 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was not clear: I do commend the copyedits in the articles, I just do not approve of the linking. I hope the current situation on Cantemir is a compromise. About Callimachi: it may be a residual error, I'll have to look it up (I haven't checked the Moldavian list of rulers in a while, because some issues there were pissing me off). Dahn 22:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

I invite you to join the talk page.Bless sins 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites content and source cleanup

I left an invitation on Michael's talk page to work consensually with the other editors to clean up the problems that have been tagged for some time now. Would you be willing to help? I would like to head off having the article delisted as a Featured Article during FAR if possible. Ovadyah 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to accept formal mediation? Ovadyah 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I filed a formal request for mediation. I hope you can participate. Ovadyah 23:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm finished with my cleanup edits to the body of the article. I replaced the over-developed second paragraph of the Essenes section with the FA version. That eliminated the synthesis problems in that section and the need for a disputed tag. Please look over the article and make whatever additional changes you think are necessary. Then we can work together on polishing the lead. I would like to make the case to the FAR Committee that we have made a good faith effort to fix the neutrality and factual accuracy problems. Ovadyah 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I finished my edits to the lead and the article. I think (hope really) we are very close to finished. Mediation will likely still be required when a certain someone finally shows up. Ovadyah 19:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation - Ebionites

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Anti-Sacrilege

Astounded as you may be, deleting apparently source text that you dislike is certainly not the way to go. I agree that the text needs to be sourced with citations, but if you have something to question about the nature of the information, add sources that say otherwise, and don't delete sources that disagree with you (unless you can prove they are unreliable). Wikipedia is about citing sources, and I don't recall you citing any. Dahn 13:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that the article cannot get "too big" (I guess at some point it could, but that is the least of anybody's concerns at the moment). I think the entire article should be cited with footnotes, including the added quote (which should be translated), so I do not endorse Taz deleting the tags (as far as I'm concerned, you may tag almost every sentence, because a more cited article is closer to desired status). Once again, I have to suggest this: the more reliable sources are amply and aptly cited, the better; if you are worried that a reliable source gets overexposure, don't erase its conclusions - cite another reliable source that contradicts it (the more amply and aptly you cite that source, the better). Not only is this the most constructive way and in perfect line with what this project requires, but I'm pretty certain that Taz would never disapprove of contrasting opinions being sourced and all featured into one article. I consider that a proper article should include not just the basic "plot", but also background, contrasting narratives, and contrasting assessments (provided these actually exist). Dahn 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood me: I never said that you thought the text was too big, but stressed that the thing to do is to add to it (since, in any case, the text'll never get "too big"); I encourage both you and Taz to cite with footnotes, and, if you think it is needed, you may tag it all for citations (I for one would not object, since, in any case, citations are next to mandatory nowadays); I said that you may doubt the factual accuracy of the text, and that the thing to do is to add sourced text saying the opposite of opinion/comparison/conclusion x (instead of deleting that opinion/comparison/conclusion). Dahn 11:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The mediator is asking for your preference Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ebionites. Ovadyah 18:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

The Christianity article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites post-mediation

Since Michael Price has rejected formal mediation, I expect that there will be an attempt to add misleading material back into the article. I could use your help reverting these changes while we discuss what to do next. Ovadyah 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposal now to pursue community enforcable mediation on the Ebionites article. Please indicate whether such would be agreeable to you. Thank you. John Carter 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your input would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Ebionites#How to proceed. Thank you. John Carter 15:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation

I think this is what you were asking about. Hope it helps. John Carter 14:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

No problem. I replied on my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

Please note that a request for Arbitration from the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee regarding the above article has been filed here, in which you are named as a party. John Carter 16:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, if you want to make an initial statement, this is the time to do it. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Ebionites Ovadyah 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, please make your statement soon, if you intend to make one. All other interested parties have made their initial statements, and the case for arbitration has been accepted. I don't want to move forward without hearing from you. Ovadyah 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I mistated the status of the case. The arbitrators are still voting on acceptance (one acceptance so far), so you still have time. Sorry about the confusion on my part. Ovadyah 15:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know when is AnnH coming back? I miss her too. I hope she is doing well.Giovanni33 02:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

Greetings!

Please refer to the above page for a suggestion on getting this article back on track.

Cordially, Drieux 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your image uploads

Hi, I recently deleted Image:Scholder review 1285 (head).PNG and I've noticed that a couple of your other uploads had the wrong tag and some have been deleted. If you check Derivative works, you'll see that if a work is copyrighted, and you take a photo of it, the copyright doesn't transfer to you, so you don't have the right to release your photo under a free licence. Please be a bit more careful about your tags. If you're in any doubt, it might be a good idea to ask a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, before uploading the image. You may also find Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, and Wikipedia:Non-free content helpful. ElinorD (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, I found the posting above on my talk page and I am a bit puzzled. I only uploaded a handful of pictures and have already discussed this with another admin, User:Quadell. He already overstated my uploading after looking through my log - but only after I asked him something. I don't know why you go through my logs. Maybe you are a bit too preoccupied with removing images and copyright questions. I tend to focus on content and hence have not much time for such issues. I also must admit that I find WP's image policy confusing, to say the least. But anyway, I don't see why you had to lectured me like that, especially since I already sorted things out with Quadell. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

hallo Str

I guess you know hallo means 'I hear' in hungarian. Well, it was the earliest apparent Str unsigned edits which I dug up recently that persuaded me as to why you did not care to answer my question as to whether you were paid to promulgate your views here, and why I may have been close to the mark in considering you a professioanl faith editor...I don't expect I need to say more than 'ancient uni'...Now, old chum, I am glad to see you are wide awake, and perhaps I should have come here first thing I did to congratulate you on your survival etc ( perhaps on the successful conversion of me into a known wiki-criminal?).. as you remember my first concern is always verifiability, so let's see....you have spent the last year of my block in avoiding answering the issue that User:Bengalski raised... poor Mr B- like everyone else, he was foxed by the dire intricacies of Weimar regarding the 'coalition'..however yes..you left it that you would return to Scholder and check that which Mr B had verified, and which had exceeded and confirmed all that had been classed as my Original Research...however you did not do what you wrote you would do, and Mr B got bored...or is far away... I somewhere- I think in Italian, studied the review of Scholder that you had claimed represented counter-weight to him, and must dig it out of some hard disk soon...of course the review is not counterweight under any conceivable historiography as you call it and rather the reverse...User:Savidan curiously allowed the verifications of Scholder to disappear entirely from Pius XII, in such manner as to reinforce attention....of course such Scholder accusations do not figure either in the Hitler nor Ludwig Kaas nor Centre Party articles, and where they do in Weimar they are emasculated...they are emasculated because the essential Bruning demand is either ignored or obfuscated, contrary to my verifications, thus sparing the world today the requisite of understanding that Bruning represented the last hurdle in the empowerment of Hitler...of course you wish to neutralise old Bruning as unreliable and were it not for the Wheeler-Bennett Hindenburg:The Wooden Titan, might have succeeded....we know what what you wish to neutralise, which is Bruning's own accusation against Kaas, and his witness of Pacelli's 1931 Hitler empowerment wishes...with regard to the latter, as I point out, perhaps solely for your benefit as the rest of WP appears semi literate, I have benefited from this furlough you achieved by expanding my understanding of history...the later German situation as regards papal/Pacelli interference lies within the continuum of the Holy Roman Empire beyond its apparent demise, such that Wheeler-Bennett references to secret paperless Holy See intrigue towards a restoration of the 'monarchy' (Emperor) have become more understandable...and naturally the 1933 trickery between Hitler and Kaas and Pacelli, howsoever proveable or not, for which Bruning's August 1931 meeting with Pacelli is sufficient to link the names Hitler and Pacelli, whatever about the Kaas admission referred to by Scholder regarding 24-31 march, or the Hitler cabinet meeting of 15 march, or the von Papen reference Bengalski dug up regarding mention of the Reichskonkordat at 31 January, thus justifying the inclusion of Kaas within this axis in at least an NPOV report of the accusation....all these things remain to be dealt with honestly and within WP guidelines...all these join together to add to the simple reasoning that outweighs your own claim that Scholder represents a ' minority view ' ( the reason being that since the Church seem to have both arranged and published results of a formal seminar between specifically Repgen on the one hand, and Scholder's professorial descendant on the other, thus demonstrating clearly to us both that Scholder represents one side of a two sided dispute, and therefore not a minority but a direct balance in the dispute...the central obfuscation at present however lies in the Hitler article, where 'deecisive' is later follwed by 'oral guarantees', which were I beleive in fact written under the 'Working Committee, and the Bruning required written 'Constitutional Guarantee, and Kaas' avoidance ore failure to obtain it.... therefore having expressed to you my continuing alertness to the actual WP and historical realities I shall here state that I do not wish to have you banned for your anti-verification actions, despite these being immense, but wish in a spirit of friendliness and reconciliation to convert you to a behaviour that would benefit the project, and society today...saying this I hope to interact with you under what I call the flag of truthfulness and what you might consider christian principles. I have written the above in briefest manner, knowing that you will understand and accept the brevity for what otherwise could have entailed far greater expansion. I believe it is better that we deal directly, under verifiability than involve parties who will not in 12 months even begin to follow the nuances. However this must be done under verifiability, and denial of that can only lead to study as to why denial is made. as\you well know I formulated an an article resolution template, which could allow us to assist the entire project by the example of its use. However I have to imagine that you would find difficulty in presenting criticism of 'the Church' in public....yrs EffK 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read this through and see that I make no attack here. I mention that you removed verified info, which is digitally recorded elsewhere. I repeat that if we hold to the guidelines henceforth, it will benefit the project and society. You seem however to not wish to do so, and unless you signal a willingness I shall not bother you directly again, thus a silence will be taken as such a request. Then I shall work alone thru to other editors, or not. I remind you that I -if not Arbcom- base myself always on verifiability in everything. EffK 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Str, your reply when apparently you desired closure leaves me in a quandary. Perhaps you would like to come out with a denial of co-operation as to the substantive issues, rather than solely concern yourself with my criminality. Should I note that you refuse to deal with the subtantive issues of verifiability concerning the empowerment of Adolf Hitler? Is it somehow criminal to have to return to the fact that verifiability lay at the centre of a WP dispute? I do not accuse you of making removals, only remind you of this. Will you co-operate within the guidelines in restoration of the verifability and towards proper NPOV reference to them? EffK 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Str, it appears that you prefer to remain in accusatory and incivil mode, and wish to forget the verifications I and others made, which seems odd when all was so public. As to saying that I wished to blame Pacelli and Kaas for the 3rd Reich, well in fact I wished to report that others had reached a such-like conclusion, that is that the quasi-legal seizure was of their complicity, they supplying of a chief facilitation. Anything further was by way of Jimbo Wales' guidelines as to explanation, and relevant to the difficulty of presentation, within Wikipedia, and within of course, the Church itself. As you know it was Pacelli who assisted in writing the latter's Canon Laws, and, others here in Wikipedia who devised the guidelines. As was proved after I was silenced, the accusation you still attempt to make personal to me is in all serious scholarship made by the chief german ecumenical scholar, and my own piecemeal verifications were simply spot on with his conclusions. They were thus vindicated as being described as such, under NPOV. Therefore this your personalisation remains rather the weak Straw man argument. I should be repeating myself, but otherwise, for the common good, be happy to verify all real verifations and factors. It would be very boring, but such is the importance that one should submit to the common good and work without need for ad hominem and personalisation. Regarding your own efforts these were always against such verification as I provided over years, and witnessed closely by me over a long period as traceable to each of your edits and consequently stored by me at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EffK&diff=78835609&oldid=75777807#Removals_from_Wikipedia.2C_by_Str1977. The over-whelmingly concerted removal there recorded of all that I had earlier attempted to verify from the very first of my editing is what led to my categorisation of you as editor. That categorisation was admissable under AGF at the time, as was confirmed by your associate User:Robert McClenon direct from AGF policy. I myself cannot account for why the various cardinal WP policies I followed such as that were not up-held by Arbcom, but I can account for denial of verificatory references and removal of textual verifiabilities. That these were your work was your choice, and done quite against my repeated advice. I was equally careful to adhere to civility, something that your recent posts avoid. It appears that bluster and attack is your chosen path today rather than adherence to Wikipedia policy within clear recorded editing. This surprises me as does your entire last email, but I have learnt not to be too affected by such variations as appear. To recap, it does not appear that you wish to share in any open validating verifications now, that is, in the NPOV presentation of other's historical works or, am I wrong? I am quite happy to work within general history sub-projects to ensure that the NPOV of articles is maintained whilst the full history I verified is re-inserted. I do not need to return to explanations, as they are copiously recorded, alongside the stored verifications. Of course if it is a desire to prevent verification of the history on the many inter-related articles, then you already know the means to silence me. I shall copy these words of mine over to my own pages at some stage as I doubt you wish your space to be clogged by me, and, I shall I suppose have to judge from your several mails that we cannot co-operate at verification. It is a pity for us both that outside scholastics should deny us normal wikipedia friendliness, and a pity for the project. The difficulty for the Church is of course the chief matter, and as I verified, entirely within her regularisation. I have to believe that verifiable NPOV or truth is the basis towards a wholesome future, and that its opposite is not.EffK 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Str, since you tried to use my comm's to you here as reason for another proscription of me it is with reluctance that I answer you here again. You say that real questions would be appropriate, but I still have to understand that all and everything I will do will be grist to the proscription mill. Therefore I shall indeed ask you precise questions, and do so at my own discussion page as I believe my entire edits and persona must be on your watch list still. But, in case you miss these questions, I shall dart in here and simply say 'question number so and so', and you may choose to attend to each, or not. I shall now be re-formulating the catholicism/Kaas question I posted elsewhere, and herewith tell you that it will appear under its own section at my page. Thankyou, EffK 12:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

Sorry for the recent added work on the page above. One question which you might be able to answer. Do either the Eisenman or Tabor books qualify as independently notable as per WP:BK? Whether they do or not is possibly relevant, as it would determine where else the existing content could be placed. If they do qualify, then I don't see how there can be any real objection to each volume having a separate article of its own, like The Passover Plot currently does. If they don't, then content relevant to the individual volumes could clearly be added to the existing article for each writer. And, if I was wrong in questioning the use of the word "brother" to identify James, as I seem to have been, my apologies. I wan't thinking of having to differentiate him from the other James, and was just thinking of the way how the word has been used by some of the more recent detractors of Christianity. John Carter 16:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to a comment from you regarding whether to remove the disputed material on the Talk:Ebionites page, sir. John Carter 19:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglican collaboration of the month

Wassupwestcoast 04:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - |WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, I am almost finished presenting my evidence. I hope you still intend to contribute. Some things that still need to be covered or could use more coverage are:

1. Eisenman & Tabor conflations and resulting syntheses and misleading statements
2. Personal attacks
3. Persistent disruptive editing against consensus
4. How all of the above was the main reason for demotion of the article

I am focusing my efforts on false and misleading content. I will complete my part by presenting evidence on the JTB as Messiah claim, and the numerous attempts to deal with this issue. Ovadyah 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

GA sweep: Stephen V Báthory GA status on hold

I have reassessed Stephen V Báthory as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. We are currently revisiting all listed Good articles in an effort to ensure that they continue to meet the Good article criteria.

In reviewing the article, I came across some issues that may need to be addressed; I have left a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put Stephen V Báthory's GA status on hold. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the article's status.

I have left this message because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article, please accept my apologies, but I don't like to do this without trying to notify potentially interested editors ;)

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 13:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen V Báthory sourcing

The above article is currently undergoing GA reassessment, and has become stalled by a lack of sourcing for its "Family history" section. I was wondering, since you contributed to this article and related ones, if you are able to supply a suitable reference for the history of the Bathory family? (even a general source, eg the name of a book, would be useful). This section can then be cited, allowing the article to retain its GA status. Thank you! Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 09:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking time out from your other projects to add sources to that section, and please accept my sincere apologies for getting your gender wrong. Your help is very much appreciated. All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 11:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

You appear to have violated 3rr on the article. I have reported you.[14]

If you revert back, it will increase your chances of not being blocked.Bless sins 10:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, were you aware of WP:3rr? Did you know that wikipedia prohibits making more than three reverts in 24 hours? Please respond at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Str1977_reported_by_User:Bless_sins_.28Result:_.29. Thanks.Bless sins 03:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image MOS

Hi, I may be wrong but have previously been told that images need to be staggered from side to side rather than all on the right side. Benjiboi 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pit and the Pendulum

Thanks for your contribution to The Pit and the Pendulum, specifically about the use of the (sic) template after the term "analyse" in the quote. I looked it up and you are correct, "analyse" is an acceptable British spelling. It probably would have been kinder to explain that in the first place (I would not know British spelling as an American), rather than just saying we should not "appease ignoramuses." Kinder words and good faith, fellow editor, go a long way. --Midnightdreary 15:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites arbitration workshop

I have proposed a finding of fact against Michael Price in the ArbCom workshop for violations of WP:SYN and WP:OR leading to the addition of misleading and fraudulent content to the Ebionites article. As one of the parties to the dispute, your comments on this proposal would be much appreciated. Ovadyah 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a remedy on the Workshop page that Michael Price should be permanently banned from editing on the Ebionites article, and I detailed my reasons for your review and comments. Ovadyah 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Dear Aminz, regardless of the misbehaviour of other editors, let me assure you that I am still interested in the information you can provide regarding the "blood money" issue. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 08:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, two issues:

1. I am still awaiting clarification of the "blood money" issue.
2. Please have a look at the BQ talk page as a reference (Peters 77) is questioned by BS. Since you added that reference in the first place, could you please chime in on that.

Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Str1977,

I apologize for my delay. Due to some personal issues, I can not edit wikipedia regularly for some time. Hope everything is going well with you

Regarding the bloodmoney issue:

Rizwi S. Faizer in Muhammad and the Medinan Jews,International Journal of Middle East Studies 28 (1996), 463—489 says:

More importantly, Ibn Ishaq shows us that the Jews actually permitted Muhammad to participate in the activities of their community during the first few months after his arrival in Medina. Thus, Ibn Ishaq shows Muhammad passing sentence on an adulterous Jewish couple, raising the value of the blood price of the B. Qurayza to equal that of the B. Nadir, and becoming involved in religious arguments with the Jews.

Another source is here [15]

"Taking advantage of Muhammad's arrival in Madina, the weaker tribe challenged their stronger neighbour to submit the matter to Muhammad's adjudication..."

--Aminz 07:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

		The Purple Star
		In recognition of the insults and other damage you received. As I think we all know by now, there is occasionally a price to be paid for acting with integrity. Thank you for having done so, despite the difficulties involved. John Carter 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There are now evidently some results available regarding a related matter here. Thought you might like to know. Oh, yes, and on a completely unrelated matter, I have this seemingly random list of pages I would welcome your perhaps looking over, if you are so inclined. Joses, James the Just, John the Baptist, Pauline Christianity, Nazarene (sect), James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, Herod the Great, Essenes, Gospel of the Ebionites, Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera, Clopas, Mandaeism, Historicity of Jesus. There's no real rush on any of those, of course. Thanks again for all your efforts. John Carter 17:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee found that MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring and is subject to an editing restriction for one year, he is limited to one revert per page per week and must discuss any content changes on the article's talk page. Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 04:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ezra

Hi! You removed a text from the Ezra article including sources with the comment "Ezra had no part in building the temple." This may be your opinion, but Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy prohibits using ones own opinions as the basis of article content. The WP:NPOV policy requires including all significant opinions on a subject, and there is plenty of sourcing for the claim that Ezra was involved. I would urge you not to delete sourced material that you disagree with, doing so can lead to loss of editing privileges. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Realize this is a more involved content dispute and you are correct that the claim you removed was about what the Hebrew Bible itself says as distinct from what any source says; there are different interpretations of what it says but you are correct and I agree that it wasn't appropriate for the article to claim that the Bible itself says that Ezra was involved in building the Second Temple. I understand that deletion of the source was an accident. Regret the misunderstanding. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Compromise on Banu Qurayza

I've compromised on Banu Qurayza as much as I could. BY partially reverting back to you version, I have introduced technical errors of your version, as well as censored content. Please don't test my limits by reverting my edits on the article. I will not hesitate to roll back my compromise.

In any case you need not be worried. This is only a temporary compromise, until we get to mediation. The mediation will (hopefully) produce a more enduring version.Bless sins 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ali

Hi, thanks for your participation, but your comment is not clear. Can you please explain "Also the references in the footnotes are not good either." and "everal things are covered twice." --Seyyed(t-c) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Denglish

Hi Str1977 -- that entire section on the Denglish page is almost completely OR. Any list that's there really needs to be sourced and I can't imagine, as volatile as denglisch tends to be that you'll have any luck with such. Really there's barely enough sourceable content in there for a stub. Consider following up on the talk page. I'll wait a little before I continue cutting, but trimming down and sourcing the remnants is on my to do list. Scott.wheeler (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi Str!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! I hope you have a successful year to come!!! Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Himiltrude

Would you like to actually provide a source, instead of simply making crude edits to claim that Charlemagne was actually married to Himiltrude? Michael Sanders 16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, focusing solely on the Himiltrud & other wifes issue: you are assuming a lot and end up pushing a certain POV.

• Looking at Einhard doesn't make your case, as Einhard (ch. 20) says "Erat ei filius nomine Pippinus ex concubina editus ..." - He calls her simply a concubine, and says nothing about Friedelehe.
• However, in other sources, she is simply referred to as Charles' wife, e.g. a letter by the Pope.
• If you can read German, this should be interesting: http://www.mittelalter-genealogie.de/karolinger_familie_karls/himiltrud_frankenkoenigin_769.html
• Some historians have tried to solve this contradiction by supposing the concept of "Friedelehe", a form of marriage above concubinage and below sacramental marriage. They might be right, they might be wrong but it is still only a theory and to my knowledge it is nowadays not generally accepted.
• I don't have P. Riche at hand but I think I remember him placing Himiltrud among "Desiderata" and Hildegard without distinction.
• And anywhere I look I can see the numbering 1. Himiltrud, 2. "Desiderata", 3. Hildegard, even among those that subscribe to the Friedelehe concept - and unsurprisingly so: a Friedelwife is a special kind of wife but a wife nonetheless.
• Certainly, the Charlemagne biography by Dieter Hägermann, which I have at hand, does so, and argues that Einhard called Himilitrud concubine to protect his lord against accusations of polygamy.

In your footnote, you are quoting Riche who however merely quotes Einhard here. Also you turn Chamberlin's quite nuanced statement and his "perhabs could be compared" into that terrible "common law marriage" statement - common law is English law and does not apply here. And your "partner" elsewhere is really just ugly.

That is certainly enough to cast doubt on your "statements of fact". I never tried to remove the Friedelehe concept out of WP - but to simply state it as fact, to write Himiltrud the wife (whether Friedelwife or full wife) out of history, to ignore the status of the Friedelehe as a construct, to avoid unfitting sources, is unacceptable. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So Einhard calling Himiltrude a concubine proves that she was Charlemagne's wife? Hardly convincing (you claim Einhard calls her a concubine to prevent Charlemagne looking like a polygamist? Yet he doesn't do that for Desiderata, who had been sworn loyalty to as Queen...claiming that Himiltrude was a concubine immediately after claiming that Charlemagne repudiated his sacramentally married Lombard wife would be shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted). Riche also follows Einhard in referring to her as a concubine. As for the Pope's letter, the fact that he refers to her as his wife could indicate that she is a sacramental wife - or a wife by friedelehe (which I believe either Janet Nelson or Rosamond McKitterick also suggest was the basis of the original union between Waldrada and Lothair II before he set her aside for Theutberga. Although don't hold me to that.) However, I'm not going to be convinced by a web-page. As far as I'm concerned, Einhard (who was in a far better position to know the state of affairs than a Pope who doesn't even know which King is marrying the Lombard Princess) calls her a concubine, and Pierre Riche agrees with him, as does Chamberlin who details the concept of friedelehe. None of them describe her as a full wife, so to do so - and ignore the sources, indeed not even source your assertions - is unacceptable. Michael Sanders 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Common-law" is entirely appropriate - it means 'valid by custom but not in law', and readers will understand that. Also: why does your assertion (unsourced, unless you have compelling evidence of his writing style) that Riche is simply following Einhard (not a quote) invalidate what he has to say? Michael Sanders 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may: Einhard calls her a concubine. A concubine is not a wife. So she cannot be described as "Charlemagne's first wife". His first wife was the Lombard Princess we call Desiderata. His second was Hildegarde, etc. As for the actual article content, "common law wife" or "common law marriage" is an understood term, which Chamberlin uses to describe friedelehe. So that is all sanctioned by sourced material. Michael Sanders 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it's necessary. The only source you've given claiming that Himiltrude was Charlemagne's canonically lawful wife is Pope Stephen III's letter - and Einhard is a far more reputable primary source than that letter. Desiderata was Charlemagne's first wife: Einhard, Riche and Thorpe all refer to Charlemagne as being married four times (Chamberlin of course takes the more nuanced view of the friedelehe rather than simply concubinage), Riche and Thorpe numbering Hildegard, Fastrada and Liutgard as 2,3,4, whilst Thorpe also numbers 'the daughter of Desiderius' as number 1 in a genealogical table; Einhard specifically states that Charlemagne "married a daughter of Desiderius". Michael Sanders 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that the Himiltrude article is much better now that you've stopped insisting that she was his first wife, and you've actually added some very good & sourced content, so I'm happy. Michael Sanders 19:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to say "...was the second wife of Charlemagne [ref: as described by Einhard. Some modern historians list Himiltrude, described by Einhard as a concubine, as Charlemagne's first wife, and reorder his subsequent wives; accordingly Hildegard is sometimes numbered as his third wife. See (-insert historian arguing that she was a wife here-), Riche, Chamberlin.] Einhard goes into far more detail than Stephen III and is far more reliable, and is our main source for the life of Charlemagne and his family - and Einhard lists Charlemagne as married to four women, and inserts Himiltrude as a concubine. I think that should be followed in terms of basic statements, so long as we make the situation clear in the notes (the article body isn't really appropriate since Himiltrude doesn't really touch upon Hildegard, Fastrada and Luitgard). Michael Sanders 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Carolus the Big

Discussing the second marriage, Collins says "Charles was almost certainly already married at this time, but seems to have put aside his first wife Himiltrude, whom Frankish annalists would subsequently designate a concubine, in the interests of this Lombard alliance" (Collins, Charlemagne, p. 40.). No idea if that reflects larger consensus, but Collins is clearly of the opinion that Frankish sources played with facts for political convenience. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Germans

Stop using that awful made up title of 'Romano-German King' .Michael Sanders 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The titles in pretence is appropriate, since it reflects historical acceptance. Richard of Cornwall, William of Holland, and Alfonso of Castile are never accepted as legitimate "Kings of Germany" in the sense of Rudolf I or Conrad III, merely as titular Kings of the Romans in a period of Interregnum.

As for Francis II, according to Bryce (remember, the author Srnec recommended who won the "King of the Romans" argument for you), Francis "resigned the imperial dignity. The instrument announces that, finding it impossible, in the altered state of things, to fulfill the obligationss taken at his election he considers as dissolved the bonds which attached him to the Germanic body, releases from their allegiance the states of which it consisted, and retires...[to Austria]." Bryce appears to interpret the "release of allegiance" as being allegiance to Francis personally: he points out that Britain's refusal to accept the dissolution of the Empire may have been justified in law, and that "the empire was never extinguished at all, but lived on as some disembodied spirit. For it is clear that, technically speaking, the abdication of a sovereign only destroys his own rights, and does not dissolve the state over which he presides." Michael Sanders 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Albert was the next anti-king. Michael Sanders 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is what historians actually say. And whilst there is disagreement on whether to count Conrad IV as a legitimate King, William, Richard and Alfonso are never counted. It has nothing to do with who opposed them (there've been anti-popes with no opposition), but to do with whether they are accepted by historians. Thus, William is not, even when he is the only claimant to the vacant throne of Germany, partly because he was unable to establish his authority, partly because historians just don't. Same with Richard and Alfonso, for all that Richard set foot in Germany a couple of times.

As for Francis II, Bryce quite specifically says that he "resigned the imperial dignity" - his paraphrasing of the device then goes on to say that the Emperor considered the bonds of allegiance the princes owed him were dissolved.

The Empire itself was not Germany. The "Kingdom of Germany" would legally have ended when its nobility declared themselves Kings, and when the confederation of the Rhine was created, invalidating any claims of vassalage the princes owed to the absent "King of Germany". As for the Empire - to paraphrase Bryce again, the Imperial title could be granted by the Pope to anyone, even a knight with only a foot of ground. So in theory, perhaps Pope Benedict could still grant the title. Who knows? It's all theoretical, because the reality was that with Francis' abdication, the duty to summon the College of Electors fell upon the Elector of Saxony, the Rector - and he was a supporter of Napoleon, and declared himself King. Michael Sanders 23:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see your point about Napoleon. Napoleon was already claiming to be successor of Charlemagne very effectively. Nor was Francis quite so mediaeval-minded as to think ending the Empire would make the slightest bit of difference - Napoleon could still march in and conquer the territory, and if he'd really wanted to he could have revived the title and claimed it anyway. Francis' abdication (and prior assumption of a hereditary and irremovable title) was probably more to avoid the humiliation of being forcibly deprived of it by Napoleon. Michael Sanders 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Louis IV was King Louis V of Germany - you forgot Louis the Child. Lothar III is just made up - he was actually Lothar I of Germany and Emperor Lothar II. Michael Sanders 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Effectively, no the Holy Roman Empire didn't continue. But that doesn't make statements that Francis II 'dissolved' it valid. It ended because he abdicated and no-one upheld it any longer. But you are confusing the intangible title of 'Holy Roman Emperor' with the solid 'Kingdom of Germany'. The Kingdom of Germany was already falling apart on Francis' abdication because the princes were either openly or secretly defaulting upon their vassalage to their sovereign; the Elector of Saxony, being Imperial Vicar during interregna, was meant to summon the electoral college, but didn't which placed the Kingdom and Empire in a theoretical interregna, but in reality made it clear that the Kingdom was ended.

The Imperial title, however, was in the eyes of the Papacy (validated by history) a gift of the Pope, granted to whomever the Pope chose to uphold his own rights in the Papal territories (even "a simple knight without a foot of land in the world"). It had already gone into abeyance with the death of Berengarius, and emerged as a new creature with Otto I; had Napoleon wished, he could have been crowned "Holy Roman Emperor" in Rome by the Pope, and been as legitimate as Otto I. In which case, the "Holy Roman Empire" would have been the title applied to the realm of Napoleon, rather than the Kingdom of Germany. Michael Sanders 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-popes have commonly been opposed by other factions, yes. But not always by rival Popes. See Antipope Constantine II, who reigned without any opposing Popes, Stephen III only being elected on Constantine's deposition. The same principle applies - a man may be titled Pope or King of the Romans, and there may be continuity of elections, but we only accept the person as legitimately such if history commonly considers him such. Wikipedia's acceptance of who was a legitimate King and who was a pretender should be based upon history's acceptance, rather than assuming that one is a legitimate monarch if one is unopposed. Michael Sanders 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Francis "dissolved the bonds which attached him to the Germanic body". That's not the same as dissolving the Empire.

The Pope could theoretically chose anyone to crown emperor - although the de facto circumstances meant that he commonly had to choose the most powerful potentates in the area - consider the Spoletos and Berengar of Friuli, or the Pope's own decision to grant the title to Charles the Bald to give him protection from invaders. Thus, Napoleon could entirely legitimately have been crowned Emperor (he had in the past only been crowned Emperor of the French - an Emperor could legitimately wear more than one crown at a time), had he held Rome, since he fulfilled as many of the qualifications as Charlemagne and Otto. And it could still be theoretically possible to institute a new renevatio imperii and crown a new emperor - since the Imperial title was theoretically dependent upon whoever could receive coronation from the Pope. (Incidentally, Liechtenstein still exists.)

A pretender is one who claims a title but who cannot effectively take it. Thus this applies to Otto of Brunswick during the time of Philip of Swabia, since (despite the Pope's favouring of Otto) Philip ruled in Germany, only challenged ineffectively by others. This also applies to the others - they only cease to be pretenders when they are actually unquestionably ruling, when they can exert their authority is certain and they are not noticeably challenged. Of course, it is not our place to judge when that is the case - we simply take our lead from historians. Who never consider William, Richard or Alfonso as ruling, but as merely 'antikings' (which, like 'antipope', is a misleading term, since both are used to refer to men such as William or Constantine who aren't opposed by a legitimate figure, but who are simply not considered legitimate rulers for whatever reason. In Constantine's case, I believe his election was judged invalid). Michael Sanders 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but he then reigned unopposed by any Pope after Paul's death for several months. Michael Sanders 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're misunderstanding the quote. Bryce paraphrases that Francis found it "impossible in the altered state of things to fulfill the obligations" his election required him to make; therefore, "he considers as dissolved the bonds which attached him to the Germanic body". That means he has dissolved the bonds attaching him to Germany, not dissolved Germany.

The Pope did choose Emperors on several occasions. "an Emperor could legitimately wear more than one crown at a time" - you claimed that Napoleon couldn't have been crowned HRE because he was already crowned Emperor of the French.

The fact that historians consider William, Richard and Alfonso as anti-kings does exclude them from the line of succession of "Kings of Germany" and "Kings of the Romans", just as anti-popes are excluded from the line of succession in the papacy. Michael Sanders 00:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, he was anti-pope for about 6-7 months. Read Raymond Davis' edition of The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes, who notes the blank period of time Liber Pontificalis ignores, and briefly discusses Constantine. Michael Sanders 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But he wasn't recognised, that's the point. He never exercised real authority in Germany, that's why he is never listed as a legitimate King. Michael Sanders 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles V

Did Charles V not call himself "Emperor Elect" immediately, then? Michael Sanders 20:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks then. Michael Sanders 20:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

your questions

In terms of the interregnum, it's a tricky business. I think Richard is pretty clearly a real king. He was crowned at Aachen, among other things (BTW, our article on him says Alexander IV crowned him - is that true? I've never heard of a pope crowning someone king). Also, his death led directly to Rudolf's election. William probably should count too, although his succession box is tricky - he was initially the successor of Henry Raspe, but then was (mostly) accepted as king after Conrad's death. I'm less sure about Alfonso - his reign seems even more notional than the other too, but still more real than a mere title in pretense. In terms of the succession box in Alfonso, it's totally ridiculous to say he was succeeded as anti-king by Albert I. That implies that "anti-king" is a title that people claimed, and that there was thus a line of succession for antikings. In the more familiar case of antipopes, we don't do this unless one antipope was actually the direct successor of his predecessor. It should be the same for antikings. Alfonso gave up his title to Rudolf, and so should be succeeded by Rudolf. In general, I don't like the "title in pretense" box for the middle ages - for instance, should the titular emperors of Constantinople have such a box, as well? Whatever the status of their rule over Constantinople itself, they were accepted as overlords by the various Latin barons in Greece, and as such the title was not merely one in pretense. I think the same applies to the kings of the interregnum period. john k (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and consorts for the Spanish Netherlands are completely silly. john k (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

David Heath/Gangrel

You put a question on his page about whether he and Luna are still together/married. I found a source where he says that they are no longer married and on his myspace it states that he is single and there's no mention of Luna anywhere.Just thought i'd tell you since it may be reverted again. (MgTurtle (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)).

Continental Wrestling Association

I got to ask, is your native language English? because "Legitimately hurt" means that he was actually hurt, not a storyline, not faked. Furthermore "legit" is nothing but SLANG for legitimate, you're saying the EXACT SAME THING! except with slag and slang should be avoided when possible at wikipedia. Furthermore the other edits you make to the article make it seem like wrestling his real and not staged, it's important to make that distinction, it's also important to explain wrestling terms such as "worked" since not everyone is a wrestling fan and know what it means. Finally - who makes you the arbiter of what pictures will and will not show up? Maybe something appropriate will show up, what's the point of removing the "Picture needed" logo when a picture is needed. Please don't just mindlessly revert stuff because your interpretation of the word "Legitimate" is off base here. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Communist state

I appreciate most of your edits to Communist state and the talk page, but I have to ask why you've removed the ISBNs from the references, and pulled the Communist Manifesto out of the citation template? (Going from pp to p makes perfect sense to me, however.) Argyriou (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Thanks for doing this: [16]. Arrow740 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum

Hi. I was Copey 2. I have replied (unsatisfactorily, I'm afraid) to your request for more from me on my old talk page. Koro Neil (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Girlfriends

Hi, I noticed you un-archived a former merge proposal here, did you want to restart a proposal that Girlfriend be merged into the Girlfriend disam page? If not is seems the proposal melted away with the related AfD and it should stay in the archives. Benjiboi 03:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Hi Str. My position is to keep the lists for Kings and Presidents separate (as they are now) because the presidential system in Greece is well established and the list will keep growing in the Presidents' favour. Also Italy has a similar Presidential list even though it was a monarchy in the past, like Greece. By the way I found the List of Kings and Presidents proposed by Srnec to be a nice attempt at compromise since it does not sound as generic as Heads of State but in the end it is too long and it does not address the main issues anyway. --Dr.K. (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Please use {{subst}} when inviting users to WP:ROBO. for future reference, type in {{subst:Invite User WikiProject Robotics}}. Let me know if you have any further questions. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful edit

This edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader has been determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted.

Please consider notifying the editor before reverting their edits and/or discussing your reverts on the talk page in future. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was unhelpful too as it only served to somehow legitimize the administrators' inability or unwilligness to do their job after the event. In any case, what gives you the right to simply include such stuff on a WP page? And if you are, why is your edit sacrosant? Who has deemed it "unhelpful" besides you and Benji? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I deemed the edit unhelpful. My addition to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader was an effort to explain to other users that there are possible remedies other than blocking and that they are applied at admins' discretion. I was trying to help other people understand that reporting a 3RR violation may not always result in a block, not "somehow legitimize" something "after the event".

I fail to see any policy saying that administrators are mandatorily required to block users violating the 3RR and have no discretion in the matter. Indeed, under WP:3RR#Enforcement, I see "Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation." (my emphasis). See also WP:EW#Enforcement, where protection is listed as a solution to edit wars. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The three-revert rule: a brief thought

G'day, Str. I'd like to share with you a brief thought on the 3-revert rule, further to a request to do so at the administrator's noticeboard. Before I do so, I'd like to note that I do so with no reference to current circumstances, and without the intent to imply future changes to contributions and editing habits.

The three revert rule, at risk of going into lecture mode, is not a hard and fast rule: if it was, we'd end up pretty bureaucratic, and most likely not examine the circumstances behind a dispute, but rather slap a block on every user that reverted $\geq$3 times within 24 hours—an approach that doesn't serve prevent future disruption, but rather acts in a penal fashion.

That is why it is often the case that 3RR violations and reports are not always met with an automatic block, and it is important to respect that, for the reason I have already outlined. Perhaps, in the future, you could respect that? It really would help the project as a whole, and I assure you: it will help any disputes you are involved in calm down a lot quicker.

Anthøny 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

This comment is substantially identical to one I left for Benji:

I strongly encourage you, Str1977, to disengage from conversation with Benjiboi. It has become clear to me that the best thing all parties can do is to walk away. If there's something so critical that it can't be ignored, perhaps using a neutral mediator to point it out would be a good idea. I have a terrible feeling that this encounter could deteriorate into something less than wonderful. It seems the two of you have a way of pushing each other's buttons - in all fairness, I believe it's totally unintentional on both parts - and it seems best to keep some space between you. - Philippe | Talk 01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Qurayza

Hi Str,

I am sure you have arguments against Bless sins's version. I was trying to find a middle ground between the two; but we can do a better job once we hear everybody's voice. Hopefully we will discuss them on the mediation page one by one soon. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mary (mother of Jesus)

Thank you for correcting errors in this article which I had missed when revising Mike's contributions.--C.Logan (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Str, thank you for your kind words. Please know that to me our disagreements have long been forgotten. What I know is that you believe deeply in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and you know the joy of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. In so many ways I know that I can trust you. It is my belief that these types of disagreements melt away into the river of yesterday and what remains is the love of our Savior and Master, which binds all of His disciples together into one people. I have missed being able to work with you, but rest assured you are held in high esteem. God bless you. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Priory-of-Sion.com

It was blacklisted after a determination that being self-published, it was not a reliable source and was being spammed across multiple related articles by the site owner, who has now been banned from Wikipedia. See WP:AN/I#Systematic deletion of my contributions to Wikipedia, WP:AN/I#Deleting Wikipedia Account and WP:AN/I#Indef'd User:Wfgh66. 79.103.136.168 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Str. I have just had two rather long and wearing phone conversations with Paul Smith of Priory-of-Sion.com. He phoned me out of the blue (my "true identity" is not difficult to find). He seems to be disturbed by the fact that his website has been deemed to be an unreliable source. Information related to it seems to be being deleted by most anonymous editors, which certainly does seem odd. Mr Smith is not the easiest person to deal with, but his site is certainly a major siurce of legitimate material, and it seems worrying that it has been blacklisted while far more dubious stuff published by conspiracy theorists is accepted (often just because it's self-published in print rather than online). I think it might be appropriate to intervene to try to readmit the site. Paul B (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi

Dear Stifle,

since you were the admin that once talked to Benjiboi, I am writing to you. Have a look at this edit summary. Benji repeatedly has refused to justify his action on the talk page claiming that he was "encouraged not engage me". Still, IMHO he has the obligation to participate in discussions on talk page and not just simply revert.

Can you clarify this matter to him? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't want to talk to you, I'm not going to force him to. If he breaks 3RR or edit wars, report him. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, so far he hasn't. What I meant is clarify to him that he cannot refuse discussion under the pretext of being told not to engage me. Sure, he is free not to talk to me but then he shouldn't revert like this. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He can refuse to discuss with you for no reason, so to say that some particular reason isn't valid would be spurious. Stifle (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)