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

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/Roman Catholic Church. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm seeking help with the archive box for Talk:Christianity. It doesn't want to display the more recent archives in the talk page itself. I edited Talk:Christianity/archivebox and it now is displaying correctly there. Can you fix this so I can see what I did wrong? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Str, I have made a motion to close the mediation for reasons described here [1]. Please come and post either your agreement or disagreement at the same link. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Str1977. Am slightly concerned regarding the fact that you are striking out the well-established term Francoist and sticking in the term Francist in its place. I'd appreciate some sort of rationale for this, either here or on one of the discussion pages at the articles you are modifying because neither my Oxford dictionary nor my Webster mention it as a possibility.

My readings on the Spanish Civil War have been and are mainly in Spanish, so I'm not familiar with possibly more contemporary texts in English, but what little I have read, including newspaper articles from the war correspondents at the various fronts and later works invariably use Francoist. Thank you.--Technopat (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Str, we are voting at mediation on the name of the Church here [2]. Are you OK with changing the article name to Catholic Church and having a lead sentence that states "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church"? Please cast your vote so we can either find consensus or not for this suggestion. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Str, you have made that claim several times before and I guess I must be ignorant. I have always heard Catholic used in the context of being a member of the Catholic Church. When I hear an Anglican talk about being catholic, I understand their claim as being different; i.e. not a member of the Catholic Church, but a member of what they view as the same apostolic origin. When I use the term catholic church, and as I have heard others use it, it refers to those groups of churches that claim a part of catholicism, but still maintaining a degree of separateness from the Roman Catholic Church. What is it that I am missing? --^StormRider 09:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fallacy is that merely using minor characters changes the meaning of the term. It does not (even though it is a popular past time in the English speaking word, from T/truth to T/tradition onwards. IMHO this is all wrongheaded as the word is always the same and the difference is made by context, not by capitalisation). It is the same term though it can be used in different contextes and of course has several layers of meaning:

Primarily, Catholic Church means the one church founded by Christ and the Apostles and mentioned in the Creed.

It is also used as a name for the whole of the church by the (R)CC and the Eastern Orthodox Churches which say that they are that Catholic Church or that the Catholic Church subsist in them.

It is also used by those Protestants reciting the Nicene Creed (especially Lutherans outside of Germany) in the first sense.

Anglicans are a special case if they adhere to the Three Branches theory.

And of course there are several break-aways from the (R)CC which however never to my knowledge call themselves "the Catholic Church".

The term does never denote a claim to be "a part of Catholicism".

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you to say that your first issue is more of how some English speakers use the written language to convey meaning. English is my first language and I freely admit that English has many layers of nuance to convey meaning. I think English speakers will understand my post clearly on the Catholic Church mediation; there is a world of difference when one reads Catholic versus when one reads catholic. I realize that you see it as nonsense, but in English that capital letter or lack of it is significant; it is just part of the written language.

I have seen some Protestant writers claim to be catholic, but are clear they are not Catholic. In this context they claim origin in the apostolic authority and membership in the body of Christ, but with no allegiance to the pope.

Other than that I think we both share a similar understanding. I do fear we will have many that will fight against the title, Catholic Church, but as I have stated, I do think self-description is of primary importance. Thank you for your kind response. Peace. --^StormRider 10:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "world of difference" only works when practically all words are in lower key. But that's not the only possibility in English. And I reiterate, it is a corruption of thinking.

"I have seen some Protestant writers claim to be catholic" - but that's not the same as "claiming to be part of Catholicism". They simply use the word as in meaning #1 and claim a link.

Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 11:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the conversation. I will probably continue to use these distinctions, but I think I grasp some of your intent when you say it is nonsensical when I use it. --^StormRider 18:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Queenie/Archive_2#November 2008

Was floating through my archives and noticed this. It seemed that it ended pretty coldly, and I'd just like to offer my apologies once again. Hopefully, you won't think of me badly. :) Queenie 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to remove substantial, sourced information from featured articles, please discuss it on the talk pages first. Serendi^podous 08:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, while Borussification may not be appropriate for Germany prior to 1867, the German Imperial government was undoubtably more or less identical to the Prussian government, and the Prussian Foreign Minister was the closest equivalent to a German foreign minister, in the political role with which we associate such offices today. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.I have read on your comments for french monarchs that you support Henry VI of England was once a french monarch so I would appriciate it if You could help me officialy establish Henry VI in the list and I am also outnumberd 3:1 in my arguement to get him in the list of french monarchs.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]