I am busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. For more urgent matters, please send me an e-mail.

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Notes:

• The link to the POV-section template is {{POV-section}}.
• {{subst:test3}} is preferred.
• Errors that need correction should be treated like <strike>this</strike> or <s>this</s>.

Talk Page Archives

FK A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

• User_talk:Str1977/sandbox
• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Banu_Qurayza

I have nothing to add to this particular dispute, but, intrigued by your comments, I went to see what other contributions you have made to the wikipedia; and I must say that I admire your catholicity (with a small "c") of interests. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the usual whitewashing from the usual sources; I'd prefer not to get involved, though, as this kind of shameless Historical revisionism (negationism) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ich habe den nicht existenten de:Johannes XX. wieder der de:Kategorie:Fiktive Person zugeordnet - ich denke, da ist er am besten eingeordnet, auch wenn er einem Irtum entsprungen ist. Ähnlich ist ja auch der de:Priesterkönig Johannes dort einsortiert. Gruß, --Gunter.krebs 09:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:GDK)

Bist Du am Thema interessiert? Siehe meine Nachfrage bei Martin S (Emes):

• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Emes#Weihe

--Pjacobi (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello old friend. I hope all is well with you my resident Wiki-expert on Catholic history. :) I am wondering if you happen to be in touch with Musical Linguist, still? She seems to have left WP, and her e-mail is not enabled. The reason I ask is because she might be the one person who has information vital to an arbcom case against me, stemming back from my old socket-puppets, as you are quite familiar with (sorry about that; it was most shameful of me). True to my word, though, I've long given up such behaviors. Yet it still haunts me, now in a politically charged case of mistaken identity; there, my old, long-dead but confirmed puppets are now brought back to life to end my own wiki-life here. I don't blame anyone, as I think they are correct to be quite suspicious, and I'm willing to take whatever measures to accommodate these legitimate concerns. As this formal case opens those problems of 2 years ago for re-examination, I face probable banning unless I can find someone in the know from those two years ago to assist today. Musical Linguist, being a skilled linguist, had some "secret linguistic" evidence that led her to correctly ID my past socks, and it's exactly the same evidence that may save me this time around. In short she has the truth that can set me free because unlike last time, now I am innocent. I feel like the boy who cried wolf, so I come here with great humility to say the least. So if there is any way to contact her, and if she would be so kind to come out of retirement to help save a truly innocent person, I'd be doubly indebted. Simply doing a quick check for her secret markers against the new suspected accounts could vindicate me, and she could say that there was an informal agreed solution with the community involvement to forgive my past transgressions.See here for what happened and my proposal:[1] And here for the evidence:[2] Thank you Str1977 in advance for whatever help you can give, and best wishes always. Until then I shall keep my faith in the process.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Str1977. I was wondering if you had any luck/response from MusicalLinguist? I know you've been busy dealing with some problematic issues of your own so I'm sorry to bother you again. Thank you in advance.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move a high-profile article like Woodrow Wilson without discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, moving the page will be controversial. It conflicts with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." That means Woodrow Wilson and not Thomas Woodrow Wilson; Grover Cleveland and not Stephen Grover Cleveland; Al Gore and not Albert Gore, Jr.; and see the many other examples on the policy page I cited to you. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is Woodrow Wilson simply "Wilson". Many people, like Wilson, use their middle name as their preferred forename. We are simply acknowledging how people were/are most commonly referred to. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mind hasn't changed. Let me know if you find anyone else at Talk:Woodrow Wilson who agrees with you. Otherwise, don't move the page. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. For one thing, *I* disagree. So did User:JayJasper, who reverted your first move. For another, I cited a Wikipedia policy, and you've only argued your own opinion in response. If there are no other opinions, that means there's no consensus, and you do *not* move the page. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though its been said on the talk page, I wanted to make sure that you understood that continuing to attack other editors and behave in an incivil manner will lead to additional blocks. I know that you feel very strongly about the subject, but there must be a way to discuss your concerns without being rude. If you are so sincerely frustrated working on the article that you don't feel you can discuss it without making personal comments about other editors, then I would suggest that you might want to consider Arbitration, the last step in the dispute resolution process. Shell ^babelfish 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to single you out for any purpose; I have also warned other editors involved when appropriate, but that has been for edit warring since at this time, the other editors appear to be remaining civil. Sometimes in heated discussions, it helps to use "I" statments (I feel, I think, I believe) rather than "You" statments (you did, you are..) -- this keeps things from becoming personal and allows you to express your opinions without additional baggage.

Since you say that you're not attacking others, but others are disagreeing, its possible that you don't realize how your comments are affecting the discussion. Comments like "obviously bad faith", "extreme POV pushing", "[he's] just being difficult" and "your calculations are nonsensical" come across very badly and only help make the discussion more difficult. Clearly, you're frustrated with the discussion which seems to have gone on for a very long time, but the way to deal with it is to ask for outside help and get other editors involved, not turn to being rude to the other editors in the discussion, however distasteful their personal views may be. Shell ^babelfish 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large difference between saying "your edit removed material from x scholars" and "your edit was in bad faith". One is a statement of fact, the other an opinion. I understand that you may believe someone's edit was not in good faith, but regardless, that is still just an opinion and can be seen as an attack on another person's character.

I will definitely see what I can do to make sure that your questions and points are getting answered. If editors are not being completely honest or omitting things in the discussion, that should become clear fairly quickly. Shell ^babelfish 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You complained earlier that I should be warning other editors for edit warring - it looks rather silly then, when you continue edit warring yourself. Please stop. Shell ^babelfish 07:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think Andrae should be removed.

I will insert the Watt passages (170-175) here and then remove them (they will be present in the history or an old version) as extracting such an amount may be a copyvio. ITAQALLAH 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be viewable here. ITAQALLAH 16:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Str1977. I'm sorry for not being able to get back on you lately; I've been very busy in Real Life and in the German Wikipedia. Since it seems like you've solved the problem in question I don't think I need to give another answer - if that's OK with you.--Devotus (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content you removed,[3] was sourced to Watt. Yes Khadduri and Hashmi et al. agree with it, like you said, but even Watt says the Qurayza agreed with this: "The Jews agreed with the suggestion..." I suggest you self-revert as Shell has asked both of us to not revert. If you don't then I'm afraid I can't restrain myself also from not reverting.Bless sins (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if logged here.

Shell ^babelfish 01:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]