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]

Hey, thanks for your cleanup and expansion of this article. I didn't read it thoroughly, but from what I read, you made some real improvements, though unfortunately, it's still almost entirely unreferenced. In the future, would you mind including edit summaries? Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your participation, but some of your edition[3] is against what has proposed by Eurocopter here.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's. I think we should take Spiegel at his word in light of the quotations with Kennedy's car and the gas chambers mentioned above. Holocaust Denial cannot get much clearer than that. Anyway, with your questions on Cornwell you got me into this one -:) Are you familiar with MM Scheinmann? I am orking on an article about his Vatican and World War Two, which seems to be the earliest (1953) accusation of Papal silence, cooperation with the Nazis, etc, ever written from whom everybody including Hochhuth seem to have copied their arguments. Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the disambiguation at the top of the Roman Catholic Mariology page is needed because of historical reasons. Those pagese were subject to edits by anti-Roman Catholic users (some with questionable stabiliy issues) and a small war broke out a few months ago. The disambig to the non-Roman page was placed by another user who was more reasonable and calmed the issue down, so it should be kept there. Please leave it as such for historical reasons. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just thought you might be interested in recent developments on Talk:The_Jew_of_Linz, a page to which you contributed.--Number17 (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

The Greek Orthodox Church, the prime Church in Eastern Orthodoxy, defines it as "temporary judgment", which is exactly the same as the Particular judgment notion - the word temporary emphasizing the Catholic and other Protestant belief that the final judgment is the real deal.

Here is a greater clarification: http://www.orthodox.net/articles/about-prayer-for-the-dead.html

However, it must be noted that Orthodox and Catholic views on Particular judgment differ from some Protestant views, in that according to the above link, the former two believe in a final judgment afterwards, whilst the latter believe that particular judgment afterward is eternal and there is no further judgment. We must clarify this difference in the article.

Tourskin (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol sorry about the first one. Wikipedia uses it as a reference for the Orthodox article about temporary judgment, despite its lack of info. Tourskin (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am on it. I have rolled back those edits. He must learn to edit within the community and wait for the discussion to be concluded. Whilst in the modern world aggressiveness may seem like a fine quality for proselytizing, it is not on wikipedia. Tourskin (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Str, thank you for your comment on the Jesus discussion page. I value your input and edits. I strive to maintain a neutral position in my editing while being observant of the orthodox, majority position. His Peace be yours. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your improvements to the article, however, your criticism "copy and paste from another website and then leave" is unwarranted. First, I haven't left Wikipedia. Second, if you'll peruse the history, you will find that I excised seriously wrong misinformation about B. Essentially, I restored the article back to the very first entry made 2 March 2005, but I also added a reference to B. being listed as a Jewish student in Göttingen and a second link to the Jewish Encyclopedia about his conversion to Christianity.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC) ADDENDUM: The two edits made by 84.177.62.220 on 18 July 2008 were made by me.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I did ask a question on a user's talk page asking why the "wikify" notice, given that I had already added more than a dozen internal as well as some external links. Unfortunately I misread the article's "history" page: in fact, the "wikify" notice had been put in by a robot, and I (mistakenly, as I now realize) thought it useless to approach a robot with questions. I will try to do better in the future about hewing to Wikipedia formating conventions.

Again, I note that I added significant sourced information that had not been in there before, thus improving the quality of the content in addition to excising mistakes.

I'm still fairly new to the Wikipedia, so please be patient with me.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shocks me how low some people can go, but User:Systematizer has broken my observed record by spitting on my introduction. If you want to hurt your eyes, please indulge yourself: User talk:Systematizer. Otherwise, thank you for defending me. Tourskin (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edits of Act of Seclusion. I have no real problem with them, but I'd like to make a few remarks. You eliminated a reference to Perpetual Edict (1667) (which was originally added as a reference to Eternal Edict, which covers the same subject and is therefore superfluous). I think this reference is pertinent, as it covers a "later chapter" in the saga of the attempts to block Wiliam of Orange from the Stadtholdership. I therefore think it should be put back. I do not want to do it myself, as I understand from the history of the article that there have been recent vandal attacks? A less important point is that you seem to insist on the American convention of making the first part of De Witt's name undercase. In Dutch this should be uppercase. As it is a Dutch name, I suggest we follow the Dutch convention.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reaction on my page. You are right, I had overlooked the fact that you integrated the reference. Sorry. I also noticed that you had omitted a word. I hope I substituted the word you intended in my edit. Conventions are strange things. "Johan de Witt" is spelled with an undercase "d", but if you leave out the first name it should be "De Witt" (two words, both with capitals). This is even the case in American English. Incidentally, I did not mess further with the article, although I originally wrote it. If you want an undercase "d" who am I to contradict you? I do hope that you'll proof read the article a bit. I don't think "seldomly" is an English word, for instance.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pope has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Str1977, I read your comments in response to my suggestions on the Christianity article. I agree that the RCC section that I have inserted can be trimmed and I am not opposed to doing so. The denominations section of the article should tell reader about all denominations giving them information that is the same for all the denominations. If RCC section tells us some piece of info about the RCC, then we should have the same type of info about the Eastern Orthodox or other denominations, size is just one example but maybe reader could be helped to know other pieces of info too. The RCC section I inserted has all different types of information we can pick and choose from to enhance the information in the other denominations - if editors want to do so. If editors only want to name the denominations and provide a wikilink with no further info, that is also an option but I think it would not really help make the article FA. Some overview of the denominations would be helpful to reader and make the article more interesting. NancyHeise ^talk 17:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]