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

• ArchiveFK Str1977 19:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Archive1 Str1977 19:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, glad to see your name appearing again on some of the pages on my watchlist. I had been wondering recently where you were, as the Christianity article has recently got very biased: persecution by Christians at one stage became much longer than persecution against Christians, and the two were balanced against each other as if modern examples of nasty remarks made by ministers could compete with examples of martyrs having their limbs chopped off. (I know there's the inquisition, etc. but the article was expanded to include every conceivable example of harrassment, discrimination, intolerant remarks, and vigilante attacks, as if they were the equivalent of state-ordered imprisonment, torture, and execution.)

Just wondering about your recent change to Pope Benedict XVI. I'm not sure how many popes have visited synagogues, but if it's just two (St Peter and Pope Benedict), then Pope Benedict is the first (not the second) after St Peter (or perhaps since St Peter) to visit one. Was there another pope who visited a synagogue?

Do stay around. We need you here, and I'm sometimes too busy to do much editing! Regards Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ann, thanks for your post.

I'm glad that you missed me. Well, where have I been? I visited a certain city in the Rhineland - me and one million other people including Benedict XVI.

As for the Synagoge visits: it was always said that JPII was the first pope to visit a synagoge since St. Peter. Which would make Benedict the third after Peter and JP. I don't know if the claim that JP's visit was the first is actually (verifiably) true but it his visit certainly has been the first in a very long time. If the wording I posted seems ambigious to you (since I'm only a German, so non-native speaker), please correct it accordingly.

Don't worry I will stay though I also am quite busy right now. But I will stay.

Str1977 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is terribly written and edited. It's barely comprehensible as English as well. A candidate for merge into the main article on Pope Benedict, I'm afraid. I'd support a Vote for Deletion as redundant and it's transparent that the some of the editors are merely seeking to avoid the scrutiny of the editors of the main PB16 page. patsw 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977, please see my edit Talk:Pope Benedict XVI about the absurdity of claiming St Peter ever made an official visit to a synagogue in his capacity as Pope. He did not. He would have visited synagogues privately, but never as pope for the simple reason that the office of Pope was unknown in his times. The concept of papacy is a more recent creation, that we have restrospectively extended back to include Peter. In other words, even Peter himself did not know he was the pope, and certainly nobody else knew either, so it is ridiculous to say he made an official visit to a synagogue or did anything else AT ALL in his official capacity as pope. In any event, we have specific dates and places for JP2 and Benedict 16, but there is NO EVIDENCE for Peter. Please revert your recent edit. JackofOz 07:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, there is a problem with the word "official", but that Peter visited synagogues is a fact, even if we don't have the dates (as we don't have dates for a lot of things). But read Acts and you will find some occasions. Furthermore your statement on my talk page, that "the office of Pope was unknown in his times", that the "concept of papacy is a more recent creation" and that "Peter himself did not know he was the pope, and certainly nobody else knew either" is just plainly POV (notwithstanding development in form and name of that position).

However, I want to suggest a compromise: what about saying B16 was the second pope (after JP2) to visit a synagogue since St. Peter (this is how it is usually reported). Str1977 07:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm familiar with deletes. It's up for a speedy deletion which mean that when an admin sees it, they'll hopefully agree it should be deleted and do so. If an admin or another user thinks that it's not elligible for speedy deletion, they may remove the message, in which case it can be removed by a vote for deletion WP:VFD

Cheers, Cdyson37 13:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message, and sorry for ignoring it. I was finishing a University project, and then had to fill in some important forms that had a deadline. Then, a big war broke out at Terri Schiavo, which is now locked! I had a look at the persecution section, and I agreed with your edits. But then, I normally do – my very favourite edit (with edit summary) since I joined Wikipedia is this one!

A recent problem with the Christianity article has been the eagerness of some to fill it up with examples of Christians making bigoted remarks or discriminating against atheists in employment offers, and to use these examples to balance the tortures endured by martyrs in the Roman persecutions. However, the article changes so fast that I can hardly keep up with it! I click on the button to compare different versions with each other, and since whole paragraphs have been either rewritten or moved – and I'm not necessarily referring to your edits – it becomes more difficult to see everything that has "slipped in", especially when I'm short of time. (And patsw wants me to have a look at the Pius XII talk page as well, which I'd like to do.)

Thanks for your reply to my last query. I had forgotten (stupidly) about Pope John Paul's visit to a synagogue!

Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Str1977. I hope I'm not violating Wikipedia policy by wasting server space on something not related to how to improve an article. I'm wondering about the politeness/rudeness of calling out "Herr Ober" to a waiter. It's typically found in textbooks for people learning German – in fact, the quotation is from Lesson One of Assimil: German with Ease, which my mother is doing in preparation for a holiday in Munich next Easter. I don't doubt that "Herr Ober!" is a proper translation of "Waiter", and it's quite likely that people learning English might have textbooks that have "Waiter!" in them. However, in practice, I think it would be extremely rare to call out "Waiter". It would seem quite rude and peremptory. If I wanted to attract a waiter's attention, I'd probably call, "Excuse me, could I have some more coffee, please?" So, in a sense, "Excuse me" might be a better translation for "Herr Ober", even though it wouldn't be what you'd find in the dictionary! Also, I'd never say, "That was a lovely meal, waiter." I'd simply say, "That was a lovely meal". Is it rude in German to call out "Herr Ober", when trying to attract a waiter's attention?

By the way, since we keep running into each other in the pages we edit, your interests are as obvious to me as mine must be to you! But have you ever considered having a look at the German article? I think the "writing system" section needs to be updated to reflect recent changes, but I wouldn't feel confident enough to mess around with it. I did German at school, and after school I did a bit of Assimil and Linguaphone and other methods, which were all produced in the early 1990s or before. If I'm not mistaken, modern methods don't use the ß, and that's not clear in the article. (But maybe I am mistaken.) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Str1977, was ist der Grund für Deinen Revert auf de:Simon Petrus? Du weißt sicher, dass unbegründete Vollreverts bei Wikipedia unzulässig sind. Es geht hier um Verständigung und Zusammenarbeit. Ich habe sorgfältig recherchiert und die Überarbeitung detailliert begründet auf der Disku: Das solltest Du ebenso tun. Bhucks Anfrage hast Du auch nicht beantwortet. Wie soll so Vertrauen entstehen? Jesusfreund 16:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I lumped you and the anonymous user together earlier, I couldn't figure out whether the comments were from someone else or from you not logged in. I apologize for the confusion. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the Historical persecution by Christians article, and the dispute about the "Modern" section. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to read this about the CHP from their website:

"The CHP is Canada's only pro-Life federal political party, and the only federal party that endorses the Judeo-Christian principles enshrined in the Canadian Constitution:

'Canada was founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God' - capital 'G': the God of the Bible -'and the rule of law.'"

So I don't think that that the phrase in question in the CHP article is problematic. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm awfully busy preparing for exams, but I'm not happy with recent changes to Ordination of women. If you get a chance, could you take a look at it? I promise to join in later in the week. Regards. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. I'm trying to look up information on this woman. It's incorrectly spelled in the article; her real name is Ludmila Javorova, and, as you can see, there's a Wikipedia article on her, which says, incredibly, that her ordination was officially accepted by the Vatican in 1995! (That would have been a year after the issue of Ordinatio sacerdotalis.)

Obviously, I want to be as accurate as possible. Bishop Davidek died in 1988, and it was after his death that Javorova came forward. I remember reading around the time that the news originally broke that someone from the Vatican had said something to the effect of "if these ordinations really happened, they are of course invalid". I think I may have been incorrect in my recent edit to put that five or six women "claimed" to have been ordained. I know Wikipedia policy isn't very keen on the word "claimed" or "allegedly", though sometimes it's hard to find a better word. However, my research tonight leads me to feel that "it is claimed that five or six women were ordained" would be more accurate, though I accept that Wikipedia doesn't like "it is claimed", either. What I really mean is that Javorova is the only one to have come forward; the other women, if indeed they exist, have remained anonymous.

I'm trying to find a way to change the article so that it doesn't state as a fact that these "ordinations" really happened. Alhough I recognize that it's possible that some liberal bishop would go against constant Church teaching, I still feel that her coming forward after his death means that it's unverified, unless, of course, there are other records – but they haven't been mentioned in the article.

I'll see if I can find any more information.

Thanks again. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Ann's page: I clarified the issue on the ordination of women page [1] [2] [3] by adding quotes that claim both papel opposition and papel support for the issue -plue I cited my sources. Cheers.--GordonWatts 06:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally, I'm not sure we should have any discussion of the post 586 BC Judaea in an article on the Kingdom of Judah. We should note that it was annexed by the Babylonians and that the Persians allowed the exiles to return, but no more than that. The rest should probably be in Judaea. If we are to have this section, it should certainly only refer to Judaea. john k 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must not be a very good communicator. You have indicated that you could not follow my logic or trail; I will try and do better.

Before stating a group is non-Christian, please define Christian in the article. In doing so, we might illiminate a good deal of confusion that would be engendered by the statement, "Mormons are not Christian". When someone who is not a Christian reads the statement, it is too easy to assume that Mormons do not worship Christ, which is false. I think you will find that the world views Mormons as Christian (it is a little hard not to when the name of the chruch is {{The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of latter-day Saints]]), it is only other Christian churches that feel compelled to draw a distinction and redefine the term Christian so as to exclude Mormons.

I think it would also be helpful to document by referencing/linking to at least some of those chruches who have stated that Mormons are not Christians. I know ministers who state it, but only a few churches that go so far as to proclaim it.

When you define Christian, as you use the term, it is then easy to understand that what you mean is Mormons are not part of historical or traditional Christianity. That is completely appropriate because Mormons claim that all the churches were/are in a state of apostasy. Their creeds are the doctrines of men and have nothing to do with God or His teachings.

A compromise would be If you use "Mormons are not viewed as part of traditional Christianity". However, an alternative would be for you to use the same statement you desire and I would then put in a definition and why Mormons agree with the statement based upon the definition. Storm Rider 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my details on crucifixion,{Date} hanging, burning at the stake and the shedding of blood and make things so general? Please reply in the discussion page for Constantine the Great. Gave up. User:68.41.141.167 00:25, 25 October 2005

Checkout capital punishment in the Catholic Encyclopedia for burning at the stake. The way I understood it, it was not new in the early Middle Ages. The public execution of a criminal, was of course, to exhibit to the populace there was law and order.(A fun day of educational entertainment with the family.) The ancient Romans were very creative when it came to the executions of criminals. They had many methods. Check out executions in the arena, strangling seems to have been quite popular, etc. I would expect hanging was just one of more humane ones. Thanks a lot for the kind reply. Gave Up 25 Oc5 05

I edited the article according to what I had entered on the talk page. patsw 01:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "theological reasons" in OOW. If Jesus had included women in the 12, the history of Christianity would have been different, in fact, the history of civilization itself would have been different. There would have been many women bishops, priests, and deacons through the centuries. But Jesus didn't include women in the 12 and that is the central theological reason. patsw 01:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. I quite agree that bit was problematic. I looked up "symbol" at Merriam-Webster and got (as Meaning Number 2) something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible <the lion is a symbol of courage>.

I saw the problem the day before, when I was trying to get rid of the excessive use of the word "Bread", but it looked too complicated to fix immediately. I'm not even particularly delighted with my reworking of it. You might like to take another look. I think there is a sense where it's not heretical to use the word "symbol" – even though one drop from the Chalice, or one fragment of the Host would contain the whole Christ, yet, the use of bread is a better representation of the body than the use of wine would be, and the use of wine is a better representation of the blood than the use of bread would be. So it would be wrong to say, for example, "the bread is a symbol of his Body". But it would be okay to say that the choice of bread is a better symbol than the choice of some other food would have been. (And they say that receiving under both kinds is a "fuller sign", even though they don't say it's a fuller reception of Christ.) It's complicated. But it becomes very problematic when "symbolize" is used to suggest that the Host only represents Christ's body; and the Merriam-Webster definition would seem to support that interpretation. Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 09:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church teaches that in this sacrament the bread is no longer bread in substance, but retains the appearance of bread. It is not symbolically the Body of Christ, but is in reality the Body of Christ patsw 13:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "form" v. "appearance". The Latin "forma" is not a cognate for the English "form". The sacrament of Holy Eucharist as all sacraments do, has a matter and form.

The matter of the Holy Eucharist is the bread and wine.

The form of the Holy Eucharist are the words of consecration spoken by the priest or bishop in Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. [4]

So to speak of the form of bread is unnecessarily ambiguous and the word "appearance" is word typically used in explanatory texts on the sacrament, and in the context of Terri Schiavo more accurate. In Catholic terminology a "form" is more like a "spoken formula". patsw 14:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In some of the recent comments in Talk:Terri Schiavo you can now see the ambiguity that I wrote of above. "Form" is taken by Marskell, etal. to be identical to reality, substance, etc. and they strongly believe that "form" and "appearance" have a signficantly different meaning. They find "appearance" to be unacceptable. In Catholic doctrine only the appearances remain, the substance (i.e. the reality, the physical "form", etc.) is no longer bread but the Body of Christ. patsw 19:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Str1977! I was very glad of your appearance at Terri Schiavo. On a completely unrelated matter, I recently started an article on ergative verbs. Well, to be more accurate, I didn't start it: there had been an article there suggesting inaccurately that these verbs were the same as unaccusative verbs (which I know nothing about, but the definition of them didn't match the meaning of ergative verbs); and then someone just created a "redirect". So I wrote a new article and undid the redirect. Someone then suggested on the talk page that examples from other languages would be nice, as it looks at the moment as if these verbs are a special feature of English. I have asked a Dutch Wikipedian to have a look at the article, and, if appropriate, to add one or two examples in Dutch. If you have time, I'd like to make the same request of you, for German, if these verbs exist in German. (I'm sure they do, since English is so close to German.) No need to feel embarrassed if you've never heard of "ergative verbs". I hadn't heard of them myself until earlier this year, when I was doing a university course in linguistics! In any case, if I've written the article well(!), it should make it very clear what they are. If you don't have time, that's fine. Sometimes some of the editing on Wikipedia is urgent, to correct major inaccuracies, whereas this is just a question of adding something that would be helpful, but not necessary.

By the way, I can't understand why you have en-3 on your Babel template instead of en-4. Obviously, I don't know what your accent is like, but that's irrelevant on Wikipedia. From the point of view of your contributions here (for example, phrases like "in the end it boils down to Terri's choice") your English is definitely native-like. I can't find anything that makes me think, "oh, he's foreign." Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Str1977, vielen Dank erstmal für Deine Nachricht!

Was ich mit meinem Beitrag sagen wollte war, daß die die Spekulationen um Elser - zwei davon finden sich auch im Artikel wieder: britischer Mordauftrag und Niemöllers Behauptung, Elser sei SS-Scharführer gewesen, um mit einem bewußten Fehlschlag der Öffentlichkeit Hitlers "Gottgesandtheit" zu demonstrieren - stärker kommentiert werden sollten.

Zwar sind sie im Artikel als Gerüchte gekennzeichnet, doch wäre hier meines Erachtens eine klares Wort angebracht, daß sie schlicht und ergreifend Quatsch sind - ohne die Integrität Niemöller sonst in Frage zu stellen.

Wer noch nie was von Georg Elser gehört hat, und das ist im englisch-sprachigen Wikipedia wahrscheinlich eher der Fall, für den scheinen die im Artikel aufgeworfenen Gerüchte vielleicht durchaus eine anerkannte Diskussionsgrundlage zu sein.

Wir wissen beide, daß dem nicht so ist. Ich meine: Eine direkt ablehnende Kommentierung dieser Spekulationen wäre auch keine subjektive Sicht der Verfasser mehr, sondern entspräche heute den historische Tatsachen. Dies würde dem Andenken an diesen großartigen Widerstandskämpfer auch nicht schaden.

Zuletzt will ich in diesem Zusammenhang auf die hervorragende Biographie "Den Hitler jag ich in die Luft" von Hellmut G. Haasis, Rowohlt Berlin 1999, verweisen. Insbesondere Kapitel 20: "Der lange Weg zur Anerkennung".

Tschüß und bis dann, (Strafrechtler) Felix R.

Hi, Str1977, if you have time, could you have a look at the first sentence in Host desecration? The article seems to imply that the whole concept is an anti-semitic one, but surely the issue is much broader than that? Thanks. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Many thanks for your help at host desecration. I can tell you put a lot of work into it. I promise I'll have a look at those other articles as soon as I get a chance – maybe tonight. Vielen Dank! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked them over and you are correct. The language preferred by the other editor implies that Thiering's theories will (inevitably) be accepted someday, which is guesswork at worst, wishful thinking at best. Your sentences were far more accurate and NPOV. Hope I have helped without fueling the fires of discontent. KHM03 12:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to formally request mediation as this is not productive. If you agree we can go ahead with the process.

Sincerly, Dylanstephens 18:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for my overly harsh tone at Talk:Reichskonkordat. After some wiki-stalking I'm of the opinion that you are valueable contributor here. Not that this would outrule the possiblity of some content disputes between us. --Pjacobi 22:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pjacobi, for your message. I have no hard feelings. I know I'm quite hypersensitive regarding some topics, after what has transpired between April and October. Thanks for your appreciation. Of course, there is nothing bad in respectfully disagreeing on things. Cheers, Str1977 22:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a conservative party, what is it? Adam 13:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adam, the CDU (or the CSU) is not a strictly conservative party. After 1945, both parties (actually at first many local parties who then united in the different states and finally on the federal level with only the Bavarian part reaming distinct) were founded as a union (hence the name) of citizens from three different political movements: Political Catholicism (until 1933 organized in the Centre Party and the Bavarian People's Party), Conservatives and Liberals, all united under the "Christian view on man". The conservative element was later strengthened by the influx of smaller (conserative) parties, but the CDU remains a kind of a mixture. "Conservative" however is used by political opponents as a beating stick in campaigns. Hope that satisfies you, even if I can not easily give a alternative wording. Even "liberal-conservative" is not exact, but it's certainly better than just "conservative". Str1977 14:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I call for editor Str1977's censure and removal from WP I'm regret to have to do this Str1977 , but as I openly say that you are an enemy to the truth , I therefore owe it to you to express the same to you head-on . I ask user:Pjacobi for oversight and User:Fred Bauder and user:Sam Spade to list you (with me or otherwise) upon the requisite pages for trial before ejection . See Sam Spade discussion for full request to them . I personally resent your commission of IP stalking me that you posted , and your joining with user:RobertMcClenon in attacking my sanity . His jibes attempt to provoke the very paranoia that he wishes to observe . You are a shameful pair in the service of the Hitler/Pacelli quid pro quo and User:JohnKenny should distance himself as far as he can from your discredited positioning and artificial concealments . As you well know I have only had such anti-historical concealment here on WP to suggest to me the real continuance of the 1932/33 vatican policy of quid pro quo . I am not and do not particularly wish to suggest that the policy was adhered to by Pius XI nor Pacelli /Pius XII beyond say 1935. However your remarkable behaviour suggests to me that indeed there is a great deal more shame in the following years yet to be determined or noted . I noted the Sebastian Haffner thesis concerning the meaning of Hitler , and would therefore indeed suggest that the extent of this quid pro quo of murder does in fact extend into the undertaking of the final solution , whatever the factor of loss at Stalingrad may have contributed . Effectively Str1977 , you represent the historical skeletons in the cupboard . the only question , lies not in your ability , but in society, particularly wikipedia society, around you . Therefore real moral people who are concerned to seek the truth will have to be the judge, here as in the real world . I submit to such concern , with all the WP consequences , and in a firm sense of justification . EffK 23:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De-linking of The Great Scandal Dear St1977 , you justify this exact call I make above by your petulant removal of at least the 6 links to the new article, an article designed as a home for all that is considered by , very often, yourself, as off-topic . Doubtless you classify this as havoc at The Great Scandal , but I suggest to you that you should re-consider this preremptory action which can lead to no good . I further suggest to you , that just as you failed in having the Hitler's Pope article deleted from Wikipedia , by trying un-successfully to so do with this other article now, you shall terminally harm what you believe to be your cause .

EffK 16:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very civil tone , and the promotions,. Were at 5 all at the RfD! I might get a wikibreak yet... what a lot of carry on for so long ..... I rmd c 4 links of mine . And I shall re-phrase my userpage as much as I can .EffK 20:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

16 Nov 2005-can FK/Str agree to follow on? I come here hoping to congratulate you Str , for it seems from that which you remove or reposition that you may agree with me in the gist of things at Rkkdt , Weimar Republic and Centre party and resultingly Pius XI & Xii ? Confusion which has reigned for the year has grieved us greatly , and I am so happy if this now spells acceptance of the contentious issues. A couple need clearing up - the exact dates of the working Committee and the correct title it gave itself then, the number of days it sat , whether 16, 17 to 21 or 22 March , as co-chaired by AH and LudK ..... and /or the situation as to the Committee's existence after Kaas returns to meet the Fuhrer , arriving Berlin 31 March . Whether its the same committee, or as you have for many months insisted, that the latter only dates between 31 Mar and up to Kaas 's departrure for Munich By 8 April 1933 .

The other sole point of confusion we should torture our fingers with , is as to the sourcing thus far absent within Books I have sourced, standard round-ups of the post Nuremburg documents and publications, upon which such as Shirer and Toland based themselves. I think you know I write of the WP stated change in the Reichstag procedure , whatever that is , what stated it, how decreed, and showing its pre-Enabling Act contradiction of Article 2 of the Constitution or certainly as represented in WP , a contradiction with Article 2 of the Enabling Act itself. What day this change was brought about? Who empowered it since the Fire Decree of 28 March does not appear to include such vital Deputy arresting proviso in the Fire Decree's pro-rogation of civil liberties? These are quite clearly expressed and do not include sich arresting power of Deputies, and there is an unclear WP aside concerning exactly that to which I point, undated or specified simply saying other and procedural change .

You appear as of now to accept as sourced and NPOV , not as a conspiracy theory of mine alone , that the subject under scrutiny , Hitler's ascent to power, can have the information noticed by the Mowrer /Manhattan/ contemporary writers and then later Cornwell/Kershaw as to various levels of possible/probable/proven vatican leverage and interests in the out-come in Spring 1933.

I would await any useful proving source that you might locate as to disproving information, and back full inclusion everywhere relevant in WP . Equally I would expect you to hold to your present , seeming, ability to balance the present NPOV of sources without their future exclusion other than by actual sourced disproof ( by whosoever can) . I will skip past problems in doing so and just congratulate you , in allowing that which your edits seem to do as of now. This is a victory for sense and the WP, if we can at last agree or see each other as NPOV . I will have to continue to pressure your reducing edits , as I see that every worth-while reference should allow readers to gain a full picture. I believe of course that all reference to Priests suffering precisely for their goodness must be recorded in respect , but equally that episcopal information be presented as sourceable (one of my recent disabled external links did this) and the information does exist for us to do so . This , the change in the episcopate , under Pacelli foreign policy, has to be faced up to , even if it refers also to internal and vatican hsitorical qualifications. I am shocked at von papen's Nuremburg testomony that still in 1936 a high authority of the Church promoted still sought symbiosis with National Socialism and I cannot ignore that which that trial received as information and provides us source . I am sure therefore that we will need to revisit our struggle , but hope that you will by now not characterise the subject by my personal lack of patience, annoyance at interminable repetition and distrust of your reluctance hitherto . I say again , I do not come from Cornwell to Hitler's Pope but from Mowrer quoting the lost Otto Brok , Centre Party member in Berlin at |May 1932. Of course if the present candidate for deletion were to succeed , then there will be a gaping requirement fot the full story to erupt wherever it possibly relates, which as you know in legal manner ,means everywhere it is relevant including the papacy . Links to a NPOV full article only needs the Great Scandal Renamed , and it could go as Nazi Accession Question .

In simplest I state that there are remaining questions , and nither WP nor any editor nor yourself answer it for my satisfaction . One is the is the second above : Procedure for Dormancy . Anothe is when did the church policy re Hitler begin , and the last is when dod it end . von Papen suggests 1936 , but WP has yet to know . Please rv Ludwig Kaas page to mine 30 August 2005 , or I will bring it up to date , OK Ciau. EffK 23:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat

At the moment let me just note

• that EffK's statement about our agreement are wrong. Some things he has posted I have never disputed, while other things I continue to dispute. To say we have reached an agreement or that I have accepted the gist is untrue, unless he has suddenly withdrawn his theories. Hence I place doubt upon the congratulations.
• that EffK is far from having made no error (I don't know what "political" means here
• that I was not EffK/Famekeeper's sole disputant, though the main one. Other editor, e.g. John Kenney were involved with him as well.
• that I meant no harm in posting "FK Research" - it was basically a reaction to his inquisitiveness about personal details of other editors (Robert McClenon in particular), his own seclusiveness in that matter and his insistence on being a native speaker.

I don't know whether this is the right place to post this. If it isn't, please drop me a line and show where I should place this. Str1977 10:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA and Denialism

You may not be aware that Robert McClenon has posted an RfA with me as a defendant .I am more mystified by your comments here than you could be by mine . Your recent editing of reichskonkordat and Weimar republic did ,enfin, not remove but merely rearrange my assertions . Your continuing assumption of bad faith and error seems to suggest that I was too hopeful in recognising a new NPOV understanding. I fear that the RfA will not stand up any justification in respect of the history .I still see no ability by you to provide any source which proves these events and negotiations did not happen as the world recognises them, and am rather surprised that in their absence you see fit to continue , whether by ad hominem accusation or by supposed intellectual parlance . Mr McClenon , as I have so often said to you , could be ironically , doing the world and the Wikipedia some favour, though not himself or you . It is rather as Jimbo said , for someone to try and leave off with their head held up high . I regret that this is forced to fester , when belief in my good faith would have allowed more rapid clarity in the Articles to appear. I have sacrificed a large amount of time towards repair of the errors, and at best I can say there has been considerable and unnecessary time-wasting . This borders on denialist intellectual dishonesty . And still you are unable to back your assertions of my error . I myself pre-empt any other by here censuring you and McCenon and the other from your grossly inwiki ad hominem against my good faith . Your information or the lack of it is pardonable, but that simply justifies my repeated assertions as to the denialism , and is completely out of touch with present scholarship . You may wish to keep this out of Wikipedia, but it is ad hominem , if flattering, to suggest it is an invention of mine . EffK

EffK, Of course, I stand by the edits I made to the articles in question and I am glad that you are content with them. I am not in the least opposed to a NPOV understanding, if it is possible. I recognize the negotiations as the world recognizes them - it is you who claim something extra and this without enough foundation in real sources. As for your errors, you know that I have pointed them out to you as they occur. Either you choose to forget about that or you still don't understand what your error was. I presume (in good faith) that the latter option applies. This is where the real problem lies. Where did I attack you personally or use the "ad hominem" argument (Do you understand what this argument is?) Using hate-mongers like Avron Manhattan or Jack Chick or editorials from atheistic sites is not "present scholarship". I am prepared to contine the understanding, but don't (again) jump to conclusion about an all-out agreement and don't trumpet around such conclusions. Str1977 12:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that both you and EffK did see the RfAr before I was able to post notice of it. Last week EffK asked to have you banned as an enemy of the truth, and this week he thinks that you and he have finally reached agreement. I didn't see any agreement. Robert McClenon 13:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that EffK, who under a different guise was asked to leave Wikipedia by Jimbo himself, can't be taken too seriously. Take all his accusations as a comedy routine; otherwise, it's just sad. KHM03 13:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Très cher Str1977. Je vois les choses ennuyeuses qui t'arrivent ici, qui te coûtent, sans doute, beaucoup de temps, et qui t'empêchent probablement de pouvoir contribuer ici comme tu aimerais. Es tut mir sehr leid. Si je peux t'aider, n'hésite pas à me le dire!

Let me assure you that none of my messages to Shauri ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) ever implied any criticism of you, either consciously or unconsciously. It's true that I spoke to her about how important it is for Wikipedians to treat each other with respect (and she certainly shows that ability), but what I was really criticizing was the tendency in some Wikipedians to kick someone when he's down, to pile on extra (and unnecessary) oppose votes when it's already obvious a candidate is going to fail, to make fun of someone who has just been blocked, or to ridicule an editor who was trying to argue a point that nobody on that talk page agreed with.

It's a different matter altogether when someone is trying to argue for a particular edit that he believes in, finds himself in the minority on that talk page, gets frustrated by other people's remarks, and then, very occasionally, expresses himself clumsily. That's not trying to take away the dignity of an opponent. Everybody on Wikipedia from l'ami qui m'a aidé le plus (c'est toi) to la personne qui s'oppose à mes arguments le plus souvent (tu peux deviner de qui je parle) believes that he's arguing in favour of the truth. Since you and I both edit controversial pages, it's bound to happen that we'll sometimes get flustered and express ourselves badly. In fact, I think that was beginning to happen with me a few weeks ago, when you appeared on Terri Schiavo, and helped to calm things down, eventually leading to what now seems to be a consensus.

For what it's worth, I regard cold-blooded cruel jokes against other editors as a lack of kindness. (I've never seen anything like that from you.) I regard an occasional clumsiness in choice of words when things are getting heated on a talk page as a lack of skill. It happens to me too!

J'espère vraiment que le problème que tu as maintenant (dont je vois beaucoup d'évidence sur cette page-ci) ne va pas trop gâcher ton plaisir ici à Wikipédia.

Anyway, I'm very grateful for your support, and no, I don't mean your support in a relatively unimportant RfA. I just mean — your support! Vielen Dank, cher ami, and oremus pro invicem! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Str! The sentence beginning with the words "To say" doesn't make sense. Was there meant to be a second half that you forgot to fill in? (Also, less importantly, "right" should be "right place".) I wouldn't bother you with something so insignificant if it were just an ordinary talk page. I don't normally go back to correct my own typos, unless I'm adding something at the same time. But I think that particular page is a little more formal. Cheers. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clarify some issues at Martin Luther, (see [10] and [11]). My edits were either reverted or modified (see [12]). I tried again at [13]. I wasn't comfortable with a wording that suggested that forgiveness could be bought. Discussions can be found here.

Please note, however, that this is not a request for help. I've asked too much from you recently, and I'm not being bullied or abused at the talk page! I know you have your own particular interests to work on here. Just . . . if you're interested, and if you feel you could explain it better than I did. (I'm sure you know a lot more about Luther than I do, anyway.)

BTW, j'ai dit "tu" parce que nous sommes enfants du même père. Ce n'est pas un manque de respect! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 13:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me Str1977 that it is unfair not to have you also invited to the party above , and , you know , I always suggeasted that it be your party .

So, old chum, I want to give you a final chance here to answer my question before I post you personally for Arbcom. The question is quite simple : Why do you personalise within my username the general historical/contemporay accusations made against Pope Pius XI / Pope Pius XII ?

An aside (with the above last user,apart from asking her again why she (?) refuses to justify her erroneous & scandalous deletions from Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandals ), would be to comment that use of French here is subject to the same rigidities applied by the french national guidelines . It has to be French . You , Str , are very touchy about languages , yet refuse to allow that I am a native user ,and whilst I am keenly aware that your english is 99% correct and functional , it is just a little obnoxious that you have not had the requisite good faith to accept my assertion. It may be no more than a ploy to force greater FK research (I quote you) and I shall qualify that I hold to anonymity more for the memory of those millions of anonymous who suffered as a result of the Catholic intrigue , than out of shame . In other words , I seek no glory in blasting the lies that others have suffered .I think however that you break many cardinal concepts of Wikipedia , and that one of them was conducting FK research ( & not an investigation of an actual diff ). I continue , most sadly , to consider you a candidate for arbcom , as I feel a certain responsibility to Wikipedia, emanating from this gratuitous essence of open editing it gives us .

Please, answer the simple question . EffK 17:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK forgets that I cannot converse with him at the moment. He knows why. Str1977 17:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it seems I forget marginally less than you do . I behave as the matter warrants , and I shall request user McClenon to post you , as you do not answer this basic question . I have been calling for this , since , was it April 2005 ? Your username is Str1977 , and that is which I will refer to . I am quite prepared to defend cyberspace - I don't think I should have to , but I am forced . Your own User history is the warrant . EffK 19:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EFFK appearently misunderstands me. It is not that I don't want to talk to him but I can't. He knows why and he hopefully knows "how to cure my ailment". Well, let's give him a hint. Str1977 19:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to McClenon's page. You needn't lecture me about accusations : you were party to McC's , which did not invlove any distant example (unknown) , but me myself . I am finished with you , it is out of my hands .EffK 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EFFK that doesn't need lecturing about accusations since that what he's been doing since day one. However, he is mistaken if he accuses me. He might not like what Robert said but he should not complain to me, just because I didn't tell Robert off for this. Over at Robert's page, I found this text:

"Dear Robert McClenon , various things draw me to this post here. First your request for an apology : I will apologise most fulsomely for all that you can demonstrate of my ill-action. I'll even say , give , you a general apology for everything, including this post .

"I come to you because of your particular capacity as , perhaps, necessary wikicop . I should congratulate you on so taking this position , as noticer of disputes and referror of arbitration . I will apologise to you , when I know what I have done wrong, and apologize as one human in cyberspace to another , given that I also have utilised the same freedom to remind the world of your relations to me . However ,

"I do not come here but to profit from your virtues , and so , ask you to kindly nominate my shadow , Str19977 for the arbcom . I say , correcting myself this much , "as I have asked for tis since forever" . Or in bureacrese remind you that I asked for this at least 6 months ago of you yourself, McC...

"The User is notified, and has declined to forestall such a request , put to him most clearly on his userpage .

"I do not request that you aplogise to me , I have personal experience of the degree to which your assiduity leads you, and will say no more than - that which you yourself posted , is recorded . We're probably human both of us, and although I object on taste to your qualification of humanity on your user page, we can choose to look for a brighter side now and not eliminate those who do show some useful characteristic from this cyberlife , perhaps even the apologists .

"I do request you , as from the very start of your involvement, and , as I repeated over at the discussion page for the ArbCom , that you , aware of my request now for 6 months , should post my request for arbitration re User:Str1977 .

"I feel it is wrong that the user not be specified , nor that (he/she) should in any way feel diminuished by lack of centrality or the /our sharing thereof on the Arb Com. I say he must be invited to the party / inquest .

"You may , to facilitate in several ways , reduce the allegation towards being exceedingly simple : that user Str1977 is as users Flamekeeper, Fiamekeeper, Corecticus , Famekeeper and now Effk , have charged : the user as characterised by his editorial actions is a vatican apologist/agent .

"You may add that he is by no means alone , though the central and most apparent , and I require you to corrolate that this user has throughout his appearance on Wikipedia , sought to subvert the community on principle , by bad faith and denial of sources .

"I require you to do this because I have confidence in your bureaucratic bite . If you should refuse , doubtless prinkingly , I shall find another such capacitor . You could , perhaps, do me the grace to let me know. I shall await this response I ask of you , and thw which claim , in good faith , OK ? Of course , a reluctance will add to general human woepedia ( thats a suggestion of a term we need , hence brackets ). As you well know , neither I not the user Str1977 , are in any hurry . 20:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"EffK 22:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

So we are back again - I am a Vatican agent again.

Str1977 22:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer, and for getting the point. As a German born after WWII and for a long time continuously preoccupied with our not so glorious past, I certainly don't want to see Adolf Hitler in the lineage of Gerhard Schröder or Angela Merkel. Best wishes, --wpopp 11:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I hadn't guessed that you're German. I agree that we can't break the line for semantic reasons. But I think the line has been broken for the reasons you state. And, as I say in the discussion, nobody counts British (and, BTW, Austrian or other) heads of government/state The US is the exception, maybe because the have a greater need to establish themselves in history. Therefore I think that the effort to establish exceptionally a line up to Angela Merkel is biased, and I don't like that. Best, --wpopp 15:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have several times stated that you cannot directly address EffK. Is that because he has insulted you repeatedly? If so, I cannot directly address him either. Robert McClenon 15:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I am not addressing him directly either. Robert McClenon 17:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Str1977, a friend of mine who uses Wikipedia and actually introduced me to it recently, asked me to review some changes he made to the Elser article this evening. By the time I got to it, you reverted most of these changes. Further looking into the article's history showed me that you have an unusual interest in George Elser, and have changed lots of information that others have added. I jokingly told my friend you're probably Manfred Elser. I hope I can get him to write to you and speak for himself. Two things that I agree on with him, are that an Encyclopedia's articles should not be a forum for propaganda of any stripe, and that terrorism is wrong, even when applied to Nazis, Communists, Bush's Foreign Policy, or any other thing that some support and others don't. So, let me ask you for example, why you removed "Eight innocent people died", and re-added,"Seven of the people killed were members of the NSDAP who had taken part in the meeting." Is this to say that of the eight that died, seven were Nazis and good for them? Why this emphasis re-added by you? If you care to answer me on this point, I have a couple of similar types of questions about your edit. Being new to Wikipedia, I'm not sure how you would contact me. Perhaps you can help me from the discussion page. Lastly, I saw on your homepage, that English is not your native language, however I must compliment you on your ability to write in English. With that in mind, my friend's corrections of your grammatical typos regarding "...AT the end of the 1960s" and "...neither his son OR the son's mother were molested," are right. It's improper to use two negatives in a sentence in English - "neither and nor", - and to say "in the 1960s" is correct, while to say "in the end of the 1960s," is not correct.