User talk:Str1977/Archive7

Notes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_German_Party http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetendeutsche_Partei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party_%28Austria-Hungary%29 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei_%28%C3%96sterreich-Ungarn%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_National_Socialist_Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Nationalsozialistische_Arbeiterpartei http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Nationalsozialistische_Arbeiterpartei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party

Sudeten German Party

1.The Sudetendeutsche Partei was also formed from parts of the Deutsche Nationalpartei, which is different from the Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei. So the Sudeten German Party is not simply a successor of the DNSAP. Shouldn't we separate these things from the article? Maximilian II 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the article doesnt really do justice to a party that won a "landslide victory" in 1935, upsetting everyone. The DNSAP was outlawed in 1933, but unfortunately Masaryk did not try to outlaw the Heimatfront, not that that would have put an end to the political turmoil. Maximilian II 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

2.What about German National(s) Party or just German Party? Maximilian II 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Austrian National Socialism

I had created German Workers' Party (Austria-Hungary) (DAP), but there is some overlap with the Austrian National Socialism article. Should we rename the latter to the German National Socialist Workers' Party (Austria) (DNSAP) (we need a German National Socialist Workers' Party (Czechoslovakia) as well I guess)? I can imagine an article about "Austrian National Socialism," but this is not what the Austrian National Socialism article talks about. Maximilian II 01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)-->

Your request

It's done, my friend. And the other task is done as well. I e-mailed you a second batch of files today, and once you confirm that you received them and were able to open them, I'll send you the final batch. I'm afraid I'm too busy to be doing much editing, though. Blessings. Musical Linguist 19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Final batch sent! Musical Linguist 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

I don't mean to disturb you, as you seem to be busy in real life, but please respond back at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Another_attempt as soon as you can. Thanks!Bless sins 00:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

caps

Sorry, my mistake. I don't have the published version, but the lowercase seems to be correct. Paul B 08:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal and lawful

I had a look, but I'm afraid it was beyond me! If I knew more about the whole background to the subject, I'd probably be in a better position to judge. Sorry. Musical Linguist 14:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Beatles' talk page

I am really sorry if you felt hurt - I was only having fun. The editors on The Beatles' pages often joke with each other, and it was definitely not a joke against you. We are a wonderful bunch, and you should join us. Trust me on this one, please... :) egde 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your reply. It might seem to be serious, but what can fans of a band that ceased to exist in the 1960s do? We're a hopeless case, but we do have fun. Read between the lines, and add some jokes of your own, which will be greatly appreciated. :) egde 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

When "POV" becomes indistinguishable from unfamiliarity

POV is completely antithetical to the purpose of a respectable encyclopedia. In your case, however, you are (I presume) mostly unfamiliar with the subject matter, therefore content you are not familiar with can look very similar to POV. James Parkes' "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue", Rabbi Harvey Falk's "Jesus the Pharisee", and Hyam Maccoby's work, is really required reading for this subject. If you're interested, you're welcome to enroll in the khavruta (distance learning program) provided by the Netzarim in Ra'anana, Israel (http://netzaril.co.il), which documents all of the basic information and earliest extant references in a very accessible manner.

Btw, by apostasy, I simply implied various events (or major people) that lead to the end of such sects, in chronological order. Few readers are familiar with how groups such as the ancient Netzarim and Evyonim mysteriously 'disappeared', so that section is important. Any other title for that section would easily do.

12.65.66.235 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Desposyni

Dear Ovadayah, I have seen you got involved in the Desposyni article. I have long held many concerns about this article and think it needs to be seriously redone, including retititling it (though I certainly cannot agree with you diagnosis that it was written in a conservative Catholic POV - quite the opposite) - regardless of this, it needs work. I hope we can cooperate in this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Str1977. I thought at first glance that the article could be polished up for GA without too much effort. My mistake. As you say, it needs to be seriously redone. That's why I put it in for Cleanup in April. Alas, no takers so far. I'm willing to spend more time on it with some other collaborators. I mistakenly assumed it was conservative Catholic POV because of the extensive quotes of Malachi Martin. All of these quotes were copied verbatim from some group's religious website. Ovadyah 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I have urgent business outside of WP and cannot devote much time to certain projects: the Dep. article has long been on the back of my mind. My intention was to have an article titled either "Holy Kin" or, if that is too controversial, "Brethren of Jesus" or "Relatives of Jesus" which covers all this from a neutral perspective, giving first what the sources say, New Testament, Church fathers, going to interpretations and theories. The Dep. would become a redirect or cut down to explaining the term (until today I never found it in the sources, now there is one source) and maybe, but just maybe, summarizing what M. Martin and fringe writers say about this.

I understand why you thought it conservative catholic but, to be honest, Martin's stance puzzles me: he was a very traditionalist Catholic, quitting the Jesuits because of this but at the same time writes stuff like this (as the articles says: without any sources I knew of) which fits neatly into the vein of esoteric writers. The website is some sort of esoteric pseudo-Jewish-Christian, pseudo-Essene group. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Further fantasies from IP

My replies to your four critiques on my talk page:

1. Well, I'm glad you're familiar with his writings (though that doesn't tell me whether or not you've actually read any of them), since a good encyclopedia is nowhere unless its editors have a rudimentary familiarity of the subject matter.

2. You're correct on certain terms: the very first documented proto-Christians, starting from 64 C.E. as a breakaway sect from the Beit Din in Jerusalem, called "Notzrim" (not Netzarim) in Hebrew, were Jews. Sha'ul of Tarsus (after his excision from the Netzarim always thereafter called Paul) was the ringleader of the breakaway group. Because I can't think of a better term in vernacular English for early followers of the rabbi from the Galil, "Jewish Christian" sticks...for now, even though it can convey the false impression that Judaism and Christianity were somehow mixed at any point in history. The facts that I cite are recognized by mainstream Judaism (see Jews for Judaism's http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/j4jlibrary/DaVinciCodeBook.pdf). Distinction should be made between that, and between the ancient Jewish followers of "Jesus" that remained in good standing with the Sanhedrin in the environment of ancient Judaism documented in Qumran scroll 4QMMT (do you know what I'm even referring to here?) As for the term "apostasy", it isn't POV. Look up 'apostasy' or 'apostate' in a dictionary and it will say something similar to 'abandonment or excommunication from the principals of a religious or national doctrine'.

3. This is the most insidious and destructive part of your critique. I never "invent" anything. A critique of my documentation of Hebrew, from someone that (I presume) can't read or speak Hebrew? Ancient Jews had Hebrew and Aramaic names, and they used them. If Wikipedia is "the sum of all human knowledge", then there is no reason to exclude that information from the database. Example: The name James "The Just" the son of Joseph. "James" is a further Anglicization of "Jacob", the Hebrew form of which is of course, Ya'aqov. Documented to be the "son of Joseph", which is Ben-Yoseiph in Hebrew. Finally, the title "The Just" is from the still-common-today ancient descriptor in Hebrew "ha-Tzadiq", meaning "the Righteous".

4. The picture depicts a professionally forensically-reconstructed Jewish face from the 1st century mainly for the purpose of depicting "Jesus" according to the most comprehensive archaeological information, as well as others from that era and location, which of course would have included all "Jewish Christians". It much more accurately represents the subject matter than an oil-painted image of a Nordic-Aryan man.

Again, those that are not sufficiently familiar with the documented facts should not be the final judges of whether or not those facts are most properly applied in the encyclopedia. Otherwise, don't get too involved in it; those that aren't sufficiently educated in Evolutionary science become "Creationists" that falsely criticize Evolution as having "no evidence" or being "just a theory", but they're documented to be wrong. 12.65.66.235 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I have read one book by that man and heard more about him. Not that I agree with his speculations.

2. Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy. Beit Din nonsense. Christianity (not by that name of course, but still the same thing) started as a Jewish sect alongside of the Pharisees (with which they were closest), the Saducees, the Essenes, the Zealots. Only the former two survived. Christianity became eventually more and more ethnically gentile (as many gentiles adopted it, while most Jews rejected Jesus), the heart of Jewish Christians was destroyed by the destruction of Jerusalem 132/5. Some Jewish Christian groups continued on their own (including the Ebionites). Shaul did not lead a breakaway group (oh, utter fantasy) but was an important missionary of early Christianity, a former pharisee and persecutor. He called himself Paul (his Roman name) when he entered a gentile setting, you can browse in Acts when the name first appears). Of course there were conflicts in regard to whether the gentile converts should be subjected to the whole law of Moses, but Paul, Barnabas, James the Just, John, Peter all agreed that they shouldn't. Whether anything you call mainstream Judaism accepts this is highly irrelevant. "Good standing with the Synedrion? Well, it was the highest law court until the year 70. 4QMMT was written way before Jesus' birth. "Apostasy" implies that those called apostates fell away from their earlier beliefs. In applying it you are claiming that your fantasy nonsense is not only fact but true. But there was no apostasy of Paul or anyone from the teaching of the Apostles.

3. Of course you invent names. I gladly accept any Hebrew or Aramaic name you can provide from extant sources. There is no such source that calls James, brother of the Lord "Yakob ha Tzadik". Sure, I agree that Jews at the time would have called him by that name (or by his patronym) but unless sources say so, it is OR. The worst is your invention of a Hebrew name for the father of Simon. We don't know the Hebrew name of Clopas, we don't even have a proper clue about it (as opposed to the easy ones Yakob, Simon, Yehuda, Yeshua). Inventing such names and placing them as if we had any secure knowledge of them is OR and archeologism.

4. "The picture depicts a professionally forensically-reconstructed Jewish face ..." - Indeed. But it is still not Jesus. I don't object to the picture being used in the Jesus article with a proper caption, as its makes claimed "this is how Jesus MIGHT have looked like". I have seen the programme myself years ago. The arguments never convinced me. In any case, there have been long discussions about this on the Jesus page. In any case, it is much to controversial for a Template, which appears all over WP. And no, it is not more accurate than the supposedly "Nordic-Aryan" (Aryans are from Iran and India, BTW) - the painting at least actually shows Jesus, the reconstruction just shows some hypothetical average-Levantine-Joe. If you ask me, how Jesus looked like, go there. But I don't insist on any picture for that template (maybe a fish would be good) but I oppose that fictious image.

Finally, could you please get rid of your unbearable arrogance, lecturing others about WP, assuming that they know nothing about the subject, that they shouldn't edit at WP - I am a registered editor with over 16,000 edits at WP in over two years, who are you? what do you have? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't want to reconcile? That's alright... In the future, I should (as well as anyone) maintain a cool head during polemics, and keep it friendly. I probably shouldn't have ever argued with in the first place with me being just a student; debating the accuracy of the 4th century Greek NT (I vote in the negative) requires that the foremost in the field be doing so, such as the only person in history that has reconstructed every NT text from all earliest extant source documents (Paqid Yirmeyahu). Peace man, no hard feelings. 12.65.66.235 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your expertise

Hello again. Thanks for your very helpful posts about matter and form and history of communion under both kinds. Since you stayed at the article and showed interest in other issues there, I don't feel that I forced you into giving up your time on something that you weren't really interested in. By the way, there's an article Communion under both kinds, which I think should have a little bit more about other denominations. I might have a go at adding to it over the summer, but it's not an urgent matter for me at the moment. Hope you're enjoying nice weather in Germany, if that's where you are. ElinorD (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes

Hi. You recently participated in the above RfA. I would comment that you placed your "oppose" vote in the neutral section. Please could you move it to the appropriate place. Thanks. ps. I have tallied it as an oppose, so I would be grateful if you could move it a.s.a.p. LessHeard vanU 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been moved for you... LessHeard vanU 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

working together on

Str1977 -- I noticed you started to edit Jesus-myth hypothesis. Right now everyone is getting reverted on anything but I don't think that can hold up for long. The agreement was to make this an article about a particular group of writers rather than being an article about "the truth". So in other words its trying to accurately describe a theory not trying to describe reality. Chensiyuan version shows you where it is headed. Would you be interested in working together on this (since Atheist + Christian would kill most POV claims)? jbolden1517^Talk 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See the history you are working on the presplit version. Thanks for being willing to act as a 3rd partyjbolden1517^Talk 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well essentially its an entirely different version of the article (for after the split). Latest version is [1]. jbolden1517^Talk 17:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

I consider your following me from article to article in an attempt to revert NPOV edits to be wikistalking. Please refrain from such behavior. Orangemarlin 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OM, that is a pretty heavy accusation. Normally, I would simply say that I would not expect such behavior from an editor like STR, but I went ahead and checked the contribs for you both. I don't see the evidence to back up such a claim. Rather, it appears that you both share an interest in some of the same topics - and happen to be at loggerheads right now. The reason I would state it in that way is that you have made edits to unrelated topics (e.g., Treasure ship and Tessarakonteres) that STR has not been anywhere near; and similarly, he has made edits to articles that have nothing to do with your current disagreement. Pastordavid 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OM, listen to Pastordavid here. I realize you've been editing some highly controversial topics, but be aware Str1977 has been here a long time, and is no newbie to those topics either. Perhaps you're a bit twitchy; reconsider this please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not make any change either to disrupt WP or to spite Orange but each and everyone purely for the topic's sake. It is however true that I had a look whether Orange displays the same, IMHO aggressive behaviour elsewhere - unfortunately he did but that was not the point of my changes. That is not wiki-stalking in any sense of the rulings cited above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Aggressive? BAH!!! Orangemarlin 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about your vengeful attitude. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Str, Om is clearly unhappy about the articles being split and rewritten over a period of a very few days, almost exclusively by two editors. And you know, I agree with him. This was not Gaining consensus before making major edits to a contentious subject, this was DE. That he has become frustrated enough, and twitchy enough, to be thinking your actions might be considered stalking, or that you've been editing the post-split-and-rewrite version of the article and hence caught in the crossfire, but surely you can find a less accusatory word than vengeful? Please reconsider this. You are commenting on the contributor, not the content, and failing to AGF, none of which is like you. Please take a moment to consider how we can move forward in a more productive fashion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Vengeful??? That implies that I want to take revenge on you, which isn't true. So apparently you are mindreading again (please, move on to another career path), and in doing so you confused my thinking that you are assisting a travesty, and I'm going to put my foot down with the word vengeful. You really should get your mindreading skills fixed, because they are failing you.Orangemarlin 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a few minutes reviewing your edits in several articles. I'm going to go with the Killer puppy that you aren't stalking, though you kept showing up at various articles that I was editing. It's still curious that you would, but it might be an intersection of interests. You have called me several names, and I have called you nothing. That's a negative point for you. I reverted without adequately explaining my intent. Maybe a -.0000001 point for me. OK, maybe slightly more. I'm personally concerned that you did not take the time to review my reasoning of reverts. I had been clear several times, and I did not feel it was necessary or useful to explain myself for the 18th time. Also, I saw several positive comments towards you from dab, bachman and borden, all of whom decided to destroy the article. You appeared to be a part of that group, but others are saying you were just caught in the crossfire. I actually chose not to read your edits, because you were editing a version that was unacceptable to several of us. Yet, you continued to edit them without either listening to or maybe accepting our concerns with the base article. I've read your edits, and why they appeared to be OR and POV to me was that you were enhancing the OR and POV of the original document (meaning the destroyed one, not the original one). Please please please wait for us to get back to the original article. Orangemarlin 02:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I hit save before I wanted to. Last point. If you understand what I'm saying, then I want peace, and your help to reconstruct the original article and improve from there. On Noah's Ark, you need to review past commentary about mythical ships. If you don't agree with the consensus formed there, then you need to either build a new consensus, or relax. But forcing POV edits where a consensus was formed isn't fair to the whole host of editors that got there first. I have been told that you are long-time editor. It's interesting that you show up suddenly to several articles, where I've never seen your name. Then you go chasing me across a whole host of articles. Hence the accusation of stalking. But if you can see what I'm saying, you don't have to agree, but it will bring peace. That's all for now. Orangemarlin 02:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, one more thing. Don't copy my talk page to other locations. That's what trolls do. If you really are what everyone says you are (and I put it this way because I don't see it, it's just that people I trust are saying that you are a good guy), you wouldn't do trollish things like copy my page. Orangemarlin 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Orange,

I did not call YOU names but commented on what I think unacceptable behaviour. You may disagree but it is not name-calling.

You didn't call me either .... and that was actually what I complain about. That you didn't tell me your concerns.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept your explanation that I was "caught in the cross-fire": I did not edit based Jbolden's version - he was reverted quite independent of me and my edits - you did revert only my edits. And even if your explanation were true (I guess you reverted me without lookin under the impression that I upheld Jbolden) simply repeated unexplained reverting is not solution to this. :If you do "not read edits" than you should not revert them. "Yet, you continued to edit them without either listening to or maybe accepting our concerns with the base article." Not at all - I discussed several items on the talk page and got a go ahead. You reverted me asking where this was discussed but when I pointed it out to you, you didn't react (except by reverting).

Nor can I accept the reasoning that I was editing based on a disputed version (untrue, except from jbolden's perspective) and that was reason enough to revert me. If I revert someone on another page I must ensure that later valid edits do not get lost. And if I don't deem them valid, I must explain my case.

I also object to your deeming me guilty by association. I had contacts with Dbachman before (I can't remember where) but not on this article.

I will not get involved much on Noah's Ark but must say that article's are always subject to change, categories included. That's what the disclaimer on the edit page says. But never mind. I agree that the Ark is a mythological ship under a certain definition of mythology (with which I disagree but which happens to be accepted). The treasure ship however doesn't seem to fit that word under any accepted definition.

I copied your talk page content to the article talk page to get the discussion going. Had you only replied to me or would others not have ignored the issue, thinking jbolden the only issue worth rising, it wouldn't have come to this.

I am willing to let bygones be bygones and hope for peace. Could you please indicate on the talk page which of the several version is acceptable to you so that I can work on it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much confused where we stand now. I'll focus on it. Sorry about the guilt by association, but I pulled out a shotgun, because a sniper rifle was just not as efficient. I couldn't think of a better metaphor, so please don't think I was considering violence (I hate being misinterpreted). I'll try to figure out where we stand with the article. Orangemarlin 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tessarakonteres

The mythology/not debate is getting well and truly underway. I see you edited against mythology and thought you might be interested in weighing in. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:AbortionLawsMap05.jpg requires attention

Hello. An image you had previously uploaded, Image:AbortionLawsMap05.jpg, did not have a licensing tag. Another editor has tagged the image as {{GFDL-presumed}}. You may wish to visit the image page and provide the correct license. You can view a list of all the image licensing tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All. The image risks being nominated for deletion as failing to have a license. Many of these {{GFDL-presumed}} image are used on User pages. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Go ahead and add your own license to the map. It's a derivation of an old version of Image:AbortionLawsMap.png, so, technically, it's not my work, and I wouldn't want to take credit for it (sort of like how AbortionLawsMap is based on Image:BlankMap-World.png). -Severa (!!!) 08:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:AbortionLawsMap05.jpg

Thank you for the clarification. Upon looking into it further, I saw that he had released it into the public domain which makes it A-OK for you to do with as you please. Sorry for any confusion. Zsinj^Talk 12:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Virgin birth

I agree the virgin birth does not apply just to Islam, but why should it be in Christianity alone? Is there anyway we can somehow solve it and put it in both? Or is the purpose of the Islam section just to point out where we differ from Christianity (which is rather depressing). The reason I put Virgin Birth there was to hint at the other miracles at Jesus' birth besides his mother's virginity, ie him talking as a baby and bringing inanimate objects to life in the Qur'an (and in the Gospel of Thomas II). --Enzuru 20:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'll think about a nice way of doing that. --Enzuru 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anoa'i family

I have removed some links to online forums in this article. Kevin 05:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

God

Would you mind, if you have time, to take a look at the recent edits to the intro to God and the talk page posts concerning it? Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, you did more than I'd hoped. I know you're busy, so I hesitated to ask - and much appreciate the improvements you've made! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Note

[2]

Rosie case

"Persistant adding anti-Catholicism section to Rosie O'Donnell"

Greetings, I notice you're not using the talk page to talk about re-adding the same anti-Catholicism section to Rosie O'Donnell that has been removed so I am bringing the discussion to you directly in good faith that you will read this and refrain from reposting that section until the following issues are addressed. The topic has been discussed at length and two of the points to the section you keep re-adding that you might want to consider.

"Quoting an inflamatory press release about two celebrities doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic to me. In context of the rest of the article I could see a phrase added "accused of being anti-Catholic for views on____" but the entire section needs to go unless beefed up and vetted." As a result the press release quote was removed and the abortion comments were moved into the intro section of The View.

"if this section is to have any meaning what is needed are quotes of what she said, not just what Donohue characterized it as. This is no more than his biased opinion, backed up only by his own POV press release. NO independent reporting whatsoever. The whole thing should go - it is clearly pushing a POV."

O'Donnell may very well be anti-Catholic but to re-add the section please find her quotes, if she is anti-Catholic these should be easy to come by from NPOV references and links. Benjiboi 18:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again please address the issues referenced above and on the talk page of the article before adding back a section that had previously been removed and tagged as NPOV before it was removed. The issues remain the same, Donahue and the Catholic League are not neutral and their press release quote is general innapropriate for an encyclopedia. The only other newsworthy quote I've found related to O'Donnell possibly being anti-catholic is her refering to pedophile priests moving from parish to parish because the Catholic Church was afraid of lawsuits. Benjiboi 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've posted about this at WP:AN/3RR, but obviously, I didn't want to pretend I was a neutral administrator offering an unbiased review of the block, and even more obviously, it would be highly improper for me to unblock you! Cheer up. Think of the user who was huffing and puffing and spluttering and calling for my desyopping and banning last year because he submitted an invalid report against you and I refused to take action. No doubt if he sees this, he'll be singing my praises for not unblocking you! Musical Linguist 00:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Having examined the report, this block appears to be an error on Jossi's part. Hopefully you will be unblocked soon.Proabivouac 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been unblocked. Sorry about the delay; jossi asked for a review which I did and promptly went offline, unaware he had also gone offline. I was thinking he wanted my review and would be making any corrections himself, whereas it seems he was asking me to check and take action. My error entirely. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 is a good editor. I've worked with him for 2 years and I don't recall any 3RR incidents involving him during that period. It's unclear to me, from looking through the edit history at Rosie O'Donnell, at which point the edit conflict actually began. It seems that the "Accusations of Anti-Catholicism" section had been in the article for a while, first being inserted on February, 20 2007 by Mamalujo. It was removed from the article on May 31, 2007 by Benjiboi, and then reinserted on June 11 by Mamalujo, the editor who added it in the first place. Benjiboi took it out again on the next day. I don't support "class detention"-type 3RR blocks, but, in this case, I don't think we can hold a single editor responsible for having edit-warred to advance their preferred version of the article (I am assuming good faith on the part of everyone involved). The edit conflict between Benjiboi and Mamalujo over the "anti-Catholicism" section had evidently been going on for a while before Str1977 entered the fray. That said, though, I am a little concerned by how much of the O'Donnell article is dedicated to personal controversies and how little to biographical background. -Severa (!!!) 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro, KC, Severa, thanks for all your support.

However, I (or rather my IP) happen to still be blocked, so if anyone reads this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Need more info to unblock. A block ID or an IP address would suffice.--Chaser - T 06:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock-auto}}

Give us the ID of the autoblock, otherwise we can't lift it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. Sorry for replying so late but I was offline the whole day. Apparently it works now. Don't know what happened. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very good that you have been unblocked. I hope such errors will not happen again. Beit Or 10:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note I was working to avoid an edit war throughout this process. Also I pretty much had nothing to do with the previous edit wars (if there were any) and had little to no interaction with Mamalujo. I also did not, in fact, simply removed the section but split it as documented both before and after in the talk pages. Although my interest was not in getting someone blocked but actually improving the article I still feel the article is worse off than before because that section is as it was. A disappointing experience but a good lesson learned before I spent more time. I appreciate that Str1977 may be a wonderful editor but my experience was less than stellar, and I feel like a lot of my time and research was not only wasted but ridiculed. Benjiboi 12:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I will reply more detailed later but I find it hard to believe this story. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you filed two defective 3RR reports in just over 24 hours. The first was dismissed, the second was just confusing enough to result in a block and an ensuing debate. Whatever your intentions, such junk reports waste people's time, are objectively disruptive, and are no more a substitute for dispute resolution than is edit warring. As WP:ANI/3RR exists to report actual violations only, please familiarize yourself thoroughly with WP:3RR before proceeding.Proabivouac 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I find this a bit strange as well. Benjiboi, you say that your interest was in improving the article, not in getting someone blocked. So you filed not one but two invalid 3RR reports? I don't know if you're a new editor, but new editors sometimes do file 3RR reports that only involve three reverts, and they're gently told that the report is invalid, as you were. But the second report is hard to dismiss as coming from someone who wasn't trying to get Str blocked, and who didn't actually know that it was invalid. You seem to be trying to give the impression that he wasn't using the talk page, ignore the fact that he edited it eighteen times (which is more than you did) in the period covered by your report, and report one revert which was clearly outside the 24-hour period and another revert which wasn't a revert at all and which came after his previous edit, where nobody else had edited in between. Don't be surprised if people struggle with this a bit. Musical Linguist 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a new editor and only went to the 3rr to bring an end to what I saw as an endless edit war. The first 3rr was dismissed as it wasn't the 4th vio, the second report to me was pretty strait forward as far as I knew and I'm not supposse to be the expert. That's why admin people do 3rr's not me. I felt Str1977's escalating language and actions weren't productive, i suppose he thought the same as me. In any case if you look at the conversations I think they do speak for themselves. In the end y'all win, the section which seems flawed, in quite a few people's opinion besides mine, is back in just as it was. Benjiboi 20:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s.I forgot to reference [3] as proof of my intentions. Benjiboi 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Okay, let's look closely at what happened in the Rosie O'Donnel situation:

I came across the Rosie O'Donnell article and found something to be POV pushing and therefore flagged the section as such [4]. Since I found the passage even worse on a second look, I tackled the problem myself and made the edit approproate IMHO [5]. A third change was merely one of wording.

At that point I was never concerned with the "anti-Catholicism" section that was part of the article at that time.

In comes Benjiboi and blanket reverts not only that section into oblivion (as his edit summaries says, though it also pretends that there were not a-C quotes in the section) but also everything in between, including my concerns about the controversy intro and the slight wording issue.

(As the next move, Benji included a even worse POV pushing when he pretends that Rosie's bigotted comment was somehow an issue of fact and as such confirmable by Mrs Walters [6])

When I found out that Benji had blanket reverted my edits (without any reasoning whatsoever I might add), had deleted an entire section (I was unaware of any previous discussion) and added the "POV pushing through Barbara Walters" to the little that remained I reverted him [7]

He reverted me back after a couple of hours [8] pointing me to the talk page. He also posted on my talk page (above). Though I indeed hadn't used the talk page on this issue yet I at least explained myself in edit summaries. All I did was included in my edit summaries, which cannot be said for Benji.

Benji also increased the POV pushing I initially had objected to by adding the "context" that these were "more important issues" [9]

Following Benji's advice I explained myself on talk and since Benji did not convince me or had provided any valid reasoning, I reverted him [10]

While Benji deleted the "a-C" section he also moved parts of it to the The View section. Re-adding the section made this redundant and so I removed the redundancy [11]. Adding this to The View also creates undue weight, as if the show would have contained little else.

Benji re-added the passage, claiming that it was not redundant [12] and then removed the a-C section again [13] (thereby hiding the fact that was indeed redundant).

I reacted by restoring what I deemed a proper coverage of the issue [14]

So, sure this can be deemed edit warring. But remember, that it takes two to edit-war.

After my last edit, Benjiboi filed a 3RR report at 10:11 June 13 with a reasoning that included false statements, e.g.

• that I had "strong" belief that the subject was anti-Catholic - I never talked about Rosie in general or her true beliefs but merely about her comments,
• or that you "carefully tried to reason" - merely saying "right-wing sources (whatever these are) don't count" and then revert is not reasoning - also your "reasoning" is not covered by WPS:RS

Anyway, if it were a 3RR violation it would still be a proper report as 3RR is enforced regardless of who is right or wrong in a discussion. But you report actually only covered three reverts and not four as required (because I had not reverted four times) - this was pointed out to you ant the report therefore rejected [15]

Now, you say you are a new user. You might not have known that the 3RR is actually a "no more than three reverts rule" - but that can't be quite true as you actually presented four reverts and a version reverted to that however only contained three reverts and two (currently dead) external links.

After this failure you should have educated yourself about the rule, the way of reporting, what constitutes a revert and what not. But obviously you were not doing the thing but only waited how you could get at me anyway.

And then I made a mistake. The mistake was that I actually tried to work towards a compromise and made this edit which IMHO solves one of our issues, how to include Rosie's reaction to criticism of her comments (discussed on the talk page under "Controversy intro").

What do I get for my attempt at compromise. Only twenty minutes later, you report me again,

• with a similarly inaccurate reasoning
• still with no version reverted too (what is it about the versiontime link? Use a proper version to link to)
• at first not giving any diffs
• with a revert that wasn't within a 24h span
• with my "compromise edit" that is no revert under the 3RR at all
• hence with only two actual revertsno, you corrected this afterwards, but still only the same three reverts as in the first report

Because I wasn't online during this whole business and because you didn't inform me that you reported me (as it is customary), your tactics at first worked through an admin's error. You therefore have succeeded in blackening my name. But thankfully I was unblocked again. And now you dishing up this story:

• "I was working to avoid an edit war throughout this process."

Actually, you were edit warring yourself.

• "I also did not, in fact, simply removed the section but split it as documented both before and after in the talk pages."

No, you actually worsened it by adding POV comments leading the reader in a certain direction, endorsing the bigotry (in denial) of the statement.

• "Although my interest was not in getting someone blocked

That's ridiculous. If I file a report at 3RR I am trying to get someone (who I consider disruptive) blocked.

• "but actually improving the article I still feel the article is worse off than before because that section is as it was."

Then why did you refile your report after I was moving in the direction of compromise on one issue? Or didn't you bother to read what I changed?

• "A disappointing experience but a good lesson learned before I spent more time."

Disappointing for me too, as I had to encounter edit-warring in denial, bigotry (Rosie's) in denial (Benji's) and have lost my clean slate due to the persistance of Benji and the error of an admin.

• "I appreciate that Str1977 may be a wonderful editor"

I can't comment on this.

• "but my experience was less than stellar, and I feel like a lot of my time and research was not only wasted but ridiculed."

I never ridiculed you. But then, I never saw any research, only the repeated (false) claim that only the sources you like do count.

And later:

• "I am a new editor and only went to the 3rr to bring an end to what I saw as an endless edit war."

Only, when you filed the report there was no active edit war. When you refiled it, I had just moved towards compromise in one of the issues.

• "The first 3rr was dismissed as it wasn't the 4th vio, the second report to me was pretty strait forward as far as I knew"

You mean the second report that didn't add any violation (as one edit was way outside the 24 hour period and the other no revert at all)

• "and I'm not supposse to be the expert."

Oh, yes you are supposed to be the expert. If you protest a rule violation you should know what the rule is.

• "That's why admin people do 3rr's not me."

No, they do it so that a third, involved person is involved - not because they know the rules better.

• "I felt Str1977's escalating language and actions weren't productive, i suppose he thought the same as me."

Indeed I did. But I didn't file inaccurate and invalid reports to oust my opponent.

• "In any case if you look at the conversations I think they do speak for themselves."

Indeed, a constant repetition of the same argument that sources you don't like don't count.

• "In the end y'all win, the section which seems flawed, in quite a few people's opinion besides mine, is back in just as it was."

Note Benji that those editors not agreeing with your 3RR report have no stake in the content issue. And as far as those "quite a few people#s opinion", it was you and you alone that was involved with me on this (with one single comment by another editor on the talk page - but the edit warring was solely you and me).

As for the reference of good intentions. It was merely calling me to the talk page. It contains the IMHO invalid reasoning that because a press release is supposedly "inflammatory" and "right-wing" it can be discarded. Donahue and the Catholic League can be criticized but to simply act as they did not exist and as if their utterances didn't count is a bit rich. Especially if one then turns around and not only denies Rosie's bigotted commented but actually rephrases it into an issue of facts (thus indirectly endorsing it). I guess some people would call utterances by the ADL and the ACLU or whatever organisation as inflammatory. And they might be (or not) but that cannot be a reason to disqualify them.

Case closed, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The same anti-Catholic section that you added repeatedly was in question long before I ever showed up and is documented in the talk pages, hence my encouragement for you to at least read them before you made your edits. That same section which I feel is suspect and POV pushing, at least in part, does not hold up compared to all the other "controversial sections" which I had also looked at to improve grammar and references. That section is as it was before I started any work on the article and it remains (I think exactly) as it was with the same issues I've referenced above and others have referenced before me on the talk pages. My intent has never waived from making the article better and _if_ there is merit to Rosie O'Donnell being anti-Catholic then fine. If the section remains _accused_ of being anti-Catholic then seems unencyclopedic as many public figures are regularly accused of being bigoted (your word) (or racist, or homophobic, or classist, etc). Benjiboi

First Crusade

Hi Str1977, I noticed you added a "fact" tag to the bit about not accepting a crown in Jerusalem...there is a section on the talk page about who said what, so if you have any input, you are welcome to join the discussion! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Battle of the trench

This is the second part of my comment on Talk:Battle of the Trench.

I think Watt means "sieges" in the sense they have been used in history. When the prophet "beseiged" the other tribes, the case was that the tribe simply locked themselves up and the Muslims waited for them to surrender. Muslims, or the "besieging" party, had the upper hand; while the besieged were militarily at a disadvatange. In this case, the besieging party (i.e. the Confederates) were at the disadvantage, and were desperate to find some way of breaking in. Indeed, this has been the case for most of history, where the besiegers have used all sorts of siege weapons. The fact that siege weapons were used means the besiegers coudn't simply "wait" for the besieged people to come out.

The above is Bless_sins' personal view and it not intended to be an interpretation of Montgomery Watt's book. The discussion on Battle of the Trench should be based only upon scholarly research.Bless sins (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles V

For the benefit of other editors, I here repost an exchange between me and Emperor001 on my and his talk pages:

You said that Charles V did abdicate in 1556. Well, the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition disagrees with you. From it, I draw the following quotation: "In 1556 also, he practically surrendered the empire to Ferdinand, and in 1558 he formally abdicated as emperor." You can look at it yourself at http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Charles5HRE.html. Emperor001 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your source has it wrong.

According to the detailed timeline in Ernst Schulin, Kaiser Karl V. Geschichte eines übergroßen Wirkungsbereichs., Charles handed over the Netherlands to his son Philip on October 25, 1555, handed over Spain, Sicily and America to Philip on January 16,1556, and finally resigned the Imperial dignity in favour of his brother Ferdinand on August 3, 1556 with however leaving Ferdinand at liberty to decide when to assume that dignity himself (note only the dignity of an Emperor elect, as Ferdinand had already been King for more than twenty years). Ferinand entered into negotiations with the Electors and on March 14, 1558 he was formally declared Emperor elect (it took a few more years to get the Pope to recognize this however). Charles was still alive at that point - he died on September 21 - but had no part in the matter.

So in 1558 it was not Charles who laid down the Imperial dignity but Ferdinand who took it up. Charles formally resigned all his rule in 1555 and 1556.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You sure my source is wrong. The way I interpreted formal abdication was that in 1556, he allowed Ferdinand to assume full control, but did not sign any actual document stating an abdication until 1558. I'm pretty sure the Columbia Encyclopedia would not make a mistake like that. Emperor001 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please don't needlessly edit war over your personal style preferences. Thanks. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and I am the one who completely rewrote the article and put it in standard last name first style. Please don't move away from a documented standard for personal aesthetic issues. Not everyone agrees with you that it is "ugly". That's not a valid reason, only a personal preference. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely true that I rewrote the article to base it on secondary sources. Here's the diff for a long series of edits. At the end, all references were last name first. Please maintain that as it was from that time the established and consistent form used in the article. There is no need to keep changing it and then reverting it when I put it back the way I wrote it. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's clear that you have a personal preference for first name first. That's not enough to override a widespread standard that last name should go first. I carefully formatted all my references to adhere to the standard used all throughout Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but I ask you to stop messing with it. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't allow needless edit warring over AD vs. CE, British vs. American spelling, etc. The article was consistently last name first at this point on 13 February and stay that way until you started reversing the names on the 19th. Please desist. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A word of advice

Please be aware that you and Wednesday Next are both either already violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF or coming dangerously close. If you aren't careful, you will both be blocked. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have no intention of attacking Wednesday personally. Nothing I said was meant that way. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rose Line

Your edit confuses the facts. Rose Line, as a currently popular term, refers to the Paris Meridian. Brown mistakenly conflated this with the gnomon. We have a source, the church sign, quoted in an article, that the gnomon was never called a Rose Line. My version kept these distinctions clear. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Julian of Halicarnassus

Re: User:Wfgh66

As per your email regarding User:Wfgh66 - I checked his block log and it looks like User:Sam Korn unblocked him two weeks ago. I don't understand why he needs you to email on his behalf. In any case, prior of sion dot com was determined to the locus of much on-wiki disruption and spamming. I see no reason why that would have changed. You are welcome to appeal this to the folks that maintain the black list at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Ronnotel (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

German Pretenders

Would you please stop removing the pretenders section from the List of German monarchs. The German Empire was not a federation. It was more like a federal government with a constitution unifying the states. There was an Imperial government and there were state governments. There were certain powers held by each level. For example, during a war, only the Imperial government could have an army and even during a time of peace, only the Kingdoms of Bavaria, Saxony, and Wurrtemburg could have limited armies. Money was issued by the German government. The pretenders to the Prussian throne are also pretenders to the extinct German throne because the Constitution of the German Empire stated that the King of Prussia was also German Emperor. All of the articles about the pretenders list Crown Prince Wilhelm-Georg Friedrich as the in pretense German Emperor and King of Prussia. Emperor001 (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, please stop removing the pretenders section. Under the Constitution of the German Empire, the King of Prussia was German Emperor. Therefore, the pretender to the Prussian throne is also pretender to the German throne. Emperor001 (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the section again? Also, why don't you ever respond to any of these comments. Lets solve this argument on our talk pages rather than starting an edit war. Emperor001 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

MacArthur Park rallies controversy

Hello. I notice you created the above article on January 22. I don't know if you were aware, but Wikipedia already has an article on this subject: see The Los Angeles May Day mêlée. (That may not be the best title, but the article itself is much longer and more developed.) I have suggested merging these two articles together; your comments are welcome at Talk:The Los Angeles May Day mêlée#Merge proposal. Terraxos (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza Mediation redux

Hey, where have you been? How have you been? Look, I know the mediation didn't go so well and all that was happening was a revert war on the page but I've decided to try one last time on the talk page to solve the disputes but this time in a hopefully more controlled and now unofficial mediation on the many changes that you and Bless are disagreeing over and I'll be unofficial mediator seeing not only have most of the disputes you've had w/ me have been solved but the majority of reverts that were happening I didn't have connection with. Please, I ask that you give it another shot. I have the topic already setup on the BQ talk page if you want to join in w/ more details on how I want to approach everything. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Str1997, I just wanted to drop a note to remind you that anything that happens during a Mediation with the Committee is confidential and cannot be used against the participants later. Please do not edit the closed mediation, however, if anyone is trying to use the mediation or its closure against you, please let me know and I will resolve that issue. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 10:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not trying to do that to Str1977 but I don't like that we've all left off on a bad note and I wanted to wrap up what was left in the best manner possible. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no, you may not edit a closed case. This is not an action up for debate. I understand that you disagree with my reasons for closing the case, but I think the fact that you're willing to edit war over the mediation page with me yet again goes a long way towards showing my judgment was on point here. If you would like to bring up the issue, you're welcome to do so on the talk page for the Mediation Committee. Shell ^babelfish 21:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Hi Str1977, Firstly: Have you read Kisters article? Secondly: "Bat Ye'or" and Tariq Ramadan are no recognized academic authors - that's simply a fact. Thirdly: What you have deleted in the end was pretty much work of mine and was certainly not irrelevant. The issue is pretty important and has to be described in detail. I have tried to be brief and concise as far as possible. But, as Einstein once said: Make it easy, but not easier than that. The way it's standing there now is simply too short. You also deleted the mentioning of the fact about the circumstances and that it was not a model for later times, as well as one or two other sources next to Paret and Watt (namely Stillman and the EI1). There is certainly no harm in the way it was written by me. --Devotus (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made it shorter, just about between your and my version. Hope you're OK with it. --Devotus (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Nazi concentration camp badges

Hiya, I notice that on 4th March 2008, you removed that women using birth control were assigned black triangles from this article, stating that 'referenced article does not mention birth control', or words to that effect. On the first line of the article referenced it states "Lesbians, unmarried mothers, prostitutes, women who had abortions"... Would you not agree that abortion is a form of birth control, if a distasteful one? Nanobot recurve (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of comment

Hello, I notice that you removed my comment (as you don't seem to have liked it). Whatever. Please undo your edit on child marriage, or I'll assume that you want to go out of your way to violate WP:STALK and WP:V. If you delete this message, I'll assume you have read it.Bless sins (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am free to remove posts from my talk page even if I do not have a header on the page like you have. Also, I did not just remove but also posted the answer in the edit summary: I reverted you because you provided no sound reasoning for your removal - WP is about verifiability not likelihood. I see no harm in retaining the tag a little longer. I don't understand why you call on me to und my edit. Why don't you do it yourself? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I will. But please remember a few things: Do not WP:STALK me again. Also, do not insert contentious unsourced information in. WP:V says "[unsourced information] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Therefore do not make such flagrant violations of the policy.Bless sins (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd advise you not to as by now some other editor has provided a reference. Which proves my reverting you wrong. Please be less quick to delete stuff. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No I think the "be less quick" is completely wrong. Jimbo Wales has said:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Note where he says "aggressively" and "true for all information".Bless sins (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dalek

Stop removing the fonetic spelling from Dalek. Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation), especially the first paragraph, which states: "Sound-alike" transcriptions may be used in addition to the IPA. There is nothing "childish" about that; fonetic spelling is quite normal, as not everyone (if most) cannot read IPA. — Edokter • Talk • 10:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fonetic" is not even a word and has no article on WP - yes - is and remains childish. If you can't read IPA, educate yourself or listen to the soundbite. An encyclopedia containing this nonsense cannot be taken seriously. A pity some people safeguard this nonsense. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. And don't edit conflict me on my page. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean "phonetic", and I really can't edit-conflict on purpose. WP:MOS-P is very clear however; you can't expect everyone to be able to understand IPA, and as such 'sound-alike' spelling is permiited. — Edokter • Talk • 10:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion

Str1977, can you help us in standardizing the citation of sources for the Priory of Sion article according to the Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines as soon as possible? Can you tell me which citation style you will follow from now on because the one User:Wfgh66 have been using is not appropriate? --Loremaster (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Before editing their respective articles, please read my comments and questions on the the Talk:Priory of Sion and Talk:The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail pages. --Loremaster (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Block for continued personal attacks

I know this has been mentioned to you before, but attacking other editors you disagree with really isn't acceptable at Wikipedia. Calling someone a "supporter of terrorism"[16] because you don't agree with a source they chose is way over the line. You've had plenty of warnings, so I'm afraid I've had to block you for 24 hours. Please think about finding a way to make your opinions heard without resorting to name-calling; this kind of behavior really weakens your position and makes it difficult for others to work with you or take you seriously. Shell ^babelfish 08:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Str1977 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I cannot agree with the reasoning given for the block. Yes, I lost my temper when I mentioned terrorism. But I never attacked another Wikipedian by that. I never called another Wikipedian a "supporter of terrorism". My remark referred to one of the scholars mentioned (and despite his asking BS knows whom I am talking about) and was in reaction to his pseudo-argument that a version that is 10% smaller (his figures, I never checked that) or removes some scholars' quotes cannot possibly me more neutral. Well, it should be clear this is wrong, if the scholars are used in such a way as to push a POV. My outburst was an extreme way of saying this.
But I NEVER called BS or any other editor a supporter of terrorism.
Futhermore I don't see any "continued pattern of personal attacks culminating in accusing people of supporting terrorists" - there is no pattern there and the supposed culmination was actually the first and only instance of a what can be construed as a personal attack (which it wasn't).
Furthermore, Shell is not exactly an uninvolved admin. She has been mediator in an unfortunately failed mediation on this matter.
Therefore I am asking for a review of this block by another admin.

Decline reason:

It's a brief and appropriate block which will expire less than one full day from now. — Athaenara ✉ 11:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please note that while Str1977 is technically correct in that he called a living person and not another editor a supporter of terrorists, this does not excuse the remark or the history and pattern of uncivil behavior and attacks on other editors. If anyone would like further details or diffs, please feel free to shoot me a note or an email. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 09:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop copying and pasting other discussions here. As I said in my edit summary, this violates the GFDL by fragmenting the history and thus breaking the chain of authors required. Also, during your block you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia, which includes article talk pages - copying them here to get around that restriction is not acceptable. Shell ^babelfish 10:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I will not force this issue now because you obviously have the power to enforce your strange ideas and, given what you already did, would be more than happy to harm me some more.

I have every right to edit my own talk page. I will not abuse this right as others have done. Most of what I did was maintenance. Despite your bad faith comments, I did not try to get round any restriction. When you falsely blocked me, I was in the midst of comment on a talk page. I couldn't save my comments because of you. Hence I put them there.

As I said I will not force this issue but let me state that any remaining respect I might have had for you has been utterly erased. You are not welcome here either. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Schoenberg citation flack

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)

Deuteronomy re-loaded

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)

de:Johannes XX.

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)

de:Weihe (Religion), de:Segnung

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)

A dearly missed admin

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:[17] And here for the evidence:[18] 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)

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)

Woodrow Wilson

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Continued personal attacks

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re: Andrae

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)

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

Banu Qurayza

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)

Alexander Dubček

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)

Battle of the trench

Hi, thanks for your participation, but some of your edition[19] is against what has proposed by Eurocopter here.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hochhuth

Thanks. 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)

Mariology

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)

The Jew of Linz

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)

Temporary Judgment

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)

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)

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)

Thank you

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)

Moritz Wilhelm August Breidenbach

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)

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)

User:Systematizer

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)

Act of Seclusion

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)

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)

Christianity RCC section

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)

Str, I was wondering if you have seen the page Roman Catholic Church - it has been through several peer reviews and four FA attempts. The material on that page has been extensively vetted by the Wikipedia community and almost every single sentence is referenced to a WP:RS top source. It has a particularly useful section called Cultural Influence that you may want to consider including on the Christianity page. There is also a lot of interesting history for you to pick and choose from to enhance the history section on Christianity - if you're interested. NancyHeise ^talk 02:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

oldest

I am glad to be done, it seems, with that. I am fine with the removal of the passage other for reasons.

BTW, I think that instead of my logic being faulty, you just not seem to follow it or read it very carefully. I write better when I know where people come from, and I am not perfect either.

For example-- the fact that the "church of Rome existed even before Paul wrote to them" is the whole reason I brought it up, that was Paul writting to them. I also was not quoting Acts 28, I was reffering to it, so I am not sure how much you follow me, when you call it "nonsense." You also seem to bring up facts, that to me, are not any sort of factor.

I am not tring to beat a dead horse, but rather point out our limits in this discussion in hopes you and I can work togther a bit better next time. Blessings --Carlaude ^(talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Änderung entfernt Ludwig ll. von Bayern

Bitte um sofortige Stellungnahme, warum die Änderung von mir "Website der Freunde König Ludwig ll. von Bayern" entfernt wurde!

Die Website bietet ein reichhaltiges literarisches Angebot zu Ludwig ll. Somit werde ich den Link nun auch wieder eintragen.

Gruß —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.199.220 (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Gerade deine Message gelesen...dann tut mir das natürlich leid, entschuldige! (Bzgl. König Ludwig ll. von Bayern - Link)

Dann habe ich den falschen erwischt - ich bin im Moment nur auf 300, da hier eine Mitarbeit fast ausgeschlossen ist.

Aber nun gut.

Grüße —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.199.220 (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk Christianity - persecutions bias?

Please throw your weight in here, either for or against my point. Gabr-el 06:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection for Talk:Sarah Palin

Could you link to the request for semiprotection? I agree that we need to do something to get the page under control, at least until the storm of initial edits passes. Wellspring (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Nevermind it's gone through. :) Wellspring (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know

I added a link to a "before/after compare" of a recent edit you made, to my user page under the section, "My Favourite Edit Summaries". :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

I don't beleive the text makes it seem like waters "graciously allowed the others to use the name". If you feel that it does, discuss it on the Pink Floyd talk page.

Sorry, i forgot to sign my commentZXS9465 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry you were (maybe) upset that I reverted your change. But I'm guessing you hadn't seen the discussion about it on the talk page. I was surprised to see this change come in so soon after we had agreeded upon how to format the infobox. I pointed out the talk page section in the edit summary, but from your post on that page, I suspect you hadn't read it yet. The previous discussion resolves most of the points you raised. If you still haven't read it, it's here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Philippe I, et al.

You'll find your opponent, 86.167.207.8, quite puerile in his/her mentality. Enjoy your continued attempts to improve those articles. As Frania has told me, "Bon courage!". Kansas Bear (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Batman Begins

First, my talk page is not the article talk page so please don't treat it as such. That being said, I still understand why you commented on my talk page after Alien left his comment and as such I cannot hold it completely against you.

Now, to answer your question (or address your statement, as I'm not really sure that you had a question in your comments), though I don't particularly agree with the non-bulleted character setup, I understand why it was used. The original reason for setting up the section that way was because there was a lot of prose information in that section and it looked ridiculous to have a bulleted section that was so long (e.g. Bullet - Christian Bale as Batman - Follow introduction with three paragraphs of info). That being said, it wouldn't be appropriate to have a "Cast" list and then a separate "Characters" list. They are one in the same topic. I have always preferred the "no cast list" method. In this approach, you list the actors in the plot section of the article and create a "Casting" subsection in the "Production" secting of the article. You then move all of the real world information there, as all of the in-universe information is already present in the plot section of the article. But, that is probably something that should be saved for the talk page of the article. Frankly, both of you took part in an edit war and I think that one of you (doesn't matter which) should have been the bigger person and gone to the talk page to seek out the opinion of other editors. I'm sorry you were met with rudeness, when editors are close to articles they become protective of their work (I should know, it has happened to me on plenty of occassions).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I told you before, my talk page is not your debate forum. I don't care if you disagree with my opinion or not, or with Alien's. What I care about is article stability. This petty edit war has gone on long enough. Since you disagree so much, please start a discussion on the article talk page when you get off your block. I keep reverting you because I want you to start a discussion on the talk page of the article, and leave the page alone until a consensus is reached. This has nothing to do with taking sides, I'm merely restoring the page to its original state until a decision can be made. If you feel that this is some personal attack against you, then I'm sorry (and frankly, I don't need that type of drama and will not discuss such a feeling any further) but the revert is merely to restore the page to its original state given the disagreement over the changes you are making between you and Alien.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your request is ridiculous. The simplest formatting errors are dragged unto the talk page. Give me a break! I see you have, an involuntary break. And this while you were playing nice but then put the knife into my back. You can go and have your article in all its "beauty". Don't except my help or sympathy or respect. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of "lying". If you look at the report I said that I informed you that you were taking part in an edit war, and that you should go to the article talk page. If you look at my very first comment on your talk page I clearly state, "both of you took part in an edit war [...] think that one of you (doesn't matter which) should have been the bigger person and gone to the talk page to seek out the opinion of other editors." That clearly backsup what I reported on the 3RR notification board. I was always very civil, and rather understanding of your edits in my comments to you, but you took them as a personal attack and spat them back in my face. I'm sorry that it had to come to you gettin blocked, and I hope that you will be a bit more level headed in the future with this sort of thing (both with regard to editing disputes and to other editors comments toward you). Have a nice evening.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You were always civil in your words but disruptive and incivil in your deeds. And now you are sorry that you got me blocked. Well, that's what you asked for with your report. I will not be level headed with you, I will not be with you at all (save my farewell posting). I hope that in the future you are not too disappointed when other editors will not discuss triviliaties on the talk page either. And what is all that nonsense about merely reverting to the "original version" - apart from not being original, it was you who objected for whatever reason I cannot imagine. No, I do not take this as a personal attack. However, I take it as disruptive and uncooperative. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Batman Begins. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The allegations put against me are without substance. It was not me that simply reverted all the time. My last few edits were not reverts at all but taking objections of others into account. It was I that had to deal with one editor, User:Alientraveller who repeatedly reverted all my changes under false pretenses. Result: nothing! There is no way of forming a consensus with him or even User:Bignole, who talks sensible while at the same time revert the worst formatting errors back in. I have no intention in returning to this article anymore after the most recent occurences - except maybe for a farewell statement on talk - hence there is no reason to block me. I never was interested in that article anyway. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What others did is irrelevant to your actions. You were edit warring back and forth without heed to any discussion. From what I can tell, you didn't make much of an effort to discuss in the first place, removing comments with incivil edit summaries. You don't seem to understand the reason for your block, and so I will not unblock you just yet. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No this is not a further request for an unblock since this will anyway be stonewalled. This whole thing is ridiculous, Alien is reverting me and reverting me, insulting me on other people's talk page but I get blocked.

My supposed third revert was no revert at all - hence I did not actually break the "3RR", the supposed fourth did take objections (too long a paragraph) into account.

(As an aside, the blocking report was also lying, as there was no warning. Not that it's needed but still: the claim was a lie.)

I am told that I was using "incivil edit summaries" - I don't see any. ("offensive" is in itself not offensive and clearly a reference to Alien's "defensive" summary - obviously he thinks "defensive" is a four-letter word)

I am told "you did not discuss this enough" when I did explain my reasoning, even though Bignole refers to delete my comments.

I am told that controversial things should go to the talk page when this is as controversial as correcting a typo.

It must be: I am the meany, I am the evil one. I must be blocked.

Yes I do not understand the reason for my block. I understand the reason for my not being unblocked however. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The above claim that I "didn't make much of an effort to discuss in the first place" indicates that no one looked at the matter.

From the Alien's talk page (all removed by him):

==Batman==
Just remember what it says under the edit box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited 
mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." My point stands, "Batman 
(played by Christian Bale)" is akward and many editors would agree. Why don't you take a look of 
most cast sections? Alientraveller (talk) 
20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I say the same thing about your edits. But don't even bother to edit mercilessly - you simply revert.
I don't care about the bullets but we have to be consistent. And any edit of yours that doesn't 
adhere to such a consistency (either way) I will revert.
You also disimproved the article in other ways which you however didn't reintroduce in your latest 
revert.
To have three paragraphs under one bullet is not only not "awkward" it is absolutely necessary IF we
have such bullets for every character. 
Still, I will revert your revert. If you want to have the bullets gone, remove them. But remove them
all.
Str1977 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I will create a proper cast section and move the rest to a characters section, 
without bullets. Str1977 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no difference between using the erase button on a keyboard or the undo button. And creating 
a characters section violates WP:WAF: that is why information is written the way it is. 
Alientraveller (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't blame me for the faults of the article. Go and fix those you see yourself. I don't mind a
character section or the absense of one. But before I edited, there WAS a character secton in 
existence, only it was called "cast". I really do not need your "this violates whatever" talk. Go 
and remove the section if you want it gone - but don't revert my edit.

Indeed, it does not matter whether you revert by pressing undo or by simply chaning everything back 
manually. That was not my point: my point was that you lazily reverted me with a ludicrous reasoning
that did not touch the content of my edits - I did not introduce "bullets". I did not introduce 
"in-universe speech". I simply made a few formatting edits - instead of addressing the supposed 
problems by your own, creative edits. Str1977 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of that information has nothing even to do with characters. Could you read WP:MOSFILM? 
Alientraveller (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I will not read your MOSFilms (but I have seen enough articles on films to have an idea about 
how they look like). I did not put that information there. I simply kept it and just made a few 
format edits. If you have a problem with that section, solve it yourselve - without reverting to a 
badly formatted version of course.

"Most of that information has nothing even to do with characters", you say. Almost all of the 
information didn't have anything to do with "cast" but you didn't seem to have a problem with that. 
Str1977 (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [20][21]

Final word from me: if you don't care, then why did you bother me in the first place. I really had 
only a slight part in editing this article and insist on only a few things (but I will not say more 
as you don't care and I don't want to bother you either). Just one last thing: On another talk page,
you disparage your social skills. Indeed, you are right if you have the audacity of calling another 
person "it". Consider that this is probably the summit of rudeness. 
Str1977 (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [22]

He removed this, first with a bible thumping edit summary, then by "I don't care" and then by "Bye! You're so defensive!" Obviously he is one of those that think defending is evil. WP administrators obviously disagree and think "offensive" is evil - and block ME for merely using the word!

I also discussed things at Bignole's talk page after Alien left an insulting posting about me there:

==Batman Begins==
My social skills are too subpar to communicate to User:Str1977 how unnecessary its (as I don't 
know its gender) edits were to the article. First compressing everything into bullet points and then
separating the casting info from the list into a "Characters" section.   
Alientraveller (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Alien has posted here (why I do not know) I want to explain the whole situation:
I came across that article and found a few things wrong, especially that the section "cast" had some
characters presented without "bullets" and some with "bullets". I rectified this by providing hem 
all with "bullets". I also did a few other edits, really on small things. 
Alien blanket-reverted with the strange summary "rvt overlong paragraph and in-universe phrasing". I
did not introduce any "in-universe phrasing", nor did his revert remove any. The overlong paragraph 
was due to the format now being in "bullets" - it wasn't really one paragraph but three all put 
under one "bullet".
I took exception to what I consider his laziness in simply reverting me and not bothering to give 
actually fitting reasons. I also disagreed with a couple of smaller edits he made and reverted back.
Alien again blanket reverted this time citing the bullets as a reason and the wording 
"(played by ...)" 
Note, he didn't bother that half the characters had bullets in his version.
Then he started lecturing me about the WP standard warning ("your edits will be edited 
mercilessly"), several policies etc. - thing I didn't want to concern myself with. Later he changed 
his mind and said he didn't care.
He also disapproved when I created a proper cast section (giving merely the cast) as the side-effect
was that I created a "characters" section - I don't want to get too involved in this article. And 
then he complained about this but also said he didn't care.
This is it. I am flabbergasted at his behaviour and his rudeness. He tops it all by calling me an 
"it" right here on this page. 
Str1977 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

First, my talk page is not the article talk page so please don't treat it as such. That being said, 
I still understand why you commented on my talk page after Alien left his comment and as such I 
cannot hold it completely against you. 
Now, to answer your question (or address your statement, as I'm not really sure that you had a 
question in your comments), though I don't particularly agree with the non-bulleted character setup,
I understand why it was used. The original reason for setting up the section that way was because 
there was a lot of prose information in that section and it looked ridiculous to have a bulleted 
section that was so long (e.g. Bullet - Christian Bale as Batman - Follow introduction with three 
paragraphs of info). That being said, it wouldn't be appropriate to have a "Cast" list and then a 
separate "Characters" list. They are one in the same topic. I have always preferred the "no cast 
list" method. In this approach, you list the actors in the plot section of the article and create a 
"Casting" subsection in the "Production" secting of the article. You then move all of the real world
information there, as all of the in-universe information is already present in the plot section of 
the article. But, that is probably something that should be saved for the talk page of the article. 
Frankly, both of you took part in an edit war and I think that one of you (doesn't matter which) 
should have been the bigger person and gone to the talk page to seek out the opinion of other 
editors. I'm sorry you were met with rudeness, when editors are close to articles they become 
protective of their work (I should know, it has happened to me on plenty of occassions). 
 BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this is your talk page and I wouldn't have come here if Alien had not posted here 
before. As far as your points are concerned:
*I have no problem with either a bulleted or non-bulleted format. I only insist that either all or 
none should be bulleted and that, if bulleted, all the paragraphs relating to Bruce Wayne should 
come under one bullet.
*I disagree that the two are the same topic. Cast means which actors play which character. Bruce's 
psyche has nothing to do with cast. However, I did not mind the combined section and only changed it
due to Alien's shouting. However, in the combined section the emphasis was on character information 
and hence the the chracter name should be the first to be mentioned.
*I for my part dislike giving actors in a plot section or the like as it is in the end irrelevant to
the plot who the actors are. And most articles I have seen that did this still had a cast list 
anyway. However, I think including the cast information works better with a cast/characters section.
*The problem was that there was nothing I could address on the talk page as Alien's reasoning were 
totally illogical. And if I editwarred against his behaviour, I don't think that a shame. Whether he
is so tied to the article, I don't know. After he says, he doesn't care. 
I posted here, but feel free to copy it to the talk page. As I said, I will not get too involved. I 
only made really tiny, formal edits before Alien dragged me into this. 
Str1977 (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I thought you were sensible and now you pull the same stunts that Alien does. The current 
version is a load of crap, putting some characters behind bullets and some not. This cannot ever 
stand. Str1977 (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to this question "Why are you breaking this twice?" (in this edit summary):

Because, despite all the disruption levelled against my efforts to improve this article, I still 
think that maybe there might be some truth in opposing comments. And then I try to do things 
differently. I hope that right now the reverting (by Alien and you) of the most basic necessities is
finally at an end. Str1977 (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a discussion to me. Heated yes, but still a discussion.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Count of Nychlenborch

I saw you edited several articles on Frisian history and in the Arumer Black Heap, you put in a red link to a certain Count of Nychlenborch. I wonder where you found sources on him and I ask you to, if you can or are willing to, create an article on him since I cannot. Thanks in advanche,

Jouke Bersma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The red link was already there. I wonder why people like me who organise things are so often questioned about material put in by others. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. In any case, I thank you for the work you did on Frisian related articles. Do you feel for it to create a small article on the Count of Nychlenborch, just a stub, like: "The Count of Nychlenborch was a Burgundian vassal who was brided by ... to ... etc." That would be great. You see, I cannot make an article since I am an IP and do not wish to sign in just yet. Could you do me that little favour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But I will not create an article on him. I know only what I read about him (which is the sentence you quoted) in the articles I edited recently. And that is no secure knowledge as it comes without a source. Hence I don't feel confident enough to post it on WP myself - as I said hitherto I have only (re-)organised existing information put there by others, information for which I have no responsibility. If you know more about him and want to create an article (with references of course) I suggest you register as a regular editor and after a few days create that article. If there is any legitimate reason for you not to do that, please send me an e-mail. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 10:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for explaining so patiently. Here, this I just found when googling the guy: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Count-of-Nychlenborch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but that happens to be a WP article that seems to have been deleted but is still mirrored on other sites. As the tag on top of it says, its tone is really unsuitable. But more importantly, it does not contain any sources - except one link in Dutch which I cannot read. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The article was deleted last year with the reasoning that it was a "hoax" created by "dubious". I cannot judge the veracity of this decision but it makes it even more impossible for me to recreate, when I know nothing about the subject. Unfortunately, it also casts a shadow on the existing links.

And of course I hope you are not the one that created the deleted article in the fist place. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Dutch WP has no article on him either, which seems very suspicious. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked the article and it's creator. That was a user who is banned for having multiple accounts. I think it is safe to say it is a hoax, but the thing is, there is something on the Dutch Pier Gerlofs Donia article which seems to be true. There is refered to a "Graaf van Nychlenborch" ("Graaf van" meaning "Count of") in the Dutch article on Pier Gerlofs Donia. He is said to have been one of the last people to have visited the then dying folk hero. He is said for having asked Donia one final question, to which Donia replied saying his last words: "Nea myn heer ta".

Toen de graaf van Nychlenborch, zijn oude vijand, hem vlak voor zijn dood vroeg waar hij heen wilde. Pier zei toen: "Nae Myn Heer ta"

meaning:

When the count of Nychlenborch, his (Donia's) old enemy, asked him right before his death where he wanted to go, Pier replied: "Nae Myn Heer ta" (to my lord) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grote_Pier#Leven

So the whole character seems to have been genuine. The thing is, however, that there is no article on him (he is a red link there aswell). Nothing is mentioned about him, it is unknown in which way he was an enemy to Donia. The thing that he visited the man on his dying bed might suggest he was more of a rival then a true enemy. No grounds for making an article yet. I'll try and ask around at the Dutch wikipedia. Thanks for your time,

Jouke Bersma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, that's only WP without a reference. But at least my greatest fear are somwhat allieviated. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Several sources (books) in old-Frisian give reason to assume he excisted. He did. He lived from 1470 - 1534 and he had issue. Not much is said about his deed, however one of decendants was allied to William I of Orange in the 80-years war against Spain. Also it is mentioned that he could trace his family line back to the crusades. He is not notable enough to have an article, though he did excist. He was no Burgundian vassal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If he did exist, then don't remove them from article. And especially, don't replace with nonsense like "Habsburg" - "Habsurg" is not even a man, let alone a military leader.

The Count certainly does deserve an article as much as Donia. Only to create it we'd need reliable info on him and I don't have it. You seem to have some but can't create it as long as you don't register (why is beyond me).

Finally, he certainly was a "Burgundian vassal", i.e. a Vassal of the Burgundians.

Maybe you should translate the Frisian sources you referred to. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I never removed a thing. Someone else did. And I just created a user name after 3 years. Last king of Frisia (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, about that. I mixed you up with the Bold Guy who posted below. You see, that's a disadvantage of not having a username but I am glad that this is rectified now. Welcome! Str1977 ^(talk) 08:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. In any case, I am happy to be an official member. It took me three years to take the actual step. Glad I did it. I am not very active, but still, I think every user is welcome, ain't that right? Last king of Frisia (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Friesland

Thanks for cleaning up some mess at some Frisian articles. The work you did on for example Arumer Zwarte Hoop is great. You might consider joining WikiProject Friesland for you seem to have quite some knowledge of the era. After all, 15th and 16th century are of huge importance to our project and the history of the Frisians. I might remove some more unsourced material. Furthermore, I think it is important to check all Frisian related red-links, make articles on those or remove them completely otherwise. Care to join in, Str1977, if you can find the time? -The Bold Guy- (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you, by any chance, miss the comment? -The Bold Guy- (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but I am most terribly busy and cannot do much wiki-wise anyway, except for brainless aditing like expunging the horrid "Hapsburg" spelling.

But to answer your question: I must decline. As I said I am terribly busy. Also, you are either very polite or you totally overestimate my knowledge about the Frisians. The recent articles I edited I did with next to no knowledge about the specific situation and hence it was mostly re-organising stuff. My knowledge was only of a general kind, enough to know that the peasant rebellion and the preceding civil war are not topical to Friso-Hollandic wars. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 18:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gospel of John

You deleted: "The Gospel of John places Jesus at a wedding in Cana three days after baptism (1:29,35,43; 2:1), whereas the other Gospels indicate a period of 40 days in the wilderness immediately after baptism."

Please explain how this difference is merely an interpretation rather than a plain reading of the verses in question, aside from POV arguments comprised of, "They both must be true because they're in the bible."--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro, the text does not say "three days after" at all. It does not even say "on the third day after baptism" - it merely says "on the third day". That might mean "on the third day after what was just related (which wasn't baptism but Jesus leading two disciples of John - traditionally believed to be Andrew and John - to his home. But it might also mean on "the third day of the week", i.e. on Tuesday. It is very common for Jewish weddings to be held on Tuesday (due to a certain exegesis of Genesis 1). So you see, your contradiction isn't that simple. Your plain reading is not even the correct text. Str1977 (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I will concede that there is some room for a very weak alternative interpretation of it meaning something other than the plain day-by-day narrative continuing from chapter 1 as indicated by the verses stated. Your contention that it wasn't following baptism but rather, the calling of Andrew and John, is more in support of my position than your defense, as 1:35 of the narrative indicates the calling of Andrew and Peter to be the day after baptism, unless you also contend some different meaning of the word "next".--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Check again, and you will find that John's gospel doesn't mention Jesus' baptism at all, so there is not the slightest reason to relate the time reference to it. The narrative describes an enquiry by priests and Levites into John the Baptist's ministry, and John's response. This enquiry is not related in the other gospels. Nothing is said here about the baptism, but John's words in 1.26 tell us that Jesus was present. The first (and non-explicit) reference to Jesus' baptism comes up in reference to the events of the day after this discussion (verse 29 "the next day"). In verse 32, John describes the Holy Spirit descending from heaven as a dove, but even here, Jesus' baptism is not directly stated. The only reason we have for assuming that this refers to his baptism is in our reading of the other gospels. John the Baptist refers to this descent of the Spirit as something that happened in the past, but there is no indication whether it was three days, two months or a year previously. Str1977's interpretation does represent a reasonably straightforward reading of the text.

It may also be worthwhile to count the days referred to in the text. You have the discussion in 1.19–28, then the phrase "the next day" occurs in verses 29, 35 and 43. Then Chapter 2 begins, "On the third day". In the conventions of the language of the biblical text, the first day is the day of the event from which the count is made, and "on the third day" is the equivalent of our phrase "two days later". I would naturally take it as meaning two days after the call of Nathanael (1.43–51), and this is confirmed in Henry Alford's commentary on 2.1. If we date it two days after the discussion, then the wedding takes place on the same day as the events of 1.35–42), and you have the oddity of Jesus making a supernaturally speedy trip to Galilee that day, then deciding the following day to leave for Galilee (verse 43). The "plain day-by-day narrative continuing from chapter 1" (as you put it) completely rules out the interpretation that Jesus was at the wedding two (or three) days after his baptism. Koro Neil (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Habsburg spelling

Oh dear! Then you would have been very upset by many historical (especially Spanish) members of the family, who used Hapsburg, also Hasburg. It was once the correct spelling in English, reflecting English pronunciation. Some dictionaries still make this disctinction. I suspect you are unaware of this. Although it should be changed to Habsburg to reflect modern academic usage, it is not a spelling mistake as such in English. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not unaware of rationalisations for misspellings. What spellings were used centuries ago is beside the point as at the time there was no fixed orthography and everyone wrote as he pleased. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a misspelling in German no doubt, but in English an old spelling, now falling into disuse, like Cologne, also once the correct English spelling. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So what is the correct English spelling for Cologne. Cologne simply is a different name in another language, such as Monaco or Munich for München. But Hapsburg (wash my hands) is simply a misspelling. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So was Hapsburg - the natural spelling in English. Now most people use Habsburg they have to be told to pronounce it "Hapsburg". Are you saying the English dictionaries that still give it are just wrong? Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Was what? The ugly spelling is not a different name but simply an ugly spelling of it. Though you didn't answer my questiosn, I say this much: English dictionaries can't bring themselves to call a spade a spade. The p-spelling is ugly, ignorant and wrong. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugly is entirely subjective, and unlikely to stike English and German people in the same way (most English would say Germans have a nerve talking about ugliness of language, but there we go). I repeat that in English it is actually the most natural spelling. It has become increasingly outdated but is neither ignorant, nor can it yet be said to be wrong. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is ignorant because it doesn't care how the word is actually spelled. I see no reason to give that misspelling anyway. And please don't try to use reported insults as an argument. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get that until quite recently that was how the word was spelled in English. There's no law that says English spelling has to follow German, although modern best practice is to do so. Unusually, the family is sufficiently prominent to have acquired its own "Munich"-type spelling in English. Your irritation is misplaced. Johnbod (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me when I should be irritated or what I don't get. I get all you say I just don't agree with it. I see no merit in discussing this further. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Van Dyck

I have reverted your unexplained, and rather inexplicable, edit here. English is not I think your native language, and you should be more careful making edits concerning English usage. Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Christianity

I appreciate your comments - it wasn't my intention to split hairs or go into unreasonable detail about a side issue of the article - only to respond to the anonymous editor, who I think was splitting hairs! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I made a proposal at WP:NOR, perhaps you would have a comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

New Consensus sought on lead sentence

Please come give us your opinion by voting here [23], Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, I am supporting Karanacs version, she was the one who proposed it to eliminate the endless dispute and I think it is a very good proposal. The fact that Soidi likes it too is beside the fact. If more people like the first sentence, I will not stand in the way of using it. I just conducted the vote to see what everyone wants, not to upset anyone. I certainly don't want to upset you, you have been very helpful and I appreciate your help very very much. Please don't be angry. NancyHeise ^talk 19:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here [24] but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise ^talk 03:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Shimmelpfenig sentence.

Hi. I note you deleted the sentence I put in to accommodate vassyana's concerns on Featured Article Candidate review. I think it is important to have something like this in to accommodate Wikipedia policy that all significant viewpoints are represented in the article. Since this is a significant or minority viewpoint, we need to mention it as a point of view to gain Featured Article status. I had assumed that what went before the new sentence amounted to the standard or contrary view, but if this is not clear, perhaps you could suggest something else (short) that can be referenced, that could be added? I will replace the sentence while you respond since I have written on the FAC page that I have inserted the statement. We can alter after you respond if you are still opposed to this. Xandar 15:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One last vote please

Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: [25]. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise ^talk 15:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Str, you eliminated text that said the Coluseum is a short distance from the Vatican. This is an undisputed fact. I have been there. NancyHeise ^talk 18:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For all your help to improve Roman Catholic Church. Your edits were very well done and I enjoyed working with you very much. We failed FAC but will be going through peer review again in a few weeks. I hope I can count on your help then. Thanks again for your great insights and edits. NancyHeise talk 00:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert it

Sorry, sorry. Let's forget about it. There have been a few misunderstandings.

1. I thought your comment looked like vandalism. I apologise.
2. I didn't revert it. Spittlespat did. He didn't understand that you found it offensive and I didn't know he reverted it. Otherwise, hand on heart, I would have deleted it. Go through your history if you don't believe me.
3. I didn't realise you were an experienced editor. My sincerest apologies. Please forgive me. TopGearFreak ^Talk 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry too, I just thought you were a vandal, but one question I want to ask you are you a rollbacker?--Spittlespat 18:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. one more thing, you said you would report me if I talked on your talk page, so can I or not? OH wait you meant I shouldn't insult you... ok I got it! :D :D (these are how I do my smiley faces) :D :D --Spittlespat 21:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You are doing pretty well for your edits, but have you ever reverted edits of a vandalizer before? Also try giving them a warning first, before reporting them you can ask me if you don't know how to give out warnings. :D cheers! :P :P --Spittlespat 21:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

also are you christian?--Spittlespat 21:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

But are you christian?--Spittlespat 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm christian too! :D But I'm mormon are you mormon?--Spittlespat 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyjamas

Apologies. I see you're reorganizing, not deleting. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing some WP:RS citations for your reorganization, which now favors a particular interpretation of pajamas. Per Wikipedia policy please show that there is a consensus of scholarly opinion for such interpretation. I have now tagged the article for both imbalance and lack of references. Please see Talk:Pajamas. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"considerate" politician, reverted here

don't point out my bad enlish like this, hehe. "considerate" should have been a citation/translation of wolfgang fellners "besonnen" mentioned in this press review, see here for a translation. according to fellner, he and haider sued each other maybe a 100 times, and quarreled bitterly. i am also unsure why you consider the fellner-edited Oesterreich (http://file.oe24.at/help/unternehmen.html), ORF_(broadcaster), Kleine Zeitung as "unreliable source"? how would you include/translate this information in a better way? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mendelssohn

I think your point here was quibbling, but I have provided a note in case any others are as pernickety as you. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please have the courtesy either to explain your persistence on this trivial point, or to cease making edits about it. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Further to the changes you suggested to the article. A revision is underway now - so this is the best time to chip in with your ideas! Xandar 01:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

POV Tags and Other Problems

As per this. You add a POV tag in a section with cited information. POV tags are not for that. NPOV only means that something is given weight and must be cited. This is cited. Thus, a POV tag is completely unnecessary and seen as extremely improper. Your changing of a section to a bullited list also violates many MOS standards. The fact template is completely unnecessary as there is no talk page dispute to it making it controversial. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with that interpretation of policy, in fact. But I have greatly expanded the section on Milton's politics now. I hope it is reasonably comprehensive and a proper timeline. Please leave me a talk page note if you think there is more to do. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fictitious entry?

Hi, hope things are going well with you. I think the Count of Nychlenborch is a fictitious person, and plan to remove a few remaining references. Is there any reason to wait? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits

Hi - could I remind you to always use edit summaries explaining what you are doing? I'm interested in your edits to the Atlantis articles and it would make life simpler if you had edit summaries. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Bitte Film : die glorreichen Sieben sichten Please Review : magnificent seven

Glorreiche 7

Danke für Review + aber keine gute Änderung : "moralisiert" ist besser als "sinniert" sinnieren ist nachdenken, moralisieren ist sich äußern sinniert schreibt sich mit zwei "n" + ist mir aber nicht wichtig + Im übrigen sagt den ersten zitierten Satz nicht Chris, sondern der Alte Mann, was ich aber aus Respekt vor meinem Vor-autor nicht geändert habe, weil es für das Verständnis egal ist.

Bis dann Smartbyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.80.253 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply

The characters section format, with the "cameo" and such, was copied and pasted from a featured article, which basically means "that's the way to go". And you cannot fully state he is a "mass murderer", the films, the writers and producers, have clearly stated that he is not a killer, he finds ways from his victims to kill themselves. And yes, you could make the point that only one has survived, but this obviously means they are survivable. So there is no reason to say that the text is "apologetic", as it's only going by what's been stated, not by what it is perceived as, which is original research, and, therefore, against policy. Hope this helps. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, I don't understand how you can say that we should not follow the examples of featured articles, they're "featured" for a reason. Secondly this edit summary, is what I'm referring to. I'll answer some of your others on the article talk page. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cabildo (council)

I can understand the desire to correct "Hapsburg" to "Habsburg", but titles of cited articles are what they are, even if they are not accurate in their usage. A cited article title should only be corrected if it is incorrectly transcribed. The title in the citation in the Cabildo (council) article to: Pike, Frederick B. "The Cabildo and Colonial Loyalty to Hapsburg Rulers," Journal of Interamerican Studies, 2, No. 4, October 1960, 405-20, was correctly transcribed. See, e.g., its mention in "Mexico - Bibliography". Or, if you have access to JSTOR, you can read the original article. --Bejnar (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RFM

I began a Request for Mediation here [26] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [27] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Str, can you please post your "agree" on this page [28] toward the bottom so it can be considered for mediation? Thanks! :) NancyHeise ^talk 19:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Williamson controversy

Hello, while I value your contributions to the Williamson article I would like to some advice:

• please do not simply add "X said Y" to the article without including it into a proper context
• please avoid giving unnecessary detail (such as the university where the Msgr is a professor)
• when using a referenced source, please do not simply pick one element and leave out the rest: that the Swedish SSPX superior as well as the RC diocesis in Sweden distanced themselves is just as important as Schmidberger and more important then quoting Schmidberger at great length.
• MOST IMPORTANTLY: when referencing a source, please use the actual title used, not a summary of what you think relevant.

Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 14:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the Swedish diocese part is more relevant, it is likely not, since we are to assume that the SSPX and the diocese are really two separate and likely conflictual entities, which would disagree on almost anything else anyways. However the fact that Father Schmidberger did condemn Williamson is relevant, since on other relevant matters they have been on same side and otherwise fought the same battles. ADM (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read my posting more carefully. I did not say the diocesis part is more relevant than Schmidberger but just as relevant (though I may grant you that it is slightly less important than the two SSPX superiors' comments). And it is a fact that it has distanced itself. Also the Swedish superior has also distanced himself. And yes, Schmidberger is relevant he is therefore included - though not by name. What is not relevant is quoting Schmidberger verbatim. I hope your silence on the other matters means agreement. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The rest is formalism, which I am good at, although I am kind of a substantialist, more interested by substance than form, albeit I surely will pay attention to what you said. ADM (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC

Thanks for the link to that video! I still think he's a dangerous nutter.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that too. But even a dangerous nutter must be quoted accurately. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And regardless where you put it, the quote in that form is a fabrication, not so much by the Telegraph but by you. Furthermore, such quotes in references are totally superfluous. We link to the article and that's enough. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That quote is from the telegraph, read it about halfway down...it's from a sermon he did in Canada that might still be on YouTube.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I have already read the Telegraph article and it does not contain this one quote. It is two quotes from the Telegraph transferred into one by you. They give the interview quote and in the next paragraph give the Canadian quote, but without any explanation. The only way that this can be one quote is if it is a Telegraph (instead of Williamson) quote. I am sure that he said it and the interviewer introduces the linked section by quoting these words. But our job is not to assemble any quote (let alone fabricate one). The whole matter has already been covered in the text to the full extent. We don't need that quote. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That quote is from the telegraph, read it about halfway down...it's from a sermon he did in Canada that might still be on YouTube. His Eminence Bishop Williamson recognises that the "holocaust" is all Jewish lies, invented as a scheme to further Jewish aggression against the nations. In 1989, Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes church in Sherbrooke, Canada, Bishop Williamson stated, regarding this devilish concoction of the Jews:

"there was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel.... Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism." --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know. You don't (need) to quote it to me. We simply don't need these longish quotes. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ecône consecrations

Hello Str1977. Could you work on adding more criticism of the Lifting of excommunications section of the Ecône consecrations article? --Loremaster (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Malenkov

You may want to chime in at Talk:Georgy Malenkov#First Secretary. Nsk92 (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

One more miscarriage of justice on WP, punishing the innocent with the guilty: First this and then this!!! Disgusting!!! Str1977 ^(talk) 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you innocent when you also breached the 3RR? Does not make sense, I mean i may be more guilty than you, but you are still guilty... anyhow added reliable sources for my claim that the general secretaryship was abolished in 1934 and that Malenkov was a first secretary... i can add more sources if you want? --TIAYN (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah yeah I get it, you hate me... I don't really care... However back to the point; What happen to this "became Prime Minister and First Secretary and this Malenkov, who had assumed the twin offices of prime minister and first secretary"? Both say the General Secretaryship was abolishd.... I've never said Stalin wasn't the party leader, I've said that he was not the party leader through the office of the General Secretary, but instead just as a Secretary, who were called commonly called First Secretary to show their rank/status.. Have you been following the argument? --TIAYN (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I stretched the truth, I know you don't hate me; I'm not that ignorant ;).... Anyhow, Archie Brown (long passage this time);

"Moreover, the post of the General Secretary had been formally abolished by Stalin at the Nineteenth Party Congress in 1952, so that in principle even Stalin was then just one among several secretaries, though the reality was utterly different. This meant, though, that in March 1953 there was not a position of individual pre-eminence in the Communist Party in the way in which there was a slot for just one person at the top of the ministerial hierarchy". (p. 231-232)

--TIAYN (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson

Please see WP:NPOV/N#Paul Robeson and related articles. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Robeson

On Robeson and Fefer see also, it seems more favorable to R.: Arno Lustiger: Rotbuch: Stalin und die Juden. 1998 (no google-preview, at least not in Germany). The book has been translated into English. Lustiger is a serious historian. He has posted on the death of Fefer and his comrades at http://forum.hagalil.com/archiv-a/messanges/3320/10458.html .--Radh (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Paul Robeson archive at the Akademie der Künste in East-Berlin was founded (in 1965) by ("white") Victor Grossman (born: Stephen Wechsler), a "red diaper New York radical", who deserted the U.S. Army in West-Germany in 1952 and fled east - feering prosecution because of his Korean-war/1951 "loyalty oath falsification", he says - he also somewhere says he had met (the top Comintern operative for the USA in the 1930's) Gerhart Eisler, when Eisler spoke at Harvard. Strangely enough later in Berlin Eisler was the boss of his boss when he worked as a radio journalist. Memoir: Crossing the River, U o Mass. Press, 2003. (the Rosenbergs are "a progressive young Jewish couple")

Robeson's assistant on Freedom - articles and on his autobiography, L. Lloyd Brown (1913) was another life-long communist around Robeson; Frank Marshall Davis also was a "friend" it seems. WP has the absolutely astonishing statement, that R. told Davis c.1948 to go to Hawaii!. Davis was in front organizations, he def. was a party member in 1951, probably much earlier. He helped organize the underground cp in Hawaii.

Brown was a member since 1929 (Young Communist League); editor of the New Masses and Masses and Mainstream (1946-1954). He left the party in 1953 and (or: as?) he began to work for Robeson. Another sign, that R. indeed was a secret party member?

All this is not that astonishing or remarkable, although his cooperation with L. Lloyd Brown probably is, but there will be hundreds more.--Radh (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Law

Sprtacus Schoolnet, Esquerra Party mentiones Law in its entry on Martin (Marty) Hourihan. And the site has a lot of Spanish Civil War activists not here (or with very bad articles, like Steve Nelson (activist)).--Radh (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent overhaul of Robeson

Good edits and good luck with convincing the other editor of your good faith. You could keep pointing her towards good and featured biographies that use an even-handed approach. It was User:Moni3 who put in a massive effort to get Harvey Milk to FA, and she might be willing to advise on this one. I think if you put it into FA right now it would be mainly the length that would hold it back. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your message

I'll review Paul Robeson when I can, but I'm about to go on a Wikibreak so I'm not sure when I'll get the chance. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Hi. Concerning your message in Yobot's talk page: Per WP:REFPUNCT "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation" and this what Yobot did. Yobot uses WP:AWB which implements this guideline. As far as I remember there was a big discussion t some point and consensus changed from "use any style you want" to "use the Chicago style". Yobot found the page in WP:CHECKWIKI database which records pages with errors of any kind (i.e. pages that don't follow the manual of style are reported there). -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is that discussion? Str1977 ^(talk) 10:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure. I found this discussion which looks relevant. I only know the result because after that we, in AWB, after the punctuation move in general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson

Thanks for your message. Yes, let's work step by step on it. No probs with you undoing my edits. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

you have a history

Says Catherine Huebscher (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).--Radh (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Political views of Paul Robeson

Hi Str. If you drop me a quick word, just a bit more specifically about the section(s) of the article you think need addressing, I will have a look at it. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tom Nash

The article Tom Nash has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Duplicate disambiguation page - see Thomas Nash (disambiguation). It would be better for Tom Nash (American football) to be moved here.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anthem 09:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I added the two extra entries on the dab page proposed for deletion unto the Thomas Nash dab page. This should settle matters. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Abortion - death

Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in the discussion. I hope you will visit again today. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If you really must do your reverts, could I ask that you at least do them carefully? Your last one removed a whole host of other good edits as well, such as the addition of clarifying wikilinks and the decapitalization of section headers. Speaking of your reverting though, that's the second time in recent days that you have reverted without discussing anything on the talk page. Such a thing is unacceptable. I would like you to note Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion/Log, which provides for sanctions for continuing such behavior. NW (Talk) 11:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"outrageous"? How is it outrageous? NW (Talk) 16:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It is outrageous to state that without clearly indicating that we are talking about maternal death. And you clearly no that - in terms of fetal or embryonic death, abortion has a death rate of 99.99% Str1977 ^(talk) 16:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that reliable sources generally don't draw this distinction, although I also don't really have a problem with specifying "maternal" mortality. I do seriously question whether the abortion article will benefit from yet another person incapable of restraining themselves from excessive rhetoric and edit-warring, but whatever. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What MastCell said. This is what the source said: "Data from the Abortion Mortality Surveillance System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the risk of death associated with abortion is low, at 0.6 per 100,000 abortions. The risk of death from childbirth is 11 times greater than the risk of death from abortion. The causes of death from abortion are equally distributed among hemorrhage, infection, embolism, and anesthesia complications. The risk of major complications is less than 1%, and there is no evidence of subsequent childbearing problems among women who have had abortions (18)." NW (Talk) 17:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Reliable" sources of a certain persuasion will simply not care and the other will take it for granted what kind of death rate we are talking about. But an encyclopedia bent on neutrality MUST be precise. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So if a reliable source "simply doesn't care" about something we think is important, is it our role as editors to "correct" the source's perceived omission? Am I understanding your argument correctly? MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I said it time and again, RS are important but a) it is not RS that write this encyclopedia but editors who have to make certain judgements, b) RS are not bound by NPOV while WP is and hence we cannot just parrot what the sources say but have to think how to present the information given in a neutal manner. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's move from vague generalities to the specifics at hand. Are you are better positioned to present public-health information neutrally than the CDC or Annals of Internal Medicine? MastCell ^Talk 20:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

These are not bound by NPOV policy, WP however is. And nothing NW cited actually contradicts my point as the context of his quote makes it clear that they are restricting their view to maternal death. There is no such restriction in our article text. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course the CDC and Annals aren't "bound by NPOV", but you didn't answer my question. Do you think you're in a better position to present public-health information neutrally than they are? You're proposing that we look at the best available sources and then "adjust" them to conform with our idea of neutrality (at least that's what I'm hearing, in the absence of any direct answer to my question). MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we apply the NPOV policy when writing or changing an article and that we provide obvious information left out if it is needed to give the whole story. And I don't see anyone suggesting that these sources are not restricted to maternal death/physical harm. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple: If the Annals are useful for an article so is JAMA. Yet when an article is mentioned in JAMA - what is the problem, it doesn't necessarily reflect the position of the editorial team. That's JJLs argument. Big deal. No article in any peer-reviewed journal necessarily reflects any editorial position. That something is in a peer-reviewed journal gives it reliability, not that it reflects any editorial position. So all are on at least a equal footing. Why do we have to downplay fetal life, or play maternal life against the life of the fetus. There is no reason, or need for it. The article can address both. Any failure in regard to one or the other or undue weighting makes the article POV. DMSBel (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That by the way was why I asked my question, Mastcell seems to be attributing a status to Annals that it doesn't inherently possess that it is more of an authority on Public Health, but that is confusing Public Health with Medicine. Annals is even more specifically oriented - internal medicine, not medicine generally, least of all public health.DMSBel (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I am against downplaying and against playing off A against B. I am for mentioning the relevant facts in a NPOV manner. Which means "death" goes in (important fact for debate), "viability" goes out (not a fact at all) and preceding a discussion of how save abortion is for the m... woman with a clear statement that the following is limited to exactly that maternal health. That abortion is very unsave for the fetus should be clear even to those that don't give a damn and I never suggested adding such a disclaimer - as long as the pertinent "death" fact is included, that is. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and as someone involved in earlier discussion, your participation is vital in the current round. I should have made my comment clearer, it was more in responce to what MastCell was claiming rather than directed to you Str1977. Whether you have been asked to join (that happens all over wikipedia) or not has nothing to do with your right to be there, you have been involved in the discussion in the past you need to be involved in the current discussion. Best. DMSBel (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Native Land

You wondered, 'any source for "KKK"'?
A BFI film guide does mention the KKK but I haven't finished with the article as yet.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Johannes Friedrich

Die Vaterfrage ist doch eindeutig und objektiv geklärt. Weswegen hast Du die Korrektur rückgängig gemacht? Gruß stuttgart1950Stuttgart1950 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC) The identity of the father is clear. Why did you chance the correction? Now, it is wrong reported. Stuttgart1950 (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion Motion

I made a motion here. 71.3.234.41 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Case: Abortion

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to a currently open Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Otto Gritschneder, Alfred Andersch

Hallo Str1977, ich habe bei Otto Gritschneder den Absatz über Kritik an Andersch herausgenommen, würde andererseits aber den Absatz über "Der Vater eines Mörders" lieber im Werksteil (Abschnitt 1958 bis 1980) haben; siehe Diskussion:Alfred Andersch. Was ist deine Meinung dazu? Grüße--O DM (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Abd-Allah_ibn_Ubayy

I have to admit, really surprised me to see you involved with this article. I've removed the NPOV template as issues need to be pinpointed to move forward. - RoyBoy 19:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just so ... exquisitely off the beaten path. Didn't think I would recognize someone around here, especially so early in my NPOV campaign. Oh, and thx! for catching the IP stuff. - RoyBoy 02:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC) u to come, get clearance . it#s me the dragon

Proposed deletion of Camarilla (fan club)

The article Camarilla (fan club) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced article, no third party sources could be found to establish the notability of the article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SudoGhost 07:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification

Hey Str1977. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Fiennes

Why the edit switching the order of his parents? It's not a big deal, but at first glance it seems patriarchal.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Graf Kessler

Hallo, Frage zu Harry Graf Kessler (vgl. auch meinen Disk.-Beitrag): Gehörte er wirklich zu den "Mitbegründern" der DDP? Aus welcher Quelle geht das hervor? Als die DDP entstand, war Kessler Botschafter in Polen. Ich hätte da gerne einen Nachweis. Vielen Dank und Gruß.--Altaripensis (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

Hi Str1977, thank you for your many contributions, including your contributions to The Zeitgeist Movement. Please note that your repeated edit of the TheMarker television interview reference is in violation of the WP policies on translations of foreign language articles into English. You can view the relevant policies on my user talk page. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Elisabeth Stuart

You should not have moved a well-established article which has already been the subject of naming disputes like Elizabeth of Bohemia without discussion, and you misused the "minor" flag to do so. PatGallacher (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

1. I am not aware about all the disputes but "Elizabeth of Bohemia" is the least fitting alternative of them all as her usurpation (through her husband) of the Bohemian crown lasted merely a winter.
2. I didn't realise I marked the edit as minor. That was not my intention. It obviously was not minor.

PS. Please create new sections for new issues. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dominik Duka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cardinal

The Midnight Express (professional wrestling) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dusty Rhodes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirect blanking

Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, please take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with Souutsubyou. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Kurfürstentum Brandenburg

Hallo, Deine Änderungen in de:Mark Brandenburg waren sehr gut. Da die Mark Brandenburg die meiste Zeit Kurfürstentum war, würde ich das Lemma umbenennen. In der deutschen Wikipedia gibt es zu jedem Kurfürstentum ein eigenes Lemma. Was meinst Du? --Grand Tour (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cleanup-combine

Template:Cleanup-combine has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Aufklärung

Hallo, ich nahm geradfe Deinen letzten Edit bei Aufklärung zurück, da ich das gefühl hatte, dass er im Kürzen etwas zu rabiat vorging. Ich will do schon geklärt haben, dass bestimmte philosophische Kernfragen aus Ereignissen kommen - und den Konnex sehe ich verloren gehen in einem Referat, dass die Ereignisse kürzt und die Verbindungen eliminiert. --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apollos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WrestlingData/Genickbruch

I see you readded the Genickbruch links to Luna Vachon, with no rationale. I've reverted those, but if you could explain how using the same source in German adds any value to the English article about an English speaker who worked mostly in English-speaking countries, I might reconsider. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Adoption by homosexuals

Can you engage in discussion, instead of reverting. You already broke 3RR and I will report you to 3RR noticeboard if you don′t discuss.--В и к и T 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Where was the discussion about that at all? Str1977 ^(talk) 22:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Str1977. You have new messages at Talk:Pope Francis.
Message added 23:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Innocent III / Secret Archives

Thanks for the spring-clean there- much better! 81.178.244.9 (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Celibacy of priests (in Pope Francis)

Dear Str1977, Please see the section in Pope Francis re celibacy of priests. I did some rewriting based on your comments, and hope you think this is a good compromise. I don't think we can know that the comments Francis made as Cardinal really were restricted to the possibility of ordaining married men, especially since the Catholic Church has already ordained a number of married men who had been Lutheran and Episcopal priests. The reaction that his words were "remarkable" wouldn't have fit his comments if that were the case -- and he is discussing a hypothetical conversation about "the celibacy of priests". I think we should stick to his comments. Do you agree? In terms of the correct fact that in the East, the tradition is to ordain married men as priests but not to allow priests to marry is, of course, true, but I can't find a quote from Bergoglio that makes this distinction. So instead of leaving the words changed as you wrote them I simply used direct quotes from him. I think this is the preferred way to go until he makes additional comments or perhaps someone makes that distinction in a response to these comments by him. Anyway, my hope is that when you look at the section again you'll agree the rewritten version is good enough at this point. Best, NearTheZoo (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear NearTheZoo,

thanks for informing me of your reversion. While I agree about sticking to his comments and that we shouldn't go beyond them, I am afraid that you are doing exactly that.

You are basing too much on your impression that his words must be "remarkable". You say "that wouldn't have fit is comments if" the Pope would have been merely talking about ordaining married man. That might be your view but I don't think it's convincing:

There are different rules in the Western and the Eastern Church: the East - and this includes churches in union with Rome and those not in union - does ordain married and unmarried men to the priesthood, while the West does ordain only unmarried men. While your observation that "the Catholic Church has already ordained a number of married men who had been Lutheran and Episcopal priests" is correct, this refers to only a minute number of men compared with the number of priests in the Western Rite. More importantly, they are the exception to the rule. The rule in the West is clear: no married men will be ordained. It was this rule the Pope was talking about. I think that's remarkable enough.

While a more extensive change - letting priests marry - might seem more "remarkable", this also works both ways: this would mean that the new Pope advocates a complete break with all of church tradition on this matter, both West and East, as neither hemisphere has ever allowed priests to marry after their ordination. We cannot even create the impression that the Pope meant that if we don't have clear evidence for it in the Pope's words.

Which brings us back to what he said: I realize that some of his words might be ambiguous but I don't see where he clearly goes beyond the "ordain married men" option. Unfortunately, the former version which I corrected twisted his words as to imply just that. Here's the example:

• "He notes that the rule of celibacy is part of the Western Church, but that priests in Byzantine, Ukranian, Russian, and Greek Catholic Churches can marry, although bishops are still required to be celibate." (previous version)
• "He notes that the rule of celibacy is part of the Western Church, but that in the Byzantine, Ukranian, Russian, and Greek Catholic rites, married men can be ordained priests, though not bishops." (my version)

What does the reference in this case say?

"In those Churches, the priests can be married, but the bishops have to be celibate."

I understand how these words can be misunderstood, at least given this English wording (don't know what the original language was) but we should not interpret the ambiguity in a way that goes against facts.

Another item: the Pope's "we have ten centuries of good experiences rather than failures" suddenly becomes "celibacy among priests in Western Catholicism has endured for almost 1000 years" (not in the referenced source), which goes beyond the Pope's words and makes him say something factually incorrect. Clerical celibacy in the Western church is in fact much older than a thousand years. The Pope's actual words do not contradict this, the article's words do. (And in another passage, he referred to some clerics following the rule, while others did not. This - not the rule - was what his almost 1000 years refers to.

Finally, I don't see a quote that the rule must be adhered to "for the time being" - so let's not make it one in the article.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Str1977, for this very civil response. I changed "for the time being" which I thought I had seen in one quote to "for now," which is one he definitely used -- and I have gone over the article to make sure that the phrase "celibacy of priests" (the phrase he used a few times) is the one that remains in the article. Also the quote about what had changed after 1100 is in his exact words. I concede that I should not read too much into the word "remarkable"! :) However, I don't think we can change anything from "celibacy of priests" to "allowing married men to be ordained" without adding to the facts we have. However, perhaps you could consider a footnote to the comment on married priests in the Eastern churches, to explain that the situation there is not that priests can marry, but that men who are married are allowed to be ordained? Thanks, again, for working together to try to get this right! NearTheZoo (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your work on this section -- but I made one minor change, changing your comment about the situation with married priests in Eastern churches to a footnote, rather than a reference. I think this is the correct approach, since it does not provide a source for a statement in the article, but rather a bit of amplifying information. Hope you agree. NearTheZoo (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sexually active popes

I like your changes - very thorough. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Str1977 ^(talk) 12:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your work at Phantom time hypothesis. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Source please?

Can you please advise your source material for the years given for the high priests, particularly for the period after the Babylonian exile, that you added in this edit from 2006? Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Does your lack of response mean you simply made up the years? Please indicate your source, or the information will be deleted. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not make up the years but I can't remember where exactly I got them from and I don't have the time to look right now. Be assured that they are accurate, at least in regard to the approximate timing of the high priests. BTW, have you seen the rubbish the page had before my edit?

PS. I suggest to alter your tone a bit. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The years will be removed unless they can be sourced. There's nothing in policy that says people should just 'be assured that they are accurate'. And yes, the page was rubbish before, but it's not much better if the information cannot be verified, especially if challenged.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Reception is the most importnat in character articles

Along with development/design.

Or, at least, should be. --Niemti (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Only, this was not actually about reception but links to two "best/worst" lists, with the worst list obviously listing every famous henchman as "bad". Str1977 ^(talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Raffaele Riefoli

Do you realize that it's possible to discuss your personal preference at the talk page rather than repeatedly removing bolds which do not violate any of the policies that we have at wikipedia. The article has been that way since ever I constructed the Singles/Albums tables. In fact, what you're practicing is WP:Edit warring. There is this thing called reaching consensus, pushing your point of view claiming in edit summaries that the original/previous version is crappy is not the way to do it. --Harout72 (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

The streak as a "recent invention" is irrelevant. It's a core part of his character and, whether or not a streak was known before WM21, it's notable enough to be recognized. As for the "legit" thing, Wikipedia articles strive not to have a bunch of WP:JARGON terms clogging up the text. It should be instead written with the intention of allowing any reader to read it easily, without having to know/learn terminology beforehand. Antoshi ☏ ★ 00:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: The Streak. You are confusing two things. Sure the streak is part of the UT's current character. Hence, we have a section listing all his WM matches. The streak is also mentioned with every WM match were it was part of the storyline, beginning, I think, with Randy Orton. However, that doesn't mean that we have to mention it with every match - it is particularly pointless with the matches against Snuka (extremely pointless), Roberts, Gonzalez, Bundy as it was nothing special then.

Re: Legit. My point is that "legit" and "legitimate", though etymologically linked, mean something else. The latter implies a value judgement.

Furthermore: by your your reverts you reverting back in the false statement that the UT was referred to as Kane during Survivor Series - he wasn't. He was referred to as such before and after the event but if one has a look at Survivor Series, Ted DiBiase introduces him as "The Undertaker", his name is written as "The Undertaker" and the commentary also refers to him as "The Undertaker". 07:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Song of the South

I appreciate your edit at Song of the South earlier. It seems to have caused problems, but I took a better swing at the wording to focus on critical assessments, which is sourced by both the supporting source article and the content of the Wiki article itself. Instead of making a sweeping generalization ("everyone calls it racist"), the new phrasing should be more accurate ("critics now and then call it racist"). Let me know what you think on either my talk page or the article's. Thanks again. --McDoobAU93 16:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Philip Mexico (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Humbaba

Hello. You made this edit to the article Humbaba. The cite you added is a page that is a dead link, but even though I cannot see the page currently it's obvious (based upon the remaining title page saying it was a page for "Computers, RPGs, history, and whatever else comes to mind") that it fails Wikipedia's rules for reliable sources, as listed at WP:RS. Please read through that page so you have a better understanding of what is considered trustworthy material for inclusion on Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wording

Just to be clear, I have no preference when to comes to "legitimate" vs. "legit". My problem is with "legitely", which doesn't seem to be an actual word. Forgive my ignorance, but searching the term on the English Wikipedia leaves only two results, which were both added by you. Google returns a bunch of results mocking the term as an incorrect spelling of "legitimately". Even as an extension of the wrestling term "legit", it seems to be in our best interest to avoid jargon for general readability. Prefall 03:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Re Tithonus‎

The article's title always occurs as the first bolded item in the lead, so Tithonus‎ needs to come first. When a topic has more than one name/spelling the alternatives are usually listed separated by "or"s, what is your objection to this exactly? Paul August ☎ 00:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The article's lemma commonly goes first but this is not an absolute rule. There are hundreds of articles that do not conform to your supposed rule, especially if on persons with more than one name (See, e.g. Hulk Hogan). In some cases, e.g. Michael Douglas, the lemma doesn't appear in the first line at all (it says "Michael Kirk Douglas").

I actually have no preference which goes first but I will not accept using the asinine "or" here. The best alternative is to link the two forms of the name - one the Greek, the other the Latinized form, is to point out that one is the Latinized form.

"or" is a lazy way to put it - "or" indicates uncertainty between two options, but we are quite clear that the article is about one subject only. Your version makes it seem that "the lover of Eos" might be "Tithonus" or it might be "Tithonos", when these are only two forms of the same name (not even two names).

Finally, that one form is Latinized is a piece of information that might be interesting to the reader. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your cogent reply. Yes "rules" have exceptions, they are still "rules" nonetheless. I think it is confusing, in this case, for this to be an exception to the rule. Not having the article's title first might cause readers to infer that "Tithonos" was somehow the "correct" spelling. Using "or" to list alternative spellings is quite common, however I'm willing to have "also" instead? Would that be acceptable to you? Paul August ☎ 14:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Your rule isn't a rule at all.

2. Tithonos is the correct (without any scare quotes) spelling, at least the original spelling.

3. "Tithonus, sometimes also spelled Tithonos" would work but we'd lose the information that one is the original Greek, the other the Latinized form - why do you want to withhold this information from the reader.

PS. I know that "or" is common - because people are lazy. It doesn't make for a good reading though. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Banu Qurayza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blood money. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Michael Foot may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• unilateral nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the Common Market, and widespread nationalisation. (Benn did not stand for the leadership: apart from Foot and Healey, the other candidates – both

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the What's Up? (song) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Alan Berg

Can you engage in discussion on the Talk:Alan Berg page, instead of repeatedly reverting edits? You have made the same reversion of edits by User:Mister Sneeze A Lot four times without discussion. While you may have a valid rationale, it should be discussed if there is a clear disagreement, not merely repeatedly deleting another editor's well-meaning contributions. Thanks.N0TABENE (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Template:Dynamic list

I'm having trouble understanding your comment that "sometimes the incompleteness of a list is arguable" – can you give me an example of a list that may or may not be incomplete? Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

List_of_Protestant_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation. It's also implied in the template text "may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness." Str1977 ^(talk) 17:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, looking at that article, I understand where you're coming from; there may be a need for a template that says "this list might be incomplete". However, there is also a need for a template to identify lists that are definitely incomplete, and this is the intended purpose of {{expand list}} and {{dynamic list}}. I suggest you restore the text of {{dynamic list}} and create a new template along the same lines (you can just copypaste the source code and change the text). With regard to your second point, the text "may never be able to satisfy etc." suggests only that the list might never be complete, not that its incompleteness is in doubt. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Series 92

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor_Series_%281992%29&diff=next&oldid=643292566 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor_Series_%281992%29&diff=next&oldid=643292566 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor_Series_%281992%29&diff=next&oldid=643763645 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor_Series_%281992%29&diff=next&oldid=643764585 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor_Series_%281992%29&diff=next&oldid=643827697 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor_Series_%281992%29&diff=next&oldid=648865162

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor_Series&diff=prev&oldid=643633495

Disclaimers

Please stop removing the disclaimers from PPV articles. They are there because of specific policies and because of a consensus on the matter. Any further removal by yourself will be treated as vandalism.--WillC 09:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

When you have stopped being rude, could you please tell me where one can read this policy? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not rude, it is blunt and to the point. WP:FICTION, WP:IN-U, etc.--WillC 09:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing on these pages that would demand this condescending diclaimer just as I don't see such disclaimers on articles about novels or films. This should be decided on the WProject Wrestling. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It was in 2008. Based on those policies and what was desired by the peer review process at GA, FA, and FL. The disclaimer was desired to comply with those policies and was much simpler than explaining that every little event that happened was scripted and not legitimate. The Project already agreed to this, it is a consensus.--WillC 11:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: MatthewTardiff

This may help you out with understanding them. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, something you might be interested in regarding MatthewTardiff, this SPI, the WrestlingInsider account was blocked for being a sock of his. If you see in the SPI, that he personally attacked me, so that's nothing new to him. Just wanted to give you a heads up of the type of editor you're dealing with, with him. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 21:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Your recent editing history at Charlotte (wrestler) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LM2000 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

LM2000, strange that among all that went back and forth on this, only I get this warning. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Carl Jung or Carl Gustav Jung

Since you initiated, ten years ago, the proposal at Talk:Carl Jung/Archive 2#Requested move, the discussion currently active at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016 may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

February 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Royal Rumble (2017). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Vjmlhds 18:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Vjmlhds,

I think your comment here as well your reverting entirely uncalled for. I was not editing disruptively at all but restoring a version that actually conformed to the sources (see http://www.wwe.com/superstars/goldberg). I did so after contributing to the talk page. At worst, my edits are controversial. I have not in the past engaged in any edit warring on this so I can't see what was disruptive about my edits. I think it quite uncivil of you to immediately issue threats of the the more extreme sort, especially since you are actually party to the dispute, and then not even have the courtesy to sign your comment. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Gold Experience

Earlier this month you removed "Pussy Control", saying if "P Control" is its official title, that is what we should include. However, just earlier, you removed "P Control" and retained "Pussy Control". In the interim time, I provided a ref to the promo single of "319/Pussy Control" as proof that the title of "Pussy Control" was censored for the album release, and is known by two titles (but is the same song). The page has included both for quite a while, and maintaining them was a stable version. If you disagree, can you please take it to the talk page (per WP:BRD) instead of this delayed back-and-forth revert-type thing? Thanks. Perhaps a solution is noting elsewhere on the page that the title was censored. However, because the album does not have extensive prose, this is why it is noted next to the title. Ss112 09:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page and stop removing it per WP:BRD. The first ref proving the title is "Pussy Control" would be meaningless otherwise. I think there may be a case for both sides of this (that the title of the song was first released with the full title; it is at least noteworthy enough to include); however, no consensus can be reached by continually reverting whether formally or informally. Ss112 09:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Twin Peaks (2017 TV series) edit

Hi, this edit of yours appears to have broken the Supernatural section's notes. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Pierre

I think it was right before - they both rhyme with 'near'. AlexiusHoratius 16:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The IPA had a diphthong which the respell (unsurprisingly) didn't indicate. "Near" is not the issue here. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

What would the correct respelling be? AlexiusHoratius 21:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Respelling is dumbing down anyway. But it should it no case be wrong. IPA is enough. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Well if the current IPA doesn't match the word 'peer' then the IPA is wrong. Would something like /piɹ/ work better? AlexiusHoratius 12:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The IPA isn't wrong. Your suggestion doesn't exist among English phonemes. Respelling isn't needed anyway. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Monolatry

Thank you for initiating the move to monolatry. -Acjelen (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Androcles

Your 'point' [29] seemed to be that a variation on the spelling of the name Androcles, which appears in other versions of his story that are treated in the article, should not appear in the lead. Mine was that Manual of Style guidance reads "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages."

I find your arrogant attitude inappropriate in a senior editor. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

My main point is that wordings like "is the name given by some sources to..." has no part in Wikipedia article as the article is not about the name but about the character. My secondary point is that articles should not introduce variant spellings by "or" as it gives the impression that the article might be about this or that. I will reword my edit to include the variant spelling.

I think it is your attitude that's arrogant as you never pointed out what your problem was. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

An edit of yours on Jacinda Ardern

I noticed you changed an edit on this page to claim she is supportive of legalising cannabis. This is not what is claimed by the sources provided. One of the sources explicitly claims "Ms Ardern didn't say whether she favoured legalisation, but did say the current system wasn't working well".< ref >Jacinda Ardern: What we can expect under New Zealand's new PM. ABC News. Published 21 October 2017. Retrieved 19 August 2018.< /ref > Sources do claim she is opposed to criminalising people for personal use of cannabis, but this is not the same as supporting legalisation. None of the sources state whether she has publicly set out a clear personal position on the matter of legalisation. Please keep to what is explicitly stated by reliable sources when making edits. WP:SYNTHESIS. Helper201 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't care enough to pursue this further but maybe you could enlighten me what the difference between "opposed to criminalising people who use cannabis" and "supportive of legalising cannabis" actually is. and while it's true that the article says "Ms Ardern didn't say whether she favoured legalisation", this is not the same as saying that she didn't favour it, just that she didn't say. The only alternative would that either that article or Mrs Ardern herself was confused in these statements.

Finally, IMO it is a slight case of POV to speak of "criminalising" when the legal status quo is that it actually is a crime. Unfortunately, such a wording is not alone in that article. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Being in favour of not criminalising people who use cannabis is essentially being in favour of decriminalisation. That is to say someone who chose to use cannabis would not be criminally convicted or face criminal charges. This is the case in some European countries where certain amounts are decriminalised. However, this does not equate to legalisation. Legalisation is a state where cannabis can be legally sold, taxed, and regulated, which is not the case under decriminalisation. The two are separate positions. Although legalisation does encompass the aspects of decriminalisation, the same is not the case vise versa. It is true the article didn't state whether she is in favour or against legalisation, which is why we shouldn't assume either way. As far as we know from the sources provided she has not set out a clear position for or against legalisation and is still unsure on the matter. Helper201 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. If something is "decriminalised" it is also "legalized". The example of "certain amounts" is a partial legalisation if actually part of legislation and laws. Not, if it is merely a matter of jurisprudence, but Mrs Ardern clearly talked about laws. I agree that she has not set out a clear position but rather made contradictory statements. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

These are widely recognised as separate terms and it does not help to conflate them, nor they should not be used interchangeably. Note that decriminalisation is defined as 'the lessening of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply'. For example in Portugal where all drugs are decriminalised civil penalties and mandatory treatment can still be administered for drug related offenses, if all drugs were legalised this would not be the case. She has made her position clear around not wanting to criminalise cannabis users so it is perfectly fine to state that, whereas on legalisation she has not. When you keep these terms separate, as they are recognised as being, then she has not been contradictory on the matter. To state that she is for or against legalisation is not keeping to what the sources explicitly state, which needs to be done in order to keep in line with Wikipedia's WP:SYNTHESIS rule. Also see - https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/06/18/the-difference-between-legalisation-and-decriminalisation Helper201 (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Saarbrücker Schule

Str1977, ich bitte um Auskunft, weshalb Sie "Forschungsergebnisse" gestrichen haben. Raymond Dequin (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Welche Forschung betreibt diese Gruppe denn? Ich habe neulich mal wieder eines ihrer Bände zur Hand genommen. Da wurde mehr postuliert als dass erarbeitete Forschungsergebnisse referiert wurden. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Wenn von einem Dutzend Verfassern auf mehreren tausend Seiten in Hinblick auf bestimmte Forschungsfragen zum frühen Islam Beobachtungen und Überlegungen niedergelegt werden, dann handelt es sich tatsächlich um Forschung. Um Thesen handelt es sich hier nur insofern, als diese in einzelnen Fällen aus den Forschungen erwachsen sind. Ich halte Ihre Streichung nicht für hilfreich für die Wikipedia, da sie zu einer Fehlbenennung dieses Abschnitts führt. Ich habe den Eindruck, daß Sie lediglich Ihr ungünstiges Urteil über die Forschungen der Saarbrücker Schule zum Ausdruck bringen wollen, indem sie ihnen die gewiß wesentliche Eigenschaft absprechen wollen, überhaupt Forschung darzustellen. Der ganze Beitrag handelt aber nur von den Forschungen der Saarbrücker Schule, über die der Benutzer der Wikipedia hier etwas erfahren kann und soll. Dem dient es nicht, wenn die Forschungsergebnisse in einem Abschnitt mit einer irreführenden Überschrift versteckt werden, die den Eindruck erweckt, es handle sich um bloße Behauptungen. Ihre Kritik können Sie gerne an geeigneter Stelle veröffentlichen, aber Ihr Eingriff in den Text ist dafür nicht das richtige Mittel. Ich möchte Sie deshalb bitten, Ihre Streichung rückgängig zu machen, andernfalls ich selbst dies tun werde. Raymond Dequin (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Rise of Macedon --> HELLENIC KINGDOM

New WP:CONSENSUS Building. "Greek" or "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hapsburg vs Habsburg

In my experience, in Australian English, we write and pronounce it as Hapsburg not Habsburg. Whether this matches how it is written/pronounced elsewhere, I cannot say, but in an Australian article, it's best to leave it as Hapsburg unless you have an Australian citation that says otherwise. Kerry (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Lorde

Okay let's settle down things here:

1. Your edit was not constructive: changing the order of mention of her parents AND rewording the bit (which is not significant at all)
2. Present perfect tense (has/have + PP) is terrible for a quality article
3. Lorde did not even speak out against: she said she found it "frustrating" thus wanted to focus on her music. Did she try to preach? Did she burst that out of a sudden? Was she asked about her opinion? The quotation is used in the article with no context, so it's best to keep the original wording (The NZ Herald opined): after all it's NOT her opinion / it's the opinion of THE PUBLICATION - they are two different things (she didn't even "blast out at", like what the publication said)

Please reply to me here so that we can proceed. HĐ (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

How about you accept what the source actually says with fits well with what I wrote. Your version however use the whole reference merely to source the statement that she is a feminist and then take another article to mellow down what she said.

Also, you are not the arbiter of what is constructive. You do not WP:OWN the article]].

Str1977 ^(talk) 05:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You completely disregarded what I said: the original phrasing reflects the opinion not the article -- not Lorde herself. Present perfect tense is terrible (does she still hold a grudge against sexualised performance till this day?) -- you haven't replied to this. Yes I do now own any article, but I can have an opinion on whether an edit is constructive or not -- never said I owned any article.

Now, look at the original phrasing: "The New Zealand Herald opined that her feminist ideology was different from her contemporaries due to Lorde's disinterest in sexualised performances" -- a interpretation of this article -- How does this try to mellow down anything? She didn't even "speak out against" any "shock tactics". Now, look at this article -- She said: "I'm a feminist so certain things about pop music I find frustrating. I think pop is scarily powerful. There are a lot of shock tactics these days: people trying to outdo each other, which will probably culminate in two people f***ing on stage at the Grammys" -- that she expressed her frustration is different from that she spoke out against it -- did she try to say that shock tactics in pop were bad? She followed up that she tried to ignore that to focus on her own music. She even clarified she was a "sex-positive person" -- she didn't need such tactics for her music -- Did she really care about what those people were doing?

Also, by rephrasing like what you did, you completely omitted The NZ Herald's more detailed explanation of Lorde's feminist ideology.

I haven't received your solid argument for your phrasing. On another note: your interpretation ("Lorde spoke out against 'shock tactics'") was identical to tabloids news headlines that cultivated a widespread hate on Lorde from fans of mainstream artists, which wasn't even her own words. So please, be careful with what you bring in the article. HĐ (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

And, I don't have to accept with you if I find your phrasing inaccurate. You used a source that sensationalised Lorde's original statements: that's dangerous. And you completely ignored the second article that was used in the original version. HĐ (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Any reply on this? HĐ (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Neville Chamberlain

Nobody has ever heard of "Arthur Neville Chamberlain". He is known as, and properly referred to as, Neville Chamberlain. DuncanHill (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That's his proper name. His article might be suitabl placed at the shorter form but such lists should have the full name. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No, he was not known as that. All you are doing is needlessly confusing readers, and making it look like Wikipedia was written by people who have no knowledge of what they are writing about. DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense! No one is confused by the full name - it's not like I replaced "Neville Chamberlain" with "Arthur Chamberlain". As for your last line, this rather holds true for claims that his first name was somehow a secret. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It was not used. We don't call people by names they did not use and were not known by. Have you ever seen a book about him? If so, you will see that, except in a note about what he was christened, he is always, but always, called Neville, not Arthur Neville. DuncanHill (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not at all unusual for English people to be known by a second name. You need to undo your changes, and stop making things up in your edit summaries. DuncanHill (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The harm is you baffle the reader and make Wikipedia look stupid. Perhaps that is your aim. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You also need to read WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted and opened a discussion. You decided to re-insert your changes, contrary to all historical and biographical practice both on and off wiki. DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What kind of discussion is calling the other side as "making Wikipedia look stupid"? You have said nothing that has actual substance. Your "baffled reader" is merely your imagination. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

So your position is we should call people by names which they did not use and which nobody else ever used? How does that benefit anyone? If someone wants to know Neville Chamberlain's full name they can read the article about him. Someone reading about the various National Governments will be very unlikely to have ever heard of "Arthur Neville Chamberlain", they almost certainly will have heard of Neville Chamberlain, if only because of Munich (you may even have heard of that yourself). On Wikipedia we call people by the names they used and were known by, not what the clerk of the court would have read out when they were up on a charge. DuncanHill (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That Chamberlain never used his full name is merely your claim. With that your whole claim falls apart.

That anyone would be wondering who this Arthur Neville Chamberlain is - when Chamberlain is one of the most prominent inter-war politicians - is also your peculiar idea.

Do you think cheap shots like "you may even have heard of that yourself" will persuade me or anyone?

Nevertheless, despited your lack of good faith, I am willing to offer you this compromise: restrict the full names to the cabinet lists, use the more popular short form in the narrative. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain was one of the most prominent inter-war politicians, Arthur Neville Chamberlain is a name on a birth certificate. Do you have any reliable historical or biographical sources for him being known as Arthur Neville Chamberlain? Did any of the reporting of Munich, of the Norway Debate, call him that? No. And I am sure you know that. DuncanHill (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The two are not separate but one and the same person, a person fully called Arthur Neville Chamberlain. While giving his full name might not be essential, it is also not wrong. Your objection boils down to nothing but "I don't like it!" That's unacceptable. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Your reason appears to be "I don't like calling him by the name he answered to, and was known by both publicly and privately, and which he is called in all reliable sources, so I shall ignore all of those". DuncanHill (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Str1977: It's also inconsistent. Why in the same article do you not refer to Kingsley Wood as Howard Kingsley Wood—or, for that matter, to Winston Churchill as Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill? I agree with DuncanHill: at best, adding Chamberlain's first name is inadvertently confusing to readers. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

When in Rome?

Hi there Str1977. Re: your recent edits for "proper name" at Lovely Joan... I feel you may have your work cut out to "correct" everything across the whole of Wikipedia. Or is it just Joan that needs correction? I have no strong view either way, about which is more correct. But why do we have all those Cats, such as Category:Roman Catholic mystics, Category:French Roman Catholic saints and Category:15th-century Roman Catholic martyrs, etc. etc? How does one reconcile? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Joan's article is hardly the first where this mistake has been corrected, not just by me.

I stay away from categories because they are a whole different can of worms. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is, as you suggest, "a mistake", couldn't we expect to see some clear central policy or even just some kind of advice on this? I find it hard to imagine that the question has never cropped up at Wikipedia before. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It has cropped up! Str1977 ^(talk) 21:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC Invitation

Hello, I woulda love to get your input regarding an RFC discussion in Manual of Style that I think you would be interested in, please read the question in debate (written by a neutral party) and also the threaded discussion and votes by some editors that you will no doubt find quite interesting. If you would like to offer your opinion on this discussion it's located here. Thanks! AnAudLife (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The RfC expired. KyleJoan^talk 03:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Expired or not, it can still be commented on. 2601:5C8:C200:A420:742B:3575:CE1:3B4B (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Guys! Sorry I am too late to comment on the RfC. I have no idea why AnAudLife contacted me and and I am not interested in your bickering, KJ, which I hereby remove from this talk page. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all! It wasn't me who extended the invitation. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 10:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

However, it was you who began the bickering. I don't know whether you have a problem with AnAudLife and I don't care. I will have no part of it. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Str1977, you can still offer your opinion if you would like. AnAudLife (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Skinner

I'm not sure what it is that you need clarifying in the Dennis Skinner article. Talked out and writ of election are linked, and I think between them the sentences are clear - am I missing something? DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: What's unclear is what a writ for a by-election has to do with the issues discussed in that debate. If nothing it is questionable whether the writs should be mentioned at all - Skinner could have talked about the phone book or recited poetry to filibuster the debate. Also, why was it Skinner's job to put fort these writs at that time? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

He couldn't have got away with talking about the phone book or reciting poetry, as it says at Filibuster#United_Kingdom "The procedures of the House of Commons require that members cover only points germane to the topic under consideration or the debate underway whilst speaking". At that time at least any MP could move the writ. He moved the writ, and other MPs kept up the debate about it. The refs, especially the Hansard links, make it clear. It's well worth reading the Hansard refs. Essentially he prevented the debate about the other matters even starting, by moving the writs. I don't think the fine details need going into in the Skinner article - we say he talked out the other bills by moving the writs. We link to filibuster and to writ of election. DuncanHill (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Rees-Mogg did recite poetry in one debate (of course not all through his filibuster and poetry he could link to the topic at hand). My question remains: why mention the writs at all. Isn't it enough to say that Skinner talked out the topics at hand? If not, given that the two occasions are topically linked and appear side by side, we could add a "Both times he started a debate about the writs etc. etc. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Lucy Westenra

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to achieve there. And here you are so obviously wrong: your selective citation (you left out "at first") turns her into the archetype that Stoker in fact actively counters. And citing this, this pdf that you keep sticking back in, is of no use also. Besides the fact that "Lucy is gradually drained by Dracula" doesn't appear on p. 175 (I guess it's your interpretation of the "Young miss is bad" bit?), as you seemed to claim, it is also entirely unclear which version of the text is in that free pdf. The textual history of Dracula is complicated, and such free texts rarely have any kind of editorial oversight. So, is it the first published version? The redacted 1901 version? Finally, your comment about "character history" and "critic's interpretation" is completely misguided: you seem to think that there is some easy, clean, "character history" which doesn't involved interpretation. But you are yourself interpreting her when you make her into the Victorian archetype by misquoting a critic. I don't know if you or that crazy IP was responsible for the wording I changed here, but that was pretty gross: that wording suggested she just sat on a pretty chair and waited for men to come to her. If you want to treat a pretty important character of a pretty important novel in that way, you are doing the character and the novel injustice. And I just saw you pushed that foolishness even further, leaving a quote from a critic without acknowledging it, let alone acknowledging that this was only part of the quote. If you want to go about editing articles in that way, maybe stick to rasslin. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I could wonder the same about your edits. The issue I have with them is that you repeatedly insert statements of criticism into a section that is supposed to deal with the character's history (and sometimes, as the IP rightfully pointed out, you introduce false statements like that that Lucy as a vampire had sex with Dracula - nothing like that appears in the book). While the article doesn't need to retell the entire plot of the novel, the defining events of the character should be included. And that she is drained of blood by Dracula is basically the element that appears most often (And p. 175 was only one such instance.)

There is another subsection for critical interpretation where all the Ledgers of the world are much more apt.

My distinction is not misguided: there is a difference between merely covering the narrative (sure, that's never free of interpretation) and actual literary criticism, that makes all kinds of observations or uses all kinds of theories (some good, some not so good). Keep the two separate is my chief aim, the other is to avoid the kind of deletionism I detect in some of your edits.

As for your complaint: I did not insert that Ledger quote (I assumed it came from you) but neither do I think it "gross").

Finally, everyone can do without your personal attacks, which I will remove from the version of this response that I will copy and paste to the article talk page. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Those comments about Ledger are foolish. That you are quoting her only partially is a fact; she is "demure" etc. ONLY at first sight. It may well be that you only care about "first sight", but that's not an attitude you should expert into an encyclopedic article. She is not demure. I suppose I'm glad you acknowledge that you "covering the narrative" is never free of interpretation; what is surprising is that you do not follow up on that by clearing said narrative of what is essentially misogynist commentary. You can complain about deletionism, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to include everything--it's to include verifiable and relevant information. Any editor can look at the difference between this collection of unverified factoids and this version, with six impeccable sources added. Oh, yeah, the IP was right about something--well, you could have must moved that half sentence. Big deal. Now, if you go around copying and pasting other people's remarks (without their permission), make sure you don't misquote or quote out of context. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For correcting, improving, and communication with others. Nice work. Kyle(talk) 15:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:German Presidents (1919–1945)

Template:German Presidents (1919–1945) has been nominated for merging with Template:German presidents. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Nobel Prize of Economics on the List of Nobel Laureates page

Hey Str1997, I used Twinkle to rollback the List of Nobel Laureates page from your edits regarding the economics prize's eligibility. While I agree with your point to a certain extent, the justification for deleting the prize recipients from the page - 'as repeatedly pointed out on talk and never either responded to or acted upon, there is no Nobel prize for Economics, leaves a bit of an open question. The talk page hasn't discussed the issue since 2011 and seems to have decided in favor of keeping the economics prize on the page through their inaction. Other editors on the page especially mentioned the economics prize being administered by the Nobel Foundation as justification. There have also been more than 500 edits to the page in the past three years alone, so I think it's safe to say that the issue is pretty settled upon. I understand that the prize isn't an "original Nobel prize", but its direct lineage to the Nobel estate/foundation and its prestige seem to give a decent case for its mention. Feel free to make a new topic on the talk page, if you're still passionate about it.

Kobentori (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

ATD

Just a slip of the back button rather than a self revert, as you probably guessed. Sparafucil (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay. It got me wondering a bit. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ravi Zacharias

Despite the sex abuse issue Ravi Zacharias is still worth a great deal of money. His books sell and people who don't know about the sex abuse donate to his organisations. We need to watch carefully that material which should stay doesn't get taken out of the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not at all concerned about the man's supposed worth or interested in diminishing his books sales - from which he can no longer profit anyway. However, I absolutely agree that material which should stay shouldn't be taken out. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The heirs of Zacharias and people who receive money from organisations promoting his work have a vested interest in reducing coverage of what he did. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I don't care about that. "The heirs of Zacharias and people who receive money from organisations promoting his work" haven't done anything wrong. (Unless they have, which is a separate matter). Str1977 ^(talk) 06:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss Articles

Hi there, per your edit explanation "How can it be incorrect when it is basically saying the same thing?" in And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, I need to draw your attention to the accuracy of your edits. Those edits that you are making are not actually cited in the sources. Dr. Seuss Enterprises used specific words, and to make edits on Wikipedia akin to "basically saying the same thing" goes against WP:CITE. Happy to discuss further.

PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello PerpetuallyGrat,

I asked "How can it be incorrect when it is basically saying the same thing?" on this difference, which you reverted

May I ask you about the difference between your "citing racist imagery" and my "imagery they deemed racist and insensitive"?

The only difference I can see is that my version makes it clear that this is the publisher's judgment, not Wikipedia's. According to WP:NPOV Wikipedia should not endorse such judgements.

Neither is quoting the exact words used by Dr. Seuss Enterprises ("portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong").

Now, I don't object if you insist on "hurtful and wrong" being quoted (but not it wasn't cited on the Mulberry article before either) but that these books "portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong" is not an objective fact, especially not equally for all six books. Your insertion of or reversion to "because they portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong" however claims that they are indeed. And that goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Str1977 ^(talk) 18:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

But it is "editorial bias" if we word it in such a way to appear that DSE withdrew the books because of some indisputable fact. They withdrew it because of their judgment.

For example, we can write: "Many Americans were proud of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon" (that he walked is a fact) or "Many Americans were proud of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon because to them this showed that the US was superior to the USSR, overcoming the Sputnik shock." (that they thought that is a fact) We cannot write "Many Americans were proud of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon because this showed that the US was superior to the USSR, overcoming the Sputnik shock." (that it really showed that is an opinion, not a fact).

And it doesn't matter one bit whether we share that opinion or not - I happen to agree with that moon landing sentiment, at least to an extent, but I would still oppose such language on WP. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Already talking on my talk page, but to skew and change the exact wording from "hurtful and wrong" to "racist" is not in accord with WP policies. Bottom line, that is not what DRS said, that is what several other sources have stated, but not DRS. The sentences we are referring to are the ones that talks about their specific decision. They never deemed it to be racist, they deemed it to be hurtful and wrong. It's not the same thing. It's seemingly an indisputable fact to many that the images are racist. That is totally fine, then edit the article accordingly, but do not change DRS' decision based on the reception or a perceived reason for their decision. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, "racist" is what's reported and, at the risk or repeating myself - one of the two articles (Mulberry) alreeady used that word - it wasn't inserted by me. So your "do not change DRS' decision based on the reception or a perceived reason for their decision" doesn't really fit my edit.

Also, it is pretty standard on WP to cite so-called secondary sources over primary ones. I think that is often overdone and a misunderstood policy but there you go.

Also, DSE statement basically boils down to the allegation of "racism" - and "wrong" is actually even worse because it's so empty (that goes against them, not against you for quoting them). Actually quoting them is a good idea.

"It's seemingly an indisputable fact to many that the images are racist." - You do realise how strange "seemingly undisputable to many" sounds? "seemingly indisputable to many", a.k.a. an opinion. I for my part can't see how a Chinese man with chop sticks - given the nature of the medium he appeared in - is racist, or hurtful, or wrong. But if even I agreed, Wikipedia couldn't and shouldn't. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sophia Myles

You need to cool off dude. You're letting the IP get to you, and you're getting close to violating 3rr. Just let them go crazy for a bit until a Civility or NPA block is warranted. Also, what is this argument over... minor wording issues and spaces between template parameters?
I think this is a candidate for WP:Lamest edit wars. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC); updated 22:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your first comment. Not so much your second. You may ask the IP why he is reverting my edits, which in my book are obvious improvements. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

As for why the IP is reverting your edits, I think the answer is pretty obvious looking at the edit summaries; he's either very, very, specific and defensive about how this site should be written, or seeking attention. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, he obviously has elected himself to some importance and now has to announce this everywhere. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I (obviously) haven’t elected myself to anything, but I do know poor writing when I see it, and “By October 2007, they had split” and “In September 2010, Myles got engaged to Brent” are unencyclopaedic and poor. It’s the sort of thing school kids write, not what you’d expect to see in an encyclopaedia. 109.249.185.75 (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

London Bridge

Hi. I'm assuming someone has gained access to your account and signature; the material I just removed from the London Bridge article seems tohave absolutely nothing to do with your usual topics of interest. Haploidavey (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you have a clue about my "usual topics of interest". Sometimes you drift from article to article. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

So it seems. I was going to thank you for your note. Haploidavey (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

[30]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and article expansion help if you find your interest in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

J.R.R. Tolkien

Um, I'm a little shocked to see two experienced editors at war over something really small. You have now made 3 reverts on the matter in 24 hours. Please take it to the talk page. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I am rather shocked at you calling one back-and-forth an "edit war". Where you get the idea that I have made 3 reverts is beyond me. I have made four edits on that page, only two were reverts (and one was reverting your revert).

I also can't quite grasp how you can say you have no preference and still revert, hence - under your own principles - begin to edit-war yourself.

And no, it is not "something really small" to refuse a church the usage of its own name. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Seen

Please calm down: copying that diff cannot be described as collegiate. Since you say you "can't quite grasp" my revert, notice please that the status quo ante was without your change, and I correctly reverted to that status, exactly once. You should note that edit-warring does not actually require three edits in 24 hours, but a combative attitude, which does seem to be in evidence. I really do not have a preference for anything here other than an orderly process. It would be best if you self-reverted and waited for consensus, but if that's not possible for you, then at least accept the process. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It is quite richt to tell me to "calm down" when you then consider "copying that difft" as not collegiate. It is just a bookmark for me and just as you are free to delete messages from your page after having read them, I am free to write a little bookmark.

While it is true that there is no strict minimum of edits for an "edit war", one back-and-forth is not enough in my book - and when you interfered it was just one. Maybe there was an edit-war in the making but at that moment there wasn't one.

You're also changing the subject by sayin that as you falsely claimed I had made three reverts. It wasn't true then and it isnÄt true now.

Strange how you claim to "have no preference" but your every move goes in one direction, reverting me, falsely accusing me, and now expecting to self-revert. No, if you want to support a certain POV you'll have to do it yourself.

"Accept the process"? I commented on the talk page. Thus far I am the only one. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

As it states on Wikipedia:Edit warring, "To revert is to undo the action of another editor."

Revert 1 at 2021-12-30T00:38:25

Revert 2 at 2021-12-30T12:48:14

Revert 3 at 2021-12-30T13:07:09

I see that there have been no further reverts.

I see that you were the second participant on the talk page topic. I responded when I had time. I have informed the project to join the fray if so inspired.

If you feel the need to comment on this with me, please use {{ping}} (or similar) and respond here, and I will come to respond here. Any comments left on my talk page will be reverted and will likely garner absolutely no response from. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The first revert you list wasn't a revert but a change to the article. If that were a revert every edit would be a revert.

I was the two of us to write on the talk page. Chiswick Chap stated that he was not part of the discussion. Nothing what I said blamed you for not having commented at the time - it was directed agaisnt Chiswick's strange call to "accept the process" when I had already done so.

"Any comments left on my talk page will be reverted and will likely garner absolutely no response from" whom? It is always great to know that somebody else is open for discussions. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I just had a question and it seems you probably know a bit about saxony. Do you know why there are little to no images or paintings of Frederick Augustus II of Saxony I mean he was king for a long time and you would think he would’ve had at least some paintings commissioned of himself. I know it seems kind of random but I was wondering about this and I was looking on here for editors who seem to know about saxony. Have nice day! Orson12345 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about that. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Certainty is disturbing, especially when accompanied by errors

I was investigating someone else's excesses when your changes to Rich man and Lazarus confused the situation. You have changed many things there in your 8 edits, and also done some things obviously wrong.

In [this edit] you demonstrate that you do not know the conventions regarding marking page vs. pages. You changed "pp. 3–5, 8–11" to "p. 3–5, 8–11". When there is one page "p." is used. When there are multiple pages "pp." is used. So when you added "p. 292-310." that should have used "pp.". I've seen similar conventions used in other scholarly texts, so you should be familiar with this.

In the same edit you changed someone else's ref from "For a discussion of the conflation of the Luke 16 Lazarus and the John 11 Lazarus, see R.M. Bredenhof..." to "For a discussion dual appearence of the name Lazarus, see R.M. Bredenhof...". Somehow I think changing their own description is nearly as bad as changing a person's quote. (and additionally the English reading is not great)

In my view, your changes to the paragraph that used to contain "also belongs to the more famous biblical character" removes some useful context. I can't see a reason for this change.

And this was just the first of 8 edits.

In your second edit you dropped an entire paragraph with background information from Josephus, yet copied the ref from that paragraph into your much changed second paragraph while talking about author "Steven Cox". Um, he's not Josephus.

Minorly, is it because there are only 1/10th the mentions that you got rid of "Lazarus and Dives"?

Hey, I agree with your changes [31] and [32], though that 'Webpage' ref makes me question that whole literal reading section (it was the third ref which brought me here to begin with).

At Wikipedia in religious articles we have repeatedly seen editors and edits that were not at all 'sober'. (heck, today I saw mention of a past editor who spewed screeds across a number of religious articles while claiming to be simultaneously a reincarnation of George Washington and Ben Franklin.)

With all this history, I would think the greatest care should be taken while editing _any_ religious article, so that mistaken impressions are impossible. And the impression here (to me) is a somewhat narrow furiousness.

I'll go fix the "pp." things, and restore that dropped paragraph and maybe a couple more bits, then get to the original concerns that brought me here. Shenme (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I have looked through your reverts and actually agree with most of them - and the others I don't mind much. Hence, I cannot right now retrace how these changes were originally made. I certainly did not insert "story" instead of parable. Since I can't see myself removing "Lazarus and Dives", I had to look up what I actually did - I removed an alternative name that merely gave the two names in reversed order. If you think that is so super important, so be it.

In general, you could have written your comment her in a less - how shall I put it - condescending manner. I certainly am not unaware of what "pp." means - I just happen to think it superfluous. And so is this sort-of theoretical Überbau you present here about "ertainty is disturbing, especially when accompanied by errors", "narrow furiousness" and "At Wikipedia in religious articles we have repeatedly seen editors ..." It is also a bit insulting to compare my edits (agree or disagree) with those by "George Washington".

Have a good day, Str1977 ^(talk) 23:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

PS. There is after all a revert I definitely disagree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_man_and_Lazarus&diff=prev&oldid=1064767718}, in which you revert what you call "you dropped an entire paragraph with background information from Josephus" - well, that paragraph actually gave pretty standard information not specific to Josephus (especially not with the AD years). That "background info" paragraph was out of place as the section was about presenting these different identifications, not separately giving background information about Caiaphas, Pilate and Gratus. Hence, including the years in which Caiaphas was High Priest in brackets was actually enough.

As for the reference you complain about: the extra paragraph was introduced by "according to Josephus" but actually sourced to "Metzger & Coogan Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993. p 97". That page does include the information I included into the other paragraph. I never claimed Metzger was Cox or that Josephus was Cox. In fact, the entire ref for Caiaphas's term could also be removed entirely as it is common knowledge. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Independent/Non-inscrit

Hey Str1977, the point is: There is a difference between 'independent' and 'non-inscrit' (german: Fraktionslos). An independent is a politician, who is not member of party per WIKI-definition (Independent politician). A non-inscrit is a politician sitting in a parliament, who may or may not be member of a party, but is no part of a group/faction of that parliament. (As a matter of fact, a group/faction-member can be an independent, for which there are to my knowledge many examples in the history of the Bundestag and many other german parliaments). The current situation is a case in point: There are 4 members, who do not belong to a faction/group, but two of those are no independents, as they are members of political parties. We have to somehow reflect on that. Alektor89 (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The definition is not that clear-cut. It is quite common to speak of independent representatives or MPs even if they are member of a party. BTW, it is 3 of the Fraktionslose that belong to a party, not 2. But you are totally glossing over the issue that labelling someone who chose not to sit with a certain Fraktion someone still should be bear the same label. In fact, they are more independent than the SSW MdB. I, for my part, never saw any merit of giving a detailed make-up of the Fraktionslose.

In any case, non-inscrit is such an obscure term that it should not be promoted by WP beyond its sourced applicability. On the Bundestag page the word had never been used before 2017 - before that we always wrote "Indepdents". Str1977 ^(talk) 12:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Edit warring" on Becky Lynch

...KyleJoan^talk 10:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

got engaged

Clarify Nina Jankowicz age

Hi Str1977, I saw you put a template requesting clarification on Nina Jankowicz's age. As far as I know, the most precise information on her age is from that New Yorker article, so that year range is the best info available. Is there a Wikipedia policy or suggestion to clarify the lack of precision further in the article? Or, is there something else you were trying to communicate with those clarification tags? Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a policy but it should be obvious that such an imprecise date is not satisfactory when it comes to a contemporary person.

I think your question about what I was trying to communicate a bit odd. I could just as easily ask what you were trying to do with such an imprecise date. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of precision is not good, but unfortunately that's all the precision that reliable sources have given, afaik. Thanks for the quick response! Somers-all-the-time (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Astyages & Co.

Guten Tag, ich bitte doch darum, unbelegtes bzw. veraltete Infos nicht in die Artikel wie z.B. Deiokes einzustellen. Die Artikel sind hinsichtlich Datierung und Hintergrund auf dem neusten Stand. Danke.--NebMaatRe 09:47, 7. Apr. 2008 (CEST)

Lachhafte Bewertung

Ich habe gerade Deine Änderung vom 10. Mai im Artikel "Caerlaverock Castle" gesichtet, wo Du einen Teil des Artikels als "lachhaft" bewertest. Unabhängig von historischen Fakten und dem Sachinhalt Deiner Änderungen, würde ich Deine etwas überhebliche Behandlung der Autoren des Artikels hiermit anmahnen. Mir ist aufgefallen, dass hier einige Kommentatoren/Autoren, zu denen auch Du offenbar gehörst, genervt und mit der Streitaxt Artikel verbessern. Ein Artikel durchläuft mit der Zeit sicherlich mehrere Kritikphasen und wird i.d.R. nach Sichtung durch mehrere Autoren besser - diese Kritik kann man glaube ich aber auch anders -und wenn dann sachbezogen - äußern und die hierfür aufgebrachte Energie besser in den Artikel stecken als sie indirekt gegen einen Autor loszulassen. Ansonsten wundert es mich nicht, wenn der Wikipedia aufgrund solcher Kommentare langsam die -zurecht beleidigten- Autoren weglaufen. Autoren sind nicht dazu da, an den Pranger gestellt zu werden und sich und die selbst gefertigten Artikel durch etwas überhebliche Autoren bewerten zu lassen. Bewertungen haben bei wikipedia nichts zu suchen - lieber bei den Fakten bleiben. Die Verbesserung hätte man auch wie folgt kommentieren können: "Begrifflichkeiten durch fachlich und sachlich richtige Formulierung ersetzt" - und alles wäre gut gewesen.

Verbesserungen sind o.k. und wünschenswert - bissige und wertende Kommentare aus meiner Sicht nicht. Das solltest Du Dir zukünftig verkneifen - Deine Mitautoren der Wikipedia werden es Dir danken. Das fördert dann nämlich das "wir" und das "miteinander" - Du förderst durch Deine Kommentierung eher das "ich, der Super-Autor gegen die anderen Noob-Autoren"...

PS: 1640 war der Zeitpunkt der Belagerung des Caerlaverrock Castles. Der Act of Union war 1707 und somit eine "vorläufige" Beendigung der kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen ; 1746 gab es dennoch die Schlacht von Culloden - also den letzten bewaffneten (!) Aufstand unter Bonnie Prince Charlie. Ist ein "Waffenstillstand" zwischen Engländern und Schotten bzw. beiden Religionslagern vor dem hier geschilderten Hintergrund immer noch "lachhaft"? Danke für Deine Belehrungen im Voraus... --McKarri 10:47, 9. Jun. 2008 (CEST)

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:McKarri&diff=prev&oldid=47071594

Hallo McKarri, ich kann verstehen, daß du meine Wortwahl ("lachhaft") für unangemessen hältst. Ich hätte es sicher auch anders ausdrücken können. Allerdings ist es in der Tat nicht angebracht, von einem Waffenstillstand zu sprechen. Ein Waffenstillstand ist eine vorläufige Unterbrechung eines Krieges, der jedoch noch nicht durch einen Friedensvertrag beendet ist. England und Schottland waren jedoch seit 1603 zwar separate Königreiche, jedoch durch Personalunion verbunden (einen Waffenstillstand des Königs mit sich selbst stelle mir seltsam vor). Die Kriegsführung war Sache des Königs und somit konnte es keinen Krieg zwischen den Königreichen geben. (Sicher, das Interregnum ist eine Ausnahme). Etwaige andere Kriege waren eben nicht zwischen England und Schottland (und das wäre in Bezug auf die Grenze entscheidend) sondern Kriege des Königs gegen innere Feinde. Insbesondere die Schlacht von Culloden (und was ihr vorausging) war kein Krieg zwischen England und Schottland sondern zwischen zwei die Kronen beider Länder beanspruchenden Männer. Das die "dreieckige Burg" in irgendeinem dieser Auseinandersetzungen (nach 1640) eine Rolle gespielt hätte ist mir nicht bekannt. Ich lasse mich da natürlich gerne belehren und wenn dem so sei, dann sollte es auch in den Artikel geschrieben werden.

Was das "Weglaufen von Autoren" angeht. Ich kenne das selbst. Ich schreibe und lese nur selten auf der deutschen Wikipedia (daher war es Glück das ich genau heute hereingeschaut und deine Nachricht erhalten habe) eben weil es hier Autoren schwer gemacht wird. Auf sehr vielen Artikelns sitzt ein sogenannter Hauptautor, der oftmals sehr eifrig seine Version verteidigt und damit Verbesserungen verhindert. Meistens habe ich dann bald genug und verziehe mich wieder in die englische Wikipedia. (Aus einer solchen Frustration heraus stammt wohl auch obige, nicht ganz saubere Worwahl.) Diese hat übrigens eine Politik gegen solche "Hauptautoren" und auch keinen Mangel an Autoren.

Gruß, Str1977 22:31, 9. Jun. 2008 (CEST)

Danke für die sehr sachliche Abhandlung unseres Problems auf meiner Diskussionsseite, welches nunmehr aus der Welt zu sein scheint. Ich befürworte ausdrücklich Verbesserungen und klammere nicht an meinen Artikeln, wenn sie denn tatsächlich eine Verbesserung oder gar Vertiefung des Artikels bedeuten. Der Artikel Kanone ist so z.B. zu einem recht informativen Flickwerk verschiedener Autoren geworden, der zwar Schwächen aufgrund der unterschiedlichen Schreibstile aufweist, sich aber informativ auffächert und so verschiedene Aspekte beleuchet. Deshalb hatte ich mich in meiner Kritik an Dir auch nicht an der eigentlichen Verbesserung an Dich gewandt, sondern schlichtweg wegen der Kommentierung. Ich bin schon mal von einem Administrator/Autor in sehr unangebrachtem, schroffen Ton angepflaumt worden, nachdem ich in meiner Anfängerzeit einen Artikel falsch verschoben hatte. Seitdem habe ich eine etwas sensible Antenne, was schroffen Umgangston hier bei wikipedia angeht - denn schließlich soll das hier allen Beteiligten Spaß machen - und nicht nur einigen wenigen elitären Autoren. Ich kann einerseits verstehen, wenn alteingesessene Autoren sich mit Rookies "abgeben" müssen, die ihre ersten Gehversuche bei der wikipedia tätigen - und dadurch genervt sind, wenn z.B. Formatierungen usw. nicht auf Anhieb gut aussehen oder Formulierungen nicht sofort treffend sind. Aber es darf halt nie unter die Gürtellinie gehen - das schadet meiner Meinung der Community und wird Rookies und auch schon etwas erfahrenere Autoren davon abhalten, ggf. wieder/weiter Artikel zu schreiben. Ich habe schon von vielen Abwendungen durch Wikipedia-Autoren gehört, die nicht mehr schreiben wollen - und das ist schade. Deine Verbesserung ist, wie Du mir erläutert hast, in puncto Waffenstillstand somit also völlig richtig und produktiv für den Artikel und gehört da dann auch hin. Der Vorgänger-Autor sollte aber nicht für seine Wortwahl mit einer Beleidigung abgestraft werden. In diesem Sinne: Noch gutes Gelingen weiterer Artikel - auf welcher wikipedia auch immer... --McKarri 13:27, 11. Jun. 2008 (CEST)

Sichterstatus

Moin, magst du dir mal den Sichterstatus geben lassen? Das wäre ob deines fleißigen Editierens ganz praktisch. --V·R·S (☣|☢) 13:48, 19. Aug. 2008 (CEST)

Merci. Status wurde erteilt. --V·R·S (☣|☢) 13:11, 20. Aug. 2008 (CEST)

Bayerischer Ministerpräsident

Hallo Str1977,

ich finde, wir sollten den Reichsstatthalter schon wieder rein nehmen. Klar, ihre Befugnisse waren nicht so sehr im exekutiven, als viel mehr im sog. "repräsentativen" Bereich ((Ab)Berufung des Ministerpräsidenten, Auflösung d. Landtags...). Dennoch waren sie zentrale Instrumente zur Durchdringung der Länder und übernahmen in der komplizierten nationalsozialistischen Konstruktion auch Teile der MP-Befugnisse. Die Anmerkung, dass Epp Reichsstatthalter war, erscheint mir deshlab durchaus angemessen. Kannst du damit leben, wenn ich sie wieder reinsetze? freundliche Grüße --Q'Alex ^{QS - Mach mit!} 10:01, 26. Aug. 2008 (CEST)

Adolf Hitler

Hallo,

du hast in dem Artikel einen Abschnitt mit dem Überarbeiten-Baustein markiert. Im Bausteintext heißt es: „Näheres ist auf der Diskussionsseite angegeben.“ Dort konnte ich jedoch keinen Abschnitt mit Bezug auf den Baustein finden, du hast nur was in der Edit-Zusammenfassung geschrieben. Ich denke, dass du das noch nachholen und begründen solltest, denn sonst weiß irgendwann niemand mehr, warum der Baustein überhaupt gesetzt wurde und was verändert werden muss. Die Versionsgeschichte zu durchsuchen ist zwar möglich, aber es ist nicht so einfach, Monate später noch den Edit zu finden, in dem der Baustein gesetzt wurde. Außerdem ist die Begründung dort sehr knapp und nicht durch Literatur oder ähnliches belegt. Gruß --Gamba 09:15, 16. Sep. 2008 (CEST)

Schmidt

Lieber Str1977,
es wäre nett, wenn du hierzu Stellung nehmen würdest. Schönes Wochenende, --Φ 22:18, 24. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Bischofslisten

Hallo Str1977, danke erst einmal für deine Ergänzungen an einigen für mich interessanten Artikeln rund um die Bistümer Würzburg und Bamberg. Ich scheue mich dennoch folgenden beiden Sorten von Edits widerspruchslos zuzustimmen:

• Das Entfernen von Wikilinks, die für das Thema relevant sind, z.B. "Großherzogtum Würzburg", dazu gehört auch das reine Verkürzen von Text, der eh schon sehr kurz ist.
• Das Zusammenführen von Begriffen, wie z.B. "Hochstift" und "Bistum", die u.a. nach dem OMA-Test oder auch wegen unsauberer Trennungen in der Literatur durchaus besser getrennt bleiben könnten. -PeterBraun74   ^{Kurier zu Pferde - get contact} 16:42, 28. Jul. 2009 (CEST)

Hallo Str1977, nachdem du aus oben genanntem Artikel unter dem Leitwort "klarer" ganze Textpassagen gelöscht und ihn in den Ursprungszustand zurückversetzt hast, möchte ich dich gerne um eine etwas ausführlichere Begründung bitten. Immerhin hast du mehr oder weniger alle Edits seit den letzten Änderungen von Benutzer:PeterBraun74 kommentarlos-außer einem "klarer"-rückgängig gemacht. Ziel ist es doch die Artikel ausführlicher zusammenzufassen, was nebenbei gesagt immer in Absprache mit Peter geschieht, der ja darum gebeten hat-und nun müssen wir sehen, dass alles umsonst gewesen ist. Ich werde also die "klaren" Zusammenfassungen wieder raus- und die ursprünglichen Passagen von Neuem aufnehmen. --Adrian Roßner @ QS 02:37, 15. Aug. 2009 (CEST)

Präsident des Deutschen Bundestages

Hört bitte mit eurem WAR auf, wie wäre es, wenn ihr euch an WP:3M wenden würdet? Sonst würde ich euch bei der VM melden, was ich vermeiden möchte. --Atlan ^Disk. 21:27, 30. Okt. 2009 (CET)

Baden AG

Hallo Str1977

AG steht nicht nur für Aktiengesellschaft, sondern ist auch ein offizielles Kantonskennzeichen. Siehe Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen#Deutscher Sprachraum (Einzelregel Nr. 5). --Voyager 21:17, 7. Dez. 2009 (CET)

Kahl

Der Rückersbach wird bereits in der Zuflusstabelle erwähnt, da muss er nicht unbedingt im Text stehen. Der Satz bezieht sich auf den letzten Zufluss, und das ist nunmal der Sälzerbach. Ich verfüge über persönliche Ortskenntnis und der Sälzerbach mündet am Fußgängersteg an der Entengasse nach dem Neuwiesenbach. Die nun im Artikel stehenden Informationen sind nach deiner Änderung nicht mehr richtig. -- Freak-Line-Community 21:45, 26. Jan. 2010 (CET)

Das ein letzter Zufluss nicht nennenswert ist, da magst du recht haben. Aber wenn der vorletze nach dem letzten steht ist dass eine falsche Angabe, die du ja jetzt berichtigt hast.-- Freak-Line-Community 22:01, 26. Jan. 2010 (CET)

Man lässt sich dadurch täuschen, dass er nördlich der Burg der Kahl schon sehr nahe ist. Danach fließt er verrohrt unter der Burgstraße und Entengasse zur Breiten Wiese. Man kann sich da schon mal irren. Da haben wir das ja geklärt. Gruß -- Freak-Line-Community 22:17, 26. Jan. 2010 (CET)

Hauptautor ≠ Eigentümer

Hallo Str1977! Der Hauptautor ist nicht der Eigentümer des Artikels, sondern lediglich derjenige, der den Artikel am häufigsten bearbeitet hat und deshalb in den meisten Fällen auch das meiste über das Thema weiß. Deshalb gibt es einen vom WikiProjekt Wartungsbausteine iniziierten Testlauf, bei dem die Hauptautoren von Artikeln, die z.B. einen Neutralitäts-Baustein tragen, über den Baustein benachrichtigt werden sollen, damit sie an der Behebung der Mängel aktiv mitarbeiten können. Siehe dazu auch Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Wartungsbausteine/AutorenInfo. Ich habe daher deine Änderung rückgängig gemacht. Grüße, -- Memorino _{Lust, mitzuhelfen?} 16:37, 26. Mär. 2010 (CET)

Vermittlungsausschuß

Hinweis: Wikipedia:Vermittlungsausschuss/Problem zwischen Str1977 und Kersti -- Kersti 00:09, 13. Apr. 2010 (CEST)

Hallo, ich bin wieder da und hätte die Sache mit den Links wirklich gerne richtig geklärt. Kersti 18:28, 23. Mai 2010 (CEST)

FYI

Hallo Str1977, siehe hier. Alles klar? Danke. Gruß, --Jocian 22:21, 23. Feb. 2011 (CET)

Irgend'n Grund, warum Du hier die korrekterweise korrigierten Links zum geänderten (verkürzten!) Lemma Verfassung und Verfassungsvertrag wieder rausgeworfen (und stattdessen auf eine Weiterleitungsseite verlinkt) hast? Zuviel KTG macht schwindelig? ;-) --Jocian 16:38, 24. Feb. 2011 (CET)

All'ns ok. Kollateralschäden werden derzeit allethalben beklatscht... ;-) --Jocian 16:46, 24. Feb. 2011 (CET)

Jansenismus

Hallo Str1977, zunächst einmal vielen Dank für deine gründliche Überarbeitung des Artikels. Die Straffung der Darstellung hat die Lesbarkeit und die innere Logik an vielen Stellen sichtbar verbessert. An einigen Stellen scheint es mir jedoch, als seien Gedanken weggefallen, die mir bei der Beschäftigung mit dem Thema aufgefallen sind.

1. In deinem Edit vom 4. März 2011 10:03 hast du den Satz entfernt, dass Jansenius sich als Vertreter der Gegenreformation sah. Gibt es Stimmen in der Literatur, die dagegen sprechen? Soweit ich den "Augustinus" gelesen habe (natürlich nur in ganz beschränktem Umfang), ist er auch als Polemik gegen calvinistische Positionen geschrieben. Bist du da anderer Ansicht und, falls ja, auf welche Quellen stützt du dich dabei?

2. Den Edit von 9:11 Uhr finde ich einfach nur gelungen. Ein paar Holperigkeiten, die aus der ursprünglichen Fassung stammen und mir erst jetzt auffallen (Tempusgebrauch z.B.), werde ich gleich beseitigen.

3. Der Edit von 9:47 dagegen erscheint mir weniger gelungen. Abgesehen von grammatischen und stilistischen Missgeschicken, die jedem bei so einem umfangreichen Edit unterlaufen können und die man leicht ausbessern kann, vermisse ich nun einen Gedanken, der in den Grundzügen bereits von John Mason Neale herausgestellt wurde: dass nämlich die päpstliche Kurie hier ein Strohmann-Argument verwendet.

Insgesamt finde ich jedoch, dass deine Bearbeitung dem Artikel gutgetan hat. Freundliche Grüße -- Altkatholik62 22:47, 4. Mär. 2011 (CET)

Danke fürs Feedback. Ich halte aber meine Überarbeitung nicht für so gründlich. Da müßte noch viel gemacht werden, wozu ich aber grade momentan keine Zeit habe. Hier meine Antworten zu Deinen Punkten:

1. Klar ist Jansen (der ja selbst nur Namensgeber, kein Teil des Jansenismus war) ein Vertreter der Gegenreformation. Nur ist es nicht nötig, daß sowohl bei ihm und bei seinen Jesuitischen Gegnern extra sagen. Für ganz verunglückt halte ich die Formulierung, beiden Parteien sei es um die "Auslegung" der Gegenreformation gegangen. Nein, es ging um die Auslegung der Gnadenlehre innerhalb der katholischen Theologie. (Genauso wenig gehört lutherische Theologie hierein.)

2. :-)

3. Die Aussage, die Kurie "verwende ein Strohmannargument" (keine gute Ausdrucksweise hier, denn es ging ja nicht um eine Diskussion) kann so nicht einfach so als Fakt genommen werden. In den entsprechenden Bullen verurteilt das Lehramt genau das, was es verurteilt. Manche Jansenisten haben daraufhin argumentiert, dies sei nur ein Zerrbild des Jansenismus. Aber das ist nicht einfach so ein Faktum.

Wenn ich Zeit habe, setze ich mich wieder daran und hoffe das ganze detaillierter darzustellen.

Str1977 13:15, 7. Mär. 2011 (CET)

Bitte, gern geschehen. Vielleicht könntest du die Punkte, in denen der Artkel aus deiner Sicht noch zu kurz greift, einmal auf der dortigen Diskussionsseite skizzieren?

1. Die Formulierung mit "Auslegung" war tatsächlich verunglückt. Ob nun lutherische und auch calvinistische Theologie, die dem Jansenismus ja im Ergebnis nahe standen, hir genannt werden können, darüber könnte man trefflich streiten. Ich lasse es aber erstmal so stehen, bis ich nähere Informtionen in der Literatur finde.

2. Okay.

3. Der Begriff „Strohmannargument“ kam mir hier als Analogie in den Sinn und ist auch nicht zur Verwendung im Artikel gedacht. Es finden sich jedoch in allen drei Bullen (In eminenti, Cum occasione und besonders Unigenitus Dei Filius, die ja nicht mehr als ein politisches Zugeständnis an Versailles war) unter den verurteilten Sätzen solche, die nur aus Unkenntnis von Jansens und Quesnels Werken herrühren können, oder gar aus einer bewussten Verdrehung dieser Werke. Und das Lehramt verurteilt oft genug das, was es verurteilen will, wie bereits der „Fall“ Galilei zeigt. Überdies musste auch der päpstliche Nuntius Cappacini in seinem Disput mit Erzbischof Willibrord van Os 1827 zu Argumenten greifen, die selbst mit scholastischer Logik nicht nachvollziehbar sind. So behauptete er etwa sinngemäß, wenn der Papst sage, ein grünes Tischtuch sei rot, so habe alle Welt das zu glauben (vgl. Neale, A History of the So-Called Jansenist Church of Holland; Oxford 1858; S. 361).

Zugestehen muss ich allerdings, dass ich den ganzen Jansenismus-Streit aus einer romkritischen Perspektive sehe. Ich bin mir nicht einmal sicher, ob es so etwas wie einen „Jansenismus“" im strengen Sinne, als einheitliche Lehrmeinung überhaupt je gegeben hat oder ob es sich dabei vielleicht um ein „verselbständigtes Feindbild“ handelte. Da aber der Begriff nun einmal existiert, verdient er natürlich eine genaue - wenn auch nicht unkritische - Betrachtung.

-- Altkatholik62 17:26, 7. Mär. 2011 (CET)

Carl Klinkhammer auf dem Kreuzzug ins Glück

Hallo Str1977, gugsch du hier, alles klar? Grüßle----Saginet55 16:37, 10. Dez. 2011 (CET)

Kartoffelbefehl

Hallo, da am 24. Januar der 300. Geburtstag von Friedrich dem Große ist soll der Artikel des Tages etwas über ihn sein. Da ist aber ein Problem, der Artikel über ihn ist nicht besonders gut und bräuchte eine große Überarbeitung. Ich würde ja lieber den Kartoffelbefehl ausbauen, da er eindeutig etwas mit Friedrich zu tun hat. Leider habe ich keine Litteratur etc, daher brauche ich eure Hilfe! Könntet ihr bitte mit mir hier diskutieren welchen der Artikel man ausbauen sollte, damit am 24. etwas Gutes auf der Hauptseite steht? Danke im voraus, LZ6387 20:32, 10. Jan. 2012 (CET)

PS: Wenn ihr noch jemanden kennt der sich für Preußen interessiert sagt ihm bitte bescheit!

PPS: Ich habe dich informiert weil du:

A. Diese Vorlage benutzt Benutzer:Modgamers/Vorlage:preußen

oder

B. Auf der Diskussion des Friedrich- oder Preußen-Artikel stehst.

oder

C. Am Artikel Preußen mitgearbeitest hat. --Istius Bot 21:02, 10. Jan. 2012 (CET)

Ferdinand II. (HRR)

Hallo Str1977, kannst Du das bitte wieder reparieren. Siehe auch die Artikeldisk. Grüsse --Otberg (Diskussion) 22:53, 30. Mai 2012 (CEST)

wohlgesonnen

Hallo Str1977! Laut Duden richtig ist nur "feindlich gesinnt", "positiv gesinnt" etc. Verwendung findet "gesonnen" im Zusammenhang mit der Absicht, eine bestimmte Handlung auszuführen. "wohlgesonnen" ist, so wie in meinem Beleg angegeben, grammatikalisch falsch! Tiroinmundam (Diskussion) 10:12, 11. Jun. 2012 (CEST)

Str1977 (Wohlgesonnen?) (Diskussion) 14:03, 11. Jun. 2012 (CEST)

Schlesien und Glatz

Hallo, du hast das Fehlen eines Belegs für mein Edit im Artikel zu den nicht eingekreisten Territorien des HRR moniert - und diesen Beleg gleich mit revertiert. Seit dem Frieden von Dresden sind - mit Zustimmung von Kaiser und Reich - die von der Königin von Böhmen und Ungarn an Preußen abgetretenen Länder der böhmischen Krone aus dem Reichsverband ausgeschieden, was sich schon daraus ergiebt, dass sich der König in Preußen seither souveräner Herzog bzw. souveräner Graf nennen durfte und genannt hat. Ich habe das für einen Allgemeinplatz gehalten. Außer dir scheint dies auch jedem bekannt zu sein. ;-) Ich werde aber trotzdem noch nach einem link forschen, damit dein Monitum ausgeräumt ist. Trotzdem sollten Tatsachen, auch wenn sie einem Nicht-Historiker vielleicht ungeläufig sind, nicht einfach gelöscht werden. Niemand will dich hindern, nach Feststellung eines Fehlers diesen zu beheben. Wollte man aber nur wegen des Fehlens einer ausreichend erscheinenden Quellenangabe einen Text einfach löschen, so stünden bald nur noch blanke Lemmata in der wp. --Hvs50 (Diskussion) 10:19, 16. Jun. 2012 (CEST)

O.K. Ich habe nicht erwähnt, dass dieses Ausscheiden aus dem Reich nicht der österreichischen Sicht entspricht. Die Zeitgenossen haben es aber offenbar so gesehen (Büsching, Leonhardi, Berghaus). Ich habe meine Formulierung etwas präzisiert. --Hvs50 (Diskussion) 11:09, 16. Jun. 2012 (CEST)

Jedem außer mir bekannt? Wohl kaum, denn trotz Geschichtsstudium (Und deshalb bitte auch den Nichthistoriker stecken lassen.) habe ich nie irgendwo davon gehört, daß damals irgendwelche dieser Gebiete aus dem Reich ausschieden. Wann immer das geschehen ist, ist das sehr wohl der Erwähnung wert gewesen.

Einen Beleg für Deine, abgeschwächte Behauptung, bleibst Du noch immer schludig und so lange dies so ist, kann die Behauptung nicht stehen bleiben. (Muß kein Link sein, Bücher sind durchaus brauchbar.

"dass dieses Ausscheiden aus dem Reich nicht der österreichischen Sicht entspricht" - dann ist das Ausscheiden also eine Ansicht, kein Faktum. Meinst Du mit öst. Sicht die der Habsburger oder die öst. Historiker? Falls ersteres, wäre das ein weiteres Argument gegen Deine Behauptung, denn was das Reichsoberhaupt (und Partei des von Dir angeführten Friedensschluss) denkt, dürfte nicht ganz irrelevant sein.

Schließlich: Artikel der deutschen WP sind oftmals hinsichtlich der Quellenangaben jenseits von Gut und Böse. Und ja, theoretisch könnte man alles unbelegte löschen. Aber es ist zweckmäßig sich auf das Kontroverse und das offensichtlich unsinnige zu beschränken. Wozu Deine Behauptung gehört, habe ich nicht zu entscheiden. Str1977 (Diskussion) 19:10, 16. Jun. 2012 (CEST)

onlyinclude-tags und Begriffsklärungsseiten

Hallo Str1977!

Wenn du in Begriffsklärungsseiten solche <onlyinclude> tags findest, bitte nicht löschen! Das bedeutet, dass die Seite noch in einer anderen Seite eingebunden wird (in diesem Fall in Burke (Familienname)#R). Wird das onlyinclude gelöscht, wird die ganze Seite im Familiennamensartikel eingebunden mitsamt dem Einleitungssatz und dem BKS-Baustein, was sehr unschön aussieht. Grüße --knopfkind 16:20, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Okay, wußte ich nicht. Str1977 (Diskussion) 20:33, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Liste der Bischöfe von Trnava

Hallo Str1977, vielen Dank für die Überarbeitung der Liste. Die ursprüngliche Liste fand ich ein klein wenig übersichtlicher. Z.B. unter Name, ich habe einen Vor- und einen Nachnamen. Wenn ich mich vorstelle, dann auch nur mit Namen und nicht mit Geburtsdatum. In der Spalte von - bis ist wie bei allen Bischofslisten (und daran habe ich mich orientiert) nur die Jahreszahl angegeben, alles andere steht im Text. Bei mir stand das auch so, nur Du hast es zerpflückt! Hättest Du etwas dagegen wenn ich die Liste wieder auf die Version Th1979 vom 2.Jul.2012 zurücksetzen würde? Ich frage nur höflich, bevor ich ändere.--Ekpah (Diskussion) 16:38, 16. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

Hallo Ekpah,

definitiv hätte ich etwas dagegen. Gegen ein bloßes Zurücksetzen, also pauschales Vernichten meiner Arbeit, sowieso. Schließlich habe ich nicht in punkto Lebendaten (Dein Punkt) etwas geändert sondern auch die Liste zusammengeführt (Gabris auch als Erzbischof) und unwichtiges entfernt.

Dazu muß ich leider auch Geburts- und Sterbedaten zählen, so etwas gehört in Artikel über die Personen selbst, nicht in diese Liste. Ist es zuviel verlangt, für die vier noch nicht bestehenden Artikel zu erstellen?

Str1977 (Diskussion) 19:16, 16. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

Hallo Str1977, also ist Deiner Meinung nach alles falsch was die Wikipedia-Mitarbeiter gemacht haben! Ich werde mich hüten, Deine Arbeit zu vernichten, dafür erlaube ich Dir dies für meine Arbeit zu tun. Ich wünsche Dir viel Erfolg bei der Erstellung der vier noch nicht bestehenden Artikel und der Änderung aller Bischofs- bzw. Weihbischofslisten in Deinem Sinne. Glück auf.--Ekpah (Diskussion) 07:48, 17. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

Habe ich das etwa behauptet? Aber es gibt nunmal Sachen, die in Artikel hineingehören und andere, die nicht hineingehören. Ein wenig mehr Sachlichkeit wäre wünschenswert. Str1977 (Diskussion) 10:14, 17. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

Zentralmächte

Hallo, ich habe nichts dagegen, wenn Du Zentralmächte durch Mittelmächte ersetzt. Deine Bezeichnung des geläufigen Begriffs, der offenbar aus der Originalquelle stammt, als „Unfugsbegriff“, halte ich allerdings meinerseits für Unfug. Grüsse --Otberg (Diskussion) 18:20, 19. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

Es ist jedenfalls Unfug einen unüblichen Begriff einzufügen, wenn Mittelmächte 1. der fast ausschließlich gebrauchte Begriff ist, 2. der Titel des verlinkten Artikels ist, 3. in der Zeile zuvor erscheint. Ein unbeleckter Leser wird sich fragen, ob hier eine andere Mächtegruppe gemeint ist. Str1977 (Diskussion) 18:27, 19. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

Unüblich ist, wie gezeigt, was anderes. Zusätzlich war der Begriff auch noch verlinkt, alo sicher nicht unverständlich. Bitte verzichte in Zukunft darauf, die Texte anderer grundlos als Unfug zu bezeichen. Danke. --Otberg (Diskussion) 01:05, 20. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

Der Link macht die Benutzung des Begriffs definitiv zu Unfug. Ende der Diskussion. Str1977 (Diskussion) 09:25, 20. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

Hans Ruesch

Hallo Str1977, das hast du sehr gut gemacht! Es ist in der Tat übersichtlicher, die Überschrift „Nackte Herrscherin“ nicht nur auf die deutsche Version zu beziehen, sondern auf das Werk als solches, egal in welcher Sprache es nun veröffentlicht wurde. Naja, und den Einfluss von Pharmaindustrie und wissenschaftlicher Lehrmeinung auf die öffentliche Meinungsbildung kann man schwer belegen, das gebe ich zu. Vielleicht können wir eine andere Lösung zum Satz um Einzelnachweis 11 erarbeiten: Du hast die im Text erwähnte Umfrage, nach der Tierversuche in den 1970ern zu 80 Prozent von den Deutschen befürwortet wurden, ganz in den Einzelnachweis verschoben und nur noch die Tatsache, das Initiativen zugunsten der Interessen von Nutztieren (in diesem Fall: Versuchstiere) kaum öffentliche Resonanz fanden, stehen gelassen. Doch das war zwar ein Nährboden, aber nicht der wesentliche Grund für die Kritik an Rueschs Buch, denn er hatte damals eine „heilige Kuh“ geschlachtet und den Fortschritt durch Tierversuche und damit die Wissenschaft infrage gestellt. Was damals unerhört war (jedenfalls mehr als heute). Vorschlag: –––– Da in den 1970er-Jahren Initiativen zugunsten der Interessen von Nutztieren kaum öffentliche Resonanz fanden, der Tierversuch mehrheitlich von Bevölkerung befürwortet wurde (11) und Ruesch die etablierte Wissenschaft angegriffen hatte, wurde sein „Vivisektionsschocker“ nach dem Erscheinen zum Teil heftig kritisiert. ––– (Ich hab meine Anmerkung in die Artikel-Diskussion kopiert, Fortführung ggf. dort) Irrubaic (Diskussion) 16:59, 22. Sep. 2013 (CEST)

{{Wahldiagramm
| LAND      = DE
| PROZENT   = nein
| GUV       = ja
| TITEL     = 1. Bundestagswahl am 14. August 1949
| PARTEI1   = CDU/CSU
| ERGEBNIS1 = 31.0
| PARTEI2   = SPD
| ERGEBNIS2 = 29.2
| PARTEI3   = FDP
| ERGEBNIS3 = 11.9
| PARTEI4   = KPD
| ERGEBNIS4 = 5.7
| PARTEI5   = BP
| ERGEBNIS5 = 4.2
| PARTEI6   = DP
| ERGEBNIS6 = 4.0
| PARTEI7   = Sonstige<!---Zentrum 3.1, WAV 2.9, DKP-DRP 1.8, SSW 0.3, Parteilose 4,8--->
| ERGEBNIS7 = 15.1
| FARBE7    = {{Wahldiagramm/Partei|Sonst.|dunkel}}
}}
{{Sitzverteilung
| Überschrift = Sitzverteilung im 1. Deutschen Bundestag
| float        = right
|KPD|SPD|CDU/CSU|FDP|DP|BP|Sonstige|
| CDU/CSU      = 139<!--115+24-->
| CDU/CSU Link = [[CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion|CDU/CSU]]
| FDP          = 52
| DP           = 17
| SPD          = 131
| SPD Link = [[SPD-Fraktion|SPD]]
| KPD          = 15
| BP           = 17
| Sonstige       = 31
}}

Münchener Freiheit/Diskografie

Ich hoffe deine Bearbeitungen dort sind noch nicht beendet. Der Artikel ist im aktuellen Zustand wirklich grausam. Wenn du Hilfe benötigst, melde dich. Gruß. ChrisHardy (Diskussion) 15:02, 16. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Ähem. Grausam war sie vorher schon. Auch ich bin nur ein Mensch, daher brauchte das ganze auch etwas Zeit. Str1977 (Diskussion) 11:40, 17. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Aber wegen der aktuellen Änderungen, sind die Münchener Freiheit was besonderes, weil du das Schema komplett änderst? Ich warte mal mit Änderungen bis du fertig bist und schaue mir das dann mal an. ChrisHardy (Diskussion) 13:44, 17. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Ich habe kein Schema geändert, sondern lediglich die außen vor gebliebenen Singles in das bestehende Schema integriert, wie es bereits auf der Diskussionsseite gefordert wurde. Das ist nun soweit erledigt. Warum sollte die MF etwas besonderes sein? Str1977 (Diskussion) 16:19, 17. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Globales Benutzerkonto

Hallo Str1977! In den nächsten Wochen bis voraussichtlich April 2015 werden alle Benutzerkonten in irgendeiner Weise eindeutige globale Benutzerkonten werden, dies wird seitens der Wikimedia Foundation durchgeführt, damit es keine Überschneidungen mehr in unterschiedlichen Sprachversionen gibt, die zu Schwierigkeiten bei der Bearbeitung führen, und damit technische Verbesserungen ermöglicht werden. Mir ist in diesem Zuge aufgefallen, dass du gemäß Special:CentralAuth/Str1977 noch gar kein globales Benutzerkonto hast, und musste leider auch feststellen, dass ein Benutzer gleichen Namens auf enwiki mehr Bearbeitungen als du getätig hat und ihm damit das globale Konto zusteht. Demnächst wirst du dich dann wohl für einen neuen Namen entscheiden müssen, der deinem jetzigen natürlich sehr ähnlich sein kann. Darüber wird dich demnächst die Wikimedia Foundation auch in verschiedener Art und Weise informieren, da wünschenswert ist, dass alle Benutzer, die durch solche Überschneidungen betroffen sind, selbstbestimmt die Umbenennung vornehmen können. Gern helf ich dir natürlich dabei. Vermutlich musst du das jetzt erst mal überdenken. Ping mich doch bitte mit {{Ping|DerHexer}} an, wenn ich dir helfen soll. Grüße, —DerHexer (Disk., Bew.) 00:40, 30. Dez. 2014 (CET)

Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Ukrainische Parteien

Hallo Str1977, da es eine Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Fraktionen im Ukrainischen Parlament, wie du weisst, bereits gibt möchte ich gerne die Eingrenzung, die du für diese Navigationsleiste getroffen hast erfahren, da die von dir in der Navigationsleiste eingetragenen Parteien ja nur einen Teil der in der Ukraine heute und in der Vergangenheit aktiven Parteien darstellt. Wenn du dir die Kategorie:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Parteien ansiehst, ist dort stets eine Eingrenzung der Parteien vorgenommen worden, die sich auch im Namen der Leiste oder der Untergliederung dieser widerspiegelt. Das vermissen ich in dieser Navigationsleiste. Gruß, --Berihert ♦ (Diskussion) 19:43, 11. Jan. 2015 (CET)

Die Eingrenzung ergibt sich aus der Bearbeitungsgeschichte. Zuerst habe ich in der Parteien-Leiste, zwei Gruppen eingerichtet: Parteien, die gerade im Parlament sind, und solche, die es nicht sind bzw. die es mal waren. Das war, bevor ich die Fraktionen-Leiste entdeckt habe. Daher habe ich dann die Gruppen wieder aufgelöst, da die erste Gruppe der Fraktions-Leiste entsprach. Die Fraktions-Leiste habe ich um zwei noch fehlende Parteien ergänzt, die Parteien-Leiste enthält jetzt also die Parteien, die gegenwärtig und früher, im Parlament vertreten war, wobei letztere durchaus noch lückenhaft sein kann. Eine andere Eingrenzung im Leistenthema ist insofern unsinnig, als dies die Leiste wieder in eine Dublette der Fraktions-Leite verwandeln würde. Gruß, Str1977 (Diskussion) 20:15, 11. Jan. 2015 (CET)

Danke für die Ergänzung in der Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Fraktionen im Ukrainischen Parlament. Aber die neue Vorlage ist nun eigentlich sinnlos, da man sie als Untergliederung "Ehemalige Parteien im Parlament" locker in der Vorlage Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Fraktionen im Ukrainischen Parlament unterbringen kann. Oder du lässt dir eine andere Differenzierung der enthaltenen Parteien einfallen oder aber du packst wirklich ALLE Parteien der Ukraine, ehemalige und bestehende hier rein, was wohl den Rahmen sprengen würde. Schlage daher vor, eine dir genehme Differenzierung der Parteien vorzunehmen und dies in der Leiste darzustellen. Ansonsten solltest du sie besser löschen lassen. Gruß, --Berihert ♦ (Diskussion) 20:30, 11. Jan. 2015 (CET)

Nun, eigentlich ist die Fraktions-Leiste überflüssig. Ich wollte aber nicht das Werk eines anderen einfach so löschen, zumal dass ein einzelner Benutzer nicht so einfach kann.

Warum sollte es den Rahmen sprengen? Str1977 (Diskussion) 20:35, 11. Jan. 2015 (CET)

Habe nun die nicht im Parlament vertretenen Parteien aus der Leiste entfernt, da hier ansonsten nur eine willkürliche Zusammenstellung von Parteien deinerseits in der Leiste erfolgte. Das ist so nicht hinnehmbar. Gruß Berihert ♦ (Diskussion) 21:24, 28. Jan. 2015 (CET)

******wort

Hallo Str1977,

Bitte ändere nicht eine zulässige Schreibweise in eine andere. In diesem Fall "Kofferwort" in "Portmanteauwort". Wir haben die Korrektoren-Regelung, die klar besagt, dass solche Massenersetzungen unerwünscht sind.--Plankton314 (Diskussion) 21:05, 28. Jan. 2015 (CET)

Es ist ein (außerhalb der deitschen WP) ungebräuchlicher Begriff - und keine Schreibweise - daher geht Dein Verweis ins Leere! Str1977 (Diskussion) 21:55, 28. Jan. 2015 (CET)

Die Korrektorenregelung bezieht sich nicht nur auf Schreibweisen, sondern allgemein auf Änderungen, die keine Verbesserung des Artikels bewirken, sondern nur die Präferenz eines Benutzers ausdrücken. Das ist gelebte Praxis, da müssen wir hier keine Haarspalterei betreiben.

Eine kurze Google-Books-Suche fördert etliche Literatur aus der Sprachwissenschaft zutage die klar zeigt, dass es keine Erfindung der WP ist. Scheint mir daher eher deine Privatmission zu sein.--Plankton314 (Diskussion) 22:24, 28. Jan. 2015 (CET)

gudn tach! (edit conflict)

bei WP:RS#Korrektoren geht es nicht nur um schreibweisen, sondern auch um formulierungen ganz allgemein. wenn es keinen trifftigen grund fuer eine gibt, d.h. wenn nicht argumentiert werden kann, warum eine formulierung nach der ersetzung besser ist als vorher, dann ist sie i.d.r. ein verstoss gegen WP:RS. der hintergrund fuer diese auf den ersten blick eher unscheinbare oder fast absurd scheinende regel ist vor allem, dass wir in der wikipedia sprachvielfalt als wichtiger erachten denn einheitlichkeit.

konkret: aus welchem (objektiven, also ggf. auch belegbaren) grund soll portmaneauwort besser geeignet sein als ******wort? -- seth 22:25, 28. Jan. 2015 (CET)

Wie bereits gesagt, ist Portmanteau (bzw. Portmanteauwort oder Portmanteau-Wort) das wesentlich gebräuchlichere Wort. Das andere Wort wird zwar nicht gar nicht benutzt aber seine Verbreitung v.a. im Netz ist doch fast ausschließlich der Tatsache zuzuschreiben, dass gewisse WP-Autoren das Wort in die Welt hinaus spammen.

"Das ist keine Verbesserung" ist kein zulässiger Revertierungsgrund, sondern, das sei Plankton gesagt, selbst Haarspalterei.

Wenn, lieber Lustiger Seth, Sprachvielfalt erwünscht ist, warum dann die stereotype Verwendung dieses Unworts? Str1977 (Diskussion) 22:32, 28. Jan. 2015 (CET)

gudn tach!

kannst du zur haeufigkeit belege angeben? eine google-suche nach "portmanteauwort" liefert weit weniger treffer als "kofferwort" (und fuer "portmanteau" fast ausschliesslich nicht-deutsche treffer). ngrams hat beide woerter nicht gelistet, das DUW (duden) ebenfalls nicht (dort kommen sie nur beide im rahmen eines sprachratgebers vor). das dwds hat zu "portmanteau" nix, zu "kofferwort" immerhin ein vorkommnis in "Die Zeit, 28.01.2009, Nr. 06".

selbst wenn "portmanteau" geringfuegig haeufiger als "kofferwort" sein sollte -- wofuer derzeit noch die belege fehlen --, waere die verwendung von "kofferwort" nicht falsch, da es auch in zeitungen und von der duden-redaktion verwendet wird, was deine wikipedia-verbreitungs-theorie eher widerlegt.

verstoesse gegen WP:RS#Korrektoren koennen tatsaechlich revertiert werden, da die richtlinie sonst sinnlos waere (denn dann koennte ja jeder seine lieblingsersetzungen durchfuehren, wuerde deswegen zwar ermahnt, aber haette trotzdem seine persoenliche meinung gegen die regularien durchgesetzt.)

ganz ehrlich: ich finde persoenlich ebenfalls, dass "kofferwort" ein daemlicher begriff fuer eine kontamination ist, deswegen verwende ich das wort einfach selten -- abgesehen von meta-threads wie diesem. das gibt mir aber kein recht, das wort anderen schlechtzureden. auch deswegen haben wir WP:RS#Korrektoren.

sprachvielfalt ist erwuenscht in dem sinne, dass grundsaetzlich jeder (neues) schreiben darf, wie er mag. und auch jeder darf gerne korrigieren, soll dabei aber WP:RS#Korrektoren einhalten. d.h. genausowenig, wie jemand durch die wikipedia gehen soll, um "portmanteau" in allen artikeln durch "kofferwort" zu ersetzen, ist das umgekehrte verhalten erwuenscht. sondern es wird sogar sanktioniert.

ich bitte dich deshalb, solche aenderungen niemals durchzufuehren, wenn es nicht mit anderen abgesprochen wurde. -- seth 22:55, 28. Jan. 2015 (CET)

(BK) Die bloße Häufigkeit eines Wortes kann ggf. über das Lemma entscheiden, aber keinesfalls über die verwendete Formulierung im Artikeltext. Ansonsten dito zu Seth.--Plankton314 (Diskussion) 22:58, 28. Jan. 2015 (CET)

gudn tach!

da du wieder online bist, kann ich wohl davon ausgehen, dass du dies hier auch gelesen hast. da keine weitere antwort mehr von dir kam und vermutlich auch keine begruendung angegeben wird, warum deine ersetzung objektiv verbesserungen waren, werde ich einige der aenderungen nun revertieren. -- seth 22:20, 29. Jan. 2015 (CET)

Ergo: wenn ich angeblich massenhaft Änderungen mache ist das schlimm, wenn andere das tun und ein Unwort spammen ist das okay? Str1977 (Diskussion) 11:48, 30. Jan. 2015 (CET)

gudn tach!

zu [33]: wenn ich es gewusst haette, haette ich nicht gefragt. wenn du mir nicht sagst, worum es geht, kann ich auf deinen impliziten vorwurf auch nicht antworten. mir geht es um verbesserung der wikipedia und dazu gehoert auch das einhalten der richtlinien und das ausdiskutieren und ausraeumen von missverstaendnissen. wenn du nicht diskutieren willst, ist das auch ok, allerdings verringert es die wahrscheinlichkeit der reduzierung von missverstaendnissen. -- seth 12:10, 31. Jan. 2015 (CET)

"zickenkrieg"

gudn tach!
magst du auf talk:Inka_Grings#.22Zickenkrieg.22 mal vorbeischauen, bitte? -- seth 10:40, 7. Jun. 2015 (CEST)

Liste von Verschwörungstheorien

Hallo Str1977!

Die von dir stark überarbeitete Seite Liste von Verschwörungstheorien wurde zum Löschen vorgeschlagen. Gemäß den Löschregeln wird über die Löschung nun bis zu sieben Tage diskutiert und danach entschieden.

Du bist herzlich eingeladen, dich an der Löschdiskussion zu beteiligen. Wenn du möchtest, dass der Artikel behalten wird, kannst du dort die Argumente, die für eine Löschung sprechen, entkräften, indem du dich beispielsweise zur enzyklopädischen Relevanz des Artikels äußerst. Du kannst auch während der Löschdiskussion Artikelverbesserungen vornehmen, die die Relevanz besser erkennen lassen und die Mindestqualität sichern.

Da bei Wikipedia jeder Löschanträge stellen darf, sind manche Löschanträge auch offensichtlich unbegründet; solche Anträge kannst du ignorieren.

Vielleicht fühlst du dich durch den Löschantrag vor den Kopf gestoßen, weil der Antragsteller die Arbeit, die du in den Artikel gesteckt hast, nicht würdigt. Sei tapfer und bleibe dennoch freundlich. Der andere meint es vermutlich auch gut.

Grüße, Xqbot (Diskussion) 13:44, 9. Aug. 2015 (CEST)   (Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch durch einen Bot erstellt. Wenn du zukünftig von diesem Bot nicht mehr über Löschanträge informiert werden möchtest, trag dich hier ein.)

Böhmen

Moin! Eine Archivseite heißt nicht umsonst so, weil es abgeschlossene Diskussionen enthält. Bitte bespreche das mit Chumwa auf seiner Disk oder neu in der Kartenwerkstatt, aber nicht dort. Der Vorteil ist, dass Chumwa in der Lage ist, Karten zu erstellen ohne weiße Retuscheflecken wie die neue Datei. Viele Grüße, NNW 16:44, 25. Okt. 2015 (CET)

Das mit dem Archiv hatte ich übersehen. Auf den Rest des Postings gehe ich besser mal nicht ein! Str1977 (Diskussion) 19:54, 25. Okt. 2015 (CET)

Linzer Bischöfe

Du darfst gern deine NL ändern, in den von mir erstellten Navileisten ist ein System drinnen. Ich habe auch diverse Sträuße darüber ausgefochten. Etwa hier nachzulesen, ändere daran am Grundkonzept (keine Amtszeiten, wo nicht notwendig) bitte nichts mehr. Die Zeiten der Weihbischöfe oder Kooadjutoren hab ich angegeben, da es diese nicht fortlaufend gab und diese Information daher sinnvoll/notwendig ist. lg und Danke. --Hannes 24 (Diskussion) 07:48, 27. Okt. 2015 (CET)

Hannes 24,

ich stimme Dir soweit zu, dass Navigationsleisten von Listen zu unterscheiden sind und erstere, da sie ja v.a. der schnellen Navigation zwischen mehreren Artikel aus dem gleichen Bereich dienen, weniger detailreich sind. (Und oftmals gibt es ja auch gar keine Abfolge.) Ich bin da auch schon oft dafür eingetreten, dass in Navileisten Mehrfachnennungen nicht sinnvoll sind.

Andererseits ist das im vorliegenden Fall nicht so klar, da Du mehrere Dinge in der Leiste vermischt hast, nämlich Bischöfe und Weihbischöfe. Der Koadjutor ist sinnvollerweise nicht von den Bischöfen zu trennen.

Schießlich muss ich Deinen ersten Satz kategorisch zurückweisen: "Du darfst gern deine NL ändern" verstehe ich so als dürfte ich das bei "Deinen NL" nicht. Dergleichen gibt es aber auf Wikipedia nicht - die Navigationsleisten gehören weder mir noch Dir noch irgendjemandem sonst. Du hast hier keine Verbote aufgrund eines "Systems" aufzustellen.

Guten Tag, Str1977 (Diskussion) 09:34, 27. Okt. 2015 (CET)

Ich trenne normalerweise Bischöfe von Weihbischöfen, hier schien das aber nicht sinnvoll. Die NL ist also ein Kompromiss. Zur jetzigen Lösung (doppelte Nennung): ich habe die NL „hierarchisch“ aufgebaut (Bischöfe, Koadjutoren, Weihbischöfe). Ich werde die von dir kritisierte Doppelnennung herausnehmen. lg --Hannes 24 (Diskussion) 12:42, 27. Okt. 2015 (CET)

Lieber Hannes 24,

Okay, das ist schon mal etwas. Die Doppelung macht in der Tat keinen Sinn, da ein Koadjutor im Normalfall ja der nächste Bischof ist.

Was ich immer noch nicht verstehe ist aus welchem sachlichen Grund heraus, aus dem Du

1. Jahreszahlen bei den Bischöfen ablehnst (auf die ich allerdings nichts bestehe) - außer dem Streben nach Kompaktheit natürlich

2. bei den Weihbischöfen aber zulässt.

Str1977 (Diskussion) 12:59, 27. Okt. 2015 (CET)

Hast du jetzt vor, hinter all meinen Artikeln nachzuschnüffeln und Fehler zu suchen? Da wirst du einige finden (denn nur wer nichts arbeitet macht keine Fehler). (Übrigens habe ich am LH Tirol Artikel - mit Unterbrechungen - fast 1 Jahr gearbeitet). lg --Hannes 24 (Diskussion) 12:53, 27. Okt. 2015 (CET)

Bitte keine Unterstellungen. Ich wollte mir lediglich ein Bild von dem von Dir angesprochenen System machen. Zufällig bin ich dabei auf Unstimmigkeiten und die Existenz zweier Navigationsleisten gestoßen. Da habe ich nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen korrigiert. Deine Arbeit weiß ich zu schätzen und das wird durch Änderungen (siehe den Hinweise im Kasten oberhalb des Speichern-Buttons) nicht geschmälert. Aber über sachliche Einwände, Gründe und Gegengründe können wir uns gerne austauschen. Str1977 (Diskussion) 12:59, 27. Okt. 2015 (CET)

Ehrlich gesagt, hab ich mir nicht getraut, die ältere mMn falsche NL überall auszutauschen. Die Funktion „Landeshauptmann“ am Schluss der Monarchie und in der Ersten Republik ist vollkommen verschieden. siehe Einleitung Liste der Landeshauptleute Tirols#Landeschefs, Landeshauptmänner im Kronland Tirol (1861 bis 1918). Daher wollte ich die Perioden (und Funktionen trennen). In anderen Bundesländern ist da in den Personenlisten auch einiges falsch/durchmischt. Die ganze Sache ist leider komplizierter als man denkt. z.B. mit Österreich/Nieder-/Inner-/Vorderösterreich. lg --Hannes 24 (Diskussion) 13:11, 27. Okt. 2015 (CET)

Da kann ich Dir folgen. Vielleicht sollten wir die Formate für NL aus der en.WP übernehmen, dann könnten wir NL bauen, die aus mehreren NL bestehen. Werde mich bei Gelegenheit mal schlau machen.

PS. Bitte meine obige Frage nicht übersehen. Str1977 (Diskussion) 13:21, 27. Okt. 2015 (CET)

bitte wecke keine schlafenden Hunde. Bei manchen Bischöfen (in D) wurden „meine“ ;-) NL alle wieder rausgenommen. Siehe die Diskussion, die ich dir verlinkt hatte. Die engl. wp wurde in dieser disk gerade als abschreckend gebrandmarkt (klickibunti). es ist/bleibt kompliziert loool. lg --Hannes 24 (Diskussion) 13:33, 27. Okt. 2015 (CET)

War nur eine Idee. Str1977 (Diskussion) 11:59, 31. Okt. 2015 (CET)

Ideen sind ja ok, nur gibt es hier (wie überall) verschiedene Meinungen darüber, ob sie auch gute sind. wp ist zeitweise etwas mühsam, in der Entscheidungsfindung ;-) Und oft gilt der Wiener/österreichische Spruch: „Des woar scho imma so, des wiast DU net ändern.“ loool lg --Hannes 24 (Diskussion) 17:09, 31. Okt. 2015 (CET)

Hauptautoren

Hallo Str1977, auch wenn Du es nicht magst, es gibt in der Wikipedia Hauptautoren von Artikeln, und diese haben schon lizenzrechtlich einen anderen Status als jemand, der nur "Freitod" in "Suizid" ändert und wegen solcher Beiträge ohne Schöpfungshöhe von keinen Nachnutzer zu nennen wäre. Und es gibt auch jenseits von Rechten einen guten Stil, der etwa in WP:Korrektoren formuliert ist: "Es ist kein guter Stil, in einer schlüssig formulierten Passage eine zulässige in eine andere zulässige Schreibweise zu ändern. [...] Im Zweifel respektiere man die Vorlieben desjenigen, der zu einem Artikel inhaltlich am meisten beigetragen hat." Dieser Respekt vor der Arbeit des Anderen ist nur leider in der Wikipedia nicht sehr ausgeprägt. Gruß --Magiers (Diskussion) 18:30, 15. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

In der deutschen Wikipedia ist leider der Respekt vor (oder auch nur die Kenntnis von) Wikipedia-Regeln nicht sehr ausgeprägt. Auch wenn der Text bei jedem Speichern erscheint, wird er oft übersehen:

"Mit dem Speichern dieser Seite versicherst du, dass du den Beitrag selbst verfasst hast bzw. dass er keine fremden Rechte verletzt, und willigst ein, ihn unter der Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Lizenz 3.0 und der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation zu veröffentlichen. Falls du den Text nicht selbst verfasst hast, muss er unter den Nutzungsbedingungen verfügbar sein und du stimmst zu, notwendigen Lizenzanforderungen zu folgen. Du stimmst einer Autorennennung mindestens durch URL oder Verweis auf den Artikel zu. Wenn du nicht möchtest, dass dein Text weiterbearbeitet und weiterverbreitet wird, dann speichere ihn nicht.

Deine "lizenzrechtlich" Begründung ist doch, gelinde gesagt, Unsinn. Das oben zitierte gilt für alle Autoren. Kein Autor ist Eigentümer des Artikels und hat Anspruch darauf, dass "sein Text" nicht verändert wird. Selbst dein verlinkter Artikel WP:Hauptautor sagt klar und deutlich: Hauptautoren haben keine anderen Rechte an Artikeln als alle anderen Benutzer. Siehe dazu Wikipedia:Eigentum an Artikeln." und fährt fort "Die Bezeichnung Hauptautor ist in der Wikipedia umstritten."

Es hat auch kein anderer das Recht, solche "Hauptautoren" ins Felde zu führen, wenn man selbst keine (Gegen-)Argumente hat.

Was Du über Stil schreibst, mag ja schön und gut sein, nur krankt es 1. daran, dass man dann erstens mal den sogenannten Hauptautor herausfinden müsste (er steht ja nicht oben auf dem Artikel, weil es ihn ja eigentlich auch gar nicht gibt), was 2. angesichts der Kleinigkeit und Offensichtlichkeit mancher Änderung (so auch meiner) nicht der Mühe wert ist. Str1977 (Diskussion) 09:34, 17. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

Fangen wir hinten an: Wenn das Ersetzen von "Freitod" durch Suizid eine solche Kleinigkeit wäre, dann würdest Du darum keinen Edit-War führen. Ich denke wir beide wissen, dass es hier um weltanschauliche Positionen geht, und eben niemand das Recht hat, seine Position in der gesamten Wikipedia durchzusetzen. Wenn der Autor bei einer Filmfigur den Begriff "Freitod" verwendet und eine kleine Suche zeigt, dass das auch diverse Sekundärquellen tun, dann kann man einen solchen Ausdruck auch mal akzeptieren. Mir persönlich ist die Frage aber auch zu unwichtig, um darüber einen Bearbeitungskrieg zu führen. Was mich vielmehr stört ist Deine Despektierlichkeit gegenüber Autoren, ohne die es solche herausragenden Artikel wie Das Leben der Anderen gar nicht gäbe. Da steckt wochenlange Arbeit drin, neben dem zeitlichen oft auch finanzieller Einsatz. Aber was sie als Dank erhalten ist der Hinweis, sie sollen doch gefälligst ihren Text nicht speichern, wenn sie nicht wollen, dass nachher jemand über einzelne Worte darin bestimmen will. Wie es wieder in WP:Korrektoren heißt: "Korrektoren sollten stets bedenken, dass allzu forsches Eingreifen und Beharren auf rein formalen Standpunkten einen inhaltlich produktiven Autor entmutigen und von weiterer größerer Mitarbeit abhalten könnten." Und genau deswegen sollte man sich bei reinen Geschmacksänderungen zurückhalten. Gruß --Magiers (Diskussion) 11:43, 17. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

Von einem Edit-War kann man hier nicht sprechen. Der Edit ist formal eine Kleinigkeit: es lohnt nicht für die Änderung eines Wortes einen Riesenaufwand zu treiben. So lange es keine fundierten Einwände gibt, lohnt noch nicht einmal der erste, normale Schritt - eine Begründung auf der Diskussionseite -, denn der Edit wurde ja bereits im Edit Summary begründet.

Inhaltlich ist der Edit natürlich keine Kleinigkeit, das stimmt. Ich stimme Dir auch zu, dass niemand das Recht hat, seine weltanschauliche Position in der gesamten Wikipedia durchzusetzen. Auch kein sogenannter Hauptautor (wobei ich ihm/ihr das hier nicht so ohne weiteres unterstellen will) - aber das genau geschieht doch nicht durch das neutrale Wort "Suizid" sondern durch das positiv bewertende Wort "Freitod" (die entgegengesetzte, negative Bewertung wäre "Selbstmord"), was darüberhinaus dem Kontext des Films Hohn spricht. Christa-Maria Sieland handelt definitiv nicht aus einer Position der Freiheit hinaus. Das ist auch nicht die Aussage des Films. Und genau darum ging es mir.

Es ist keine Despektierlichkeit gegenüber vedienten Autoren, wenn ich Sonderrechte und Sonderstellung ablehne. Jedenfalls war das nie meine Absicht und ich habe auch keinen "Hauptautor" erlebt, der das selbst für sich beanspruchte (sondern immer nur andere, um den Status Quo zu zementieren.) Das von Dir gebrachte Zitat solltest Du auch selbst beherzigen, denn das "Hauptautor"-Gerede ist neben der Nonsense-Begründung "keine Verbesserung" einer der Haupt-Entmutiger der deutschen (nur der deutschen) Wikipedia. Und nicht umsonst war das Wort mal im Rennen als Unwort des Jahres. Str1977 (Diskussion) 09:10, 19. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

"Ausgezeichnete Artikel"

Moin, bitte verzichte darauf, vor allem in ausgezeichneten Artikeln Veränderungen vorzunehmen, die den Artikel nicht verbessern! Danke für Dein Verständnis, mit Gruß, --Felistoria (Diskussion) 23:39, 7. Dez. 2017 (CET)

Welches Verständnis? Welche ausgezeichneten Artikel? Sind die so gut wie der ausgezeichnete Aufsatz von Prof. Pritchard aus Club der toten Dichter'? Str1977 ^(talk)

Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Präsidenten der Kammer der Abgeordneten (Bayern)

Du hast die Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Präsidenten der Kammer der Abgeordneten (Bayern) geändert ohne die Kommentarzeile zu nutzen. Gibt es für die gemachten Änderungen eine Begründung? --Hemeier (Diskussion) 23:23, 9. Jan. 2018 (CET)

Saint-Just

Hallo Str1977,

danke für deine Löschung im Saint-Just-Artikel. Der muss m.E unbedingt überarbeitet werden. Dass der Jugendbucgh-autor Hans Werner Richter da die Hauptquelle bildet, ist schon ein ziemlicher Fauxpas. Hast du Lust und Zeit?

Ich glaube, wir haben uns mal in anderer Sache gestritten, kann das sein? Falls ja, bitte ich um Entschuldigung, falls nein, auch. In der Hoffung auf gute Zusammenarbeit --Φ (Diskussion) 23:34, 9. Mär. 2018 (CET)

Hadrian V. als Kardinaldiakon

Hallo Str1977, auch als Kardinaldiakon musste man schon im 13. Jahrhundert zum Priester geweiht werden, die Weihe zum Diakon reichte nicht. --TeleD (Diskussion) 21:13, 10. Mär. 2018 (CET)

Das mag sein. Aber 1. müsste das belegt werden, 2. machte der Artikel das nicht explizit. 3. passt der Hinweis an dieser Stelle so nicht in den Zusammenhang. Dass Hadrian kein geweihter Priester war, steht in keinen Zusammenhang mit seiner Änderung der Papstwahlvorschriften. Der alte Artikeltext stellte aber einen solchen Zusammenhang her, ohne ihn zu erklären. Str1977 (Diskussion) 22:54, 10. Mär. 2018 (CET)

Hallo Str1977, Du änderst und ich soll belegen, wie es richtig ist? Bitte schön: Kardinäle (auch Kardinaldiakone) müssen Priester und sollten auch Bischöfe sein (Vaticanhistory.com) Er hätte schon viel früher, mindestens als Archidiakon Priester sein müssen. Du hast allerdings recht, dass die Änderung der Konklaveordnung offenbar nicht damit zusammenhing, dass er selbst kein Priester war. --TeleD (Diskussion) 20:41, 11. Mär. 2018 (CET)

Übrigens hattest Du eine Änderung von dir direkt vor einen Einzelnachweis gesetzt, damit suggerierst Du, dass deine Änderung durch den ENW belegt ist. --TeleD (Diskussion) 20:53, 11. Mär. 2018 (CET)

1.a. Die fehlende Priesterweihe war zuvor an einer Stelle eingefügt, wo sie keinen Sinn ergab (Papstwahlordnung). Das habe ich geändert, was Du ja in Deinem Posting auch akzeptierst. Es ist zwar war, dass das Fehlen der Priesterweihe ohne Quelle ist. Wenn es bei meinem Punkt 1 "das müsste belegt sein" darum ginge, dann hätte ich so wenig eine Bringschuld für die Quelle wie Du.

1.b. Tatsächlich bezog sich aber meine Anfrage nach einer Quelle auf Deine Behauptung, dass eine Kardinaldiakonsstelle im 13. Jahrhundert mit der Priesterweihe verbunden wäre. Dass ist DEINE Behauptung, für die DU eine Quelle bringen müßtest. Ich kann nicht ausschließen, dass das üblich war, bezweifle aber, dass es zwingend nötig war. Es sehe auch nichts in dem von Dir verlinkten Artikel, dass das für das 13. Jahrhundert belegen würde. Dort wird das nur für das gegenwärtige Kirchenrecht ausgesagt. Darüberhinaus mangelt es auch diesem Artikel an Quellen. Soweit ich sehe, ist http://www.vaticanhistory.de/vh1/Impressum/impressum.html einfach eine x-beliebige Website.

In keinem der beiden Fälle kann ich das "Du änderst und ich soll belegen!" nicht nachvollziehen.

2. Ich habe die Information, dass er keine Priesterweihe hatte, dort eingefügt, wo sie sachlich passte, nämlich bei der ersten Erwähnung einer Priesterstelle. Dass das ganze vor einem der seltenen Einzelnachweise erfolgte, war nicht ideal und sollte nichts suggerieren, ist aber ein leicht behebarer Mangel. Was ich nun auch tun werde. Es ist allerdings sinnlos, das ganze neben Diakonsstellen (und als solche muss auch das Archidiakonat und das Kardinalsdiakonat ansehen, da Deine obige Behauptung ohne erkennbare Quellengrundlage ist) zu setzen, wo gar keine Priesterweihe nötig war. Und so groß ist der Unterschied der Platzierung im Hinblick auf den ziemlich bald folgenden Einzelnachweis nicht. Str1977 (Diskussion) 21:33, 11. Mär. 2018 (CET)

Hallo Str1977, im Punkt Kardinaldiakon lag ich komplett falsch, bis ins 19. Jh. brauchten diese keine Priester, sonder nur Diakon zu sein. Mein Fehler, ich bitte um Entschuldigung. Wenn ich die Texte jetzt richtig verstanden habe, benötigte der spätere Hadrian V. weder für sein Amt als Kardinaldiakon noch als Erzpriester von Santa Maria Maggiore die Priesterweihe (dafür gab es an der Kirche einen Dekan), und auch beim Archidiakon gab es Amtsinhaber wie ihn, die nicht Priester waren. Aus der Sicht des 21. Jahrhunderts unverständlich, aber im 13. Jahrhundert - auch wenn es damals schon Kritik gab - offenbar nicht unüblich. Gruß --TeleD (Diskussion) 23:52, 12. Mär. 2018 (CET)

Gut, dass wir das Missverständnis aufgeklärt haben. Allerdings liegt die Sache beim Kardinalpriester doch ein wenig anders. Hier war prinzipiell schon die Priesterweihe nötig bzw. damit verbunden. Allerdings kam es nicht selten vor, dass der Ernannte die nötige Weihe nicht empfing, das Amt (mitsamt der politischen Rechte) zwar innehatte aber die liturgisch/sakramentalen Funktionen nicht ausübte. Barbarossas Kanzler Rainald von Dassel z.B. war lange Erzbischof von Köln ohne die Bischofsweihe zu haben. Entsprechend handelt es sich Hadrians Kardinalpriesteramt ohne Priesterweihe tatsächlich um einen Misstand, der Kritik verdient hatte. Beim Kardinaldiakon sehe ich das nicht so. Auch nicht im 21. Jahrhundert. Str1977 (Diskussion) 22:17, 14. Mär. 2018 (CET)

Satzzeichen nach Kursivschrift, zum Beispiel Anguilla

Hallo Str1977, bitte bei Überarbeitungen von Texten nicht die korrekte Typografie ändern! Danke! --AK-LeChiffre (Diskussion) 19:52, 28. Aug. 2020 (CEST)

Es ist nicht "korrekte Typographie". Str1977 (Diskussion) 19:56, 28. Aug. 2020 (CEST)

„Stehen Satzzeichen am Ende eines kursiv oder fett formatierten Textes, werden sie in der Regel ebenso ausgezeichnet. Beispiel: Es ist heiß! (Im Quellcode: Es ist heiß!)“ Siehe: Wikipedia:Typografie#Schriftauszeichnung. Oder auch: „Satz- und Anmerkungszeichen nach Kursiven sind ebenfalls kursiv zu setzen.“ (siehe dies hier, wenn Dir ein externer Link lieber ist als die Richtlinien der Wikipedia). Noch Fragen? --AK-LeChiffre (Diskussion) 21:55, 28. Aug. 2020 (CEST)

Ganz abgesehen davon: Deine Änderungen zur Geschichte Anguillas werfen ebenfalls Fragen auf: Du behauptest, dass Anguilla „von Großbritannien direkt verwaltet [wurde], bis 1825 in einer Umstrukturierung Anguilla mit St. Christopher und Nevis zu St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla zusammengeschlossen wurde.“ Eine Kolonie dieses Namens entstand aber erst 1882 (siehe dazu auch den entsprechenden Artikel in der englischen WP). Zugegebenermaßen bin ich kein Experte für britische Kolonialgeschichte, sonst hätte ich es selbst repariert, aber so kann man das meiner Meinung nach wirklich nicht stehen lassen! --AK-LeChiffre (Diskussion) 23:01, 28. Aug. 2020 (CEST)

Ich behaupte nichts dergleichen. Die Informationen habe ich unverändert gelassen und lediglich das Namensproblem St. Christopher/St. Kitts bearbeitet, was vorher unterirdisch war. [34] Wenn etwas inhaltlich falsch ist, dann war es das vorher auch schon.

Ganz abgesehen davon: Achte mal ein bißchen auf deinen Ton! Danke! Str1977 (Diskussion) 23:05, 28. Aug. 2020 (CEST)

Bitte mal ganz ruhig: 1. Ich gebe Dir vollkommen recht, dass die Verwendung der Namen St. Christopher/St. Kitts desolat war. Danke an dieser Stelle für Deine diesbezüglichen Verbesserungen (wie auch die Auflösung des Abschnitts „Sonstiges“)! 2. Es stand vorher nicht im Artikel, dass „1825 […] Anguilla […] zu St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla zusammengeschlossen wurde.“ Das ist so explizit in dieser Form erst von Dir in den Artikel eingearbeitet worden. Vorher stand da nur etwas von einer „von St. Christopher aus verwalteten Einheit“. Natürlich ist eine solche Formulierung Käse und schreit förmlich nach einer Verbesserung, aber der Begriff „St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla“ bezieht sich nun mal auf eine Kolonie, die von 1882 bis 1983 existiert hat und kann somit meiner Meinung nach für 1825 nicht angewendet werden. 3. Was den Tonfall angeht: Wenn auf meinen berechtigten (und nachträglich auch belegten) Hinweis als Antwort ein lapidares „Es ist nicht "korrekte Typographie.“ folgt, empfinde ich das als völlig unangemessen (auch hinsichtlich des Tonfalls). Dass ich Gleiches mit Gleichem vergolten und mich ebenfalls im Tonfall vergriffen habe, tut mir leid, und dafür entschuldige ich mich. In der Sache ändere ich meine Meinung allerdings nicht. Gruß & Schönes Wochenende --AK-LeChiffre (Diskussion) 23:43, 28. Aug. 2020 (CEST)

Hier noch mal zur Guten-Nacht-Lektüre die Version vor meinen Edits: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anguilla&oldid=200943272 - auch hier ist die Behauptung, die Du kritisierst klar vorhanden: "Bis ins 19. Jahrhundert wurde die Insel als britische Kolonie von Großbritannien direkt verwaltet, bis 1825 in einer Umstrukturierung Anguilla mit St. Kitts und Nevis zu einer von St. Christopher aus verwalteten Einheit zusammengeschlossen wurde.

Du belästigst mich jetzt zum wiederholten Mal mit Dingen, mit denen ich nichtst zu tun habe und schreibst mir sogar auf Artikeldiskussionen Änderunge nzu, die ich nicht gemacht habe.

Was das "korrekt" angeht, ist aber ein ganz anderes Thema und war bereits abgeschlossen. Ich bin da halt anderer Meinung. Ich habe mich nicht im Ton vergriffen sondern Dir lediglich widersprochen.

Es ist nicht schön, so aneinander zu geraten, aber lass es nun gut sein. Ich sehe mich weder berufen nocht wissensmäßig in der Lage, das "Anguilla"-Problem zu lösen. Deshalb habe ich ja auch inhaltlich nichts geändert.

Dennoch ein Schönes Wochenende wünscht Str1977 (Diskussion) 23:53, 28. Aug. 2020 (CEST)

Dann lass uns jetzt so auseinandergehen. Im Hinblick auf das Anguilla-Problem gilt für mich dasselbe wie für Dich, deshalb habe ich soeben dort einen Überarbeitungsbaustein gesetzt. Nochmals schönes Wochenende wünscht --AK-LeChiffre (Diskussion) 09:17, 29. Aug. 2020 (CEST)

Königreich Preußen

Lieber Benutzer Str1977, mit großem Unbehagen sehe ich, wie sich zwischen uns, die wir bislang nie irgendwo aneinander gerieten, ein Streit um die Benutzung des Wiki-Lemmas „Königreich Preußen“ entwickelt. Das Problem wäre zu lösen, wenn das Lemma, dessen Inhalt die Darstellung der Geschichte Preußens in den Jahren von 1701 bis 1918 ist, zukünftig „Preußen (Monarchie“) lauten würde.
Dass die Bezeichnung „Königreich Preußen“ für den Staat Preußen als Monarchie in der Literatur ganz ungebräuchlich ist, dürfte auch Dir bekannt sein.
Könen wir uns hier nicht vertragen?--Gloser (Diskussion) 23:36, 18. Sep. 2020 (CEST)

Das Lemma ist in Ordnung, so wie es ist. Und wenn Du bisher keinen Konsens dafür bekommen hast (siehe die dortige Diskussion) wirst Du von mir auch keinen bekommen.

"Dass die Bezeichnung „Königreich Preußen“ für den Staat Preußen als Monarchie in der Literatur ganz ungebräuchlich ist, dürfte auch Dir bekannt sein." - Das ist Deine Behauptung. Meine Erfahrung mit geschichstwissenschaftlicher Literatur is völlig konträr.

Es liegt an Dir, zumindest Artikel, die von dieser Frage kaum tangiert werden, nicht unnötig zu komplizieren.

Str1977 (Diskussion) 00:30, 19. Sep. 2020 (CEST)

Dein Argument, „Artikel, die von dieser Frage kaum tangiert werden“, sollten von mir nicht unnötig kompliziert werden, erkenne ich an.
Aber welcher Autor verwendet wo den Namen „Königreich Preußen“ für die preußische Monarchie, den Gesamtstaat Preußen?--Gloser (Diskussion) 15:40, 22. Sep. 2020 (CEST)

Gut, dass wir uns bei Punkt 1 zumindest prinzipiell einig sind. Ich habe auch eigentlich nicht groß was gegen die Bezeichnung "preußische Monarchie" (mehr schon gegen "Staat Preußen"), meine aber das "Königreich Preußen" ein legitimer Begriff für den Gesamtstaat ist.

Um Deine Anfrage zu beantworten, brauche ich etwas Zeit, da mein Bücherregal nicht unbedingt voll ist von Werken über Preußen. Meine Aussage zehrt sich aus Erinnerungen aus dem Studium. Ich hoffe Dir nächste Woche eine Antwort dazu schreiben zu können. Str1977 (Diskussion) 21:28, 23. Sep. 2020 (CEST)

Tauwetter

Hallo Str1977, Dein Edit bei Ilja Ehrenburg ist nicht ganz unberechtigt, schafft aber m.E. zugleich ein verzerrtes Bild. Die Tauwetter-Periode begann nicht erst mit Chruschtschows Geheimrede, sondern bereits mit dem Freispruch der Beschuldigten der Ärzteverschwörung und der Verhaftung von Beria, das Buch ist ja auch von 1954. Ich denke, dass "Liberalisierung" hier durchaus der treffendere Begriff gegenüber Entstalinisierung ist.--Mautpreller (Diskussion) 12:53, 1. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Ja, so ist es besser.--Mautpreller (Diskussion) 13:06, 1. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Noch 'ne kleine Anmerkung: Der Artikel ist entstanden aus einer heftigen Diskussion, manche Eierschalen merkt man davon noch. Deine Edits zielen genau auf solche Stellen und ich finde sie im Großen und Ganzen gut. Nur eines: Ich hab damals die Literatur sehr umfassend gesichtet, Appelle zur Tötung von Kriegsgefangenen oder Zivilisten sind auch vor 1944 m.W. nirgends zu belegen. Wohl aber ist zu belegen, dass E. zum Hass gegen "den Deutschen" und "die Fritzen" aufrief und dies vor allem in späteren Jahren auch in der Sowjetunion kritisiert wurde, etwa von Kopelew. Aber E. schrieb auch 1942: "Wenn der deutsche Soldat seine Waffe loslässt und sich in Gefangenschaft begibt, werden wir ihn mit keinem Finger anrühren – er wird leben." Natürlich kann ich nicht die Hand dafür ins Feuer legen, was alles in den Hunderten Kriegsartikeln von E. stand. 1942 jedoch kam "der Deutsche" im Osten sicher nicht als "Zivilbevölkerung" vor. Den Edit finde ich trotzdem in Ordnung, nur die ZuQ irritiert mich ein wenig.--Mautpreller (Diskussion) 13:49, 1. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

"Appelle zur Tötung von Kriegsgefangenen oder Zivilisten sind auch vor 1944 m.W. nirgends zu belegen."

Das mag stimmen, geht aber an der Sache vorbei. Er hat zunächst undifferenziert zum Hassen und Töten der Deutschen aufgerufen. Da hat er zwar nie gesagt "und ich meine auch Zivilisten und Kriegsgefangene" aber er auch nicht differenziert. Später hat er dann differenziert und das wurde auch weiter oben so dargestellt. Der Satz mag also formal richtig sein (wenn auch durch "nirgends zu belegen" schon abgeschwächt), geht aber an der Sache vorbei. Str1977 (Diskussion) 14:05, 1. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Ja, okay. Mir ist halt wichtig gewesen, dass Joachim Hoffmanns starke Sprüche an der auch nur einigermaßen belegbaren Realität weit vorbeigingen. Das wird aber auch so klar.--Mautpreller (Diskussion) 14:11, 1. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Stop

Die VM ist erledigt, solltest du die Erledigung erneut missachten, machst du Pause. --Itti 16:20, 7. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Habe ich nicht gesehen und das stand auch nirgendwo. Insofern habe ich nichts missachtet. Du solltest ehrlich mal Deinen Umgangston überdenken. Str1977 (Diskussion) 16:30, 7. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Doch das stand da. In der Überschrift wurde (erl.) eingefügt durch MBq und er hat auch in dem Moment eine Entscheidung getroffen. Danach erfolgte noch eine Ergänzung von dir, die ich bereits mit entsprechendem Kommentar entfernt habe, dann erneut. Wenn eine VM beendet wurde, wird sie schlicht nicht mehr diskutiert. Gibt es Anmerkungen oder Ergänzungen, dann auf der Seite des entscheidenden Admins. Was du mir hier als schlechten Umgangston attestierst, ist schlicht die übliche Praxis, denn ansonsten könnten wir die Funktionsseite VM nicht benutzbar halten. Viele Grüße --Itti 16:34, 7. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Okay, das habe ich übersehen. es sind nur 3 Buchstaben. Die Revertierung habe ich erst hinterher gesehen, weil ich noch einen Kommentar geschrieben habe, der dann zum Versionskonflikt führte.

Und genau so einen Hinweis wie jetzt - dafür besten Dank - hättest Du gleich schreiben können. Mann muss nicht immer gleich drohen, denn die Begründung "Wenn entschieden, erledigt, dann Ende" ist doch einsichtig. Mit etwas mehr Gelassenheit und AGF könnten wir uns das Wiki-Leben etwas leichter machen. Viele Grüße, Str1977 (Diskussion) 16:38, 7. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Na ja, hatte ich dir bei dem ersten Revert auch geschrieben ;). Viele Grüße --Itti 16:40, 7. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Ich sehe nicht, wo Du mir geschrieben hättest vor dem obigen Hinweis. Man kann nichr davon ausgehen, dass man vorherige Edit Summaries liest, wenn man den Revert gar nicht bemerkt hat.

Was den Revert auf der AA angeht, war da die Ansage "Ich halte diese Anfrage für abgeschlossen." nicht so starkm wie Du sie wohl gemeint hast. Meine Beiträge sind aber auch verzichtbar. Str1977 (Diskussion) 16:47, 7. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Es ist nicht leistbar, jeden zunächst anzuschreiben, dann den Beitrag zu entfernen, dann ggf. den nächsten anzuschreiben und dessen Beitrag zu entfernen, usw. Wenn du dir die Versionsgeschichte ansiehst, habe ich nicht nur von dir Beiträge entfernt, sondern auch von -jkb-. Solche Antwort auf Antwort entwickeln schnell eine Dynamik, die nicht mehr geregelt werden kann. Deshalb wird revertiert, mit einem entsprechenden Hinweis in der Zusammenfassungszeile, dann wird auf der Benutzerdiskussionsseite angesprochen und wenn ich das gleichzeitig mit mehreren Benutzern machen muss, dann sind die Hinweise knapp verfasst, denn um es einzufangen fehlt mir in dem Moment die Zeit. Viele Grüße --Itti 17:22, 7. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Dass es nicht leistbar ist, verstehe ich. Aber umgekehrt wäre dann etwas behutsamere Ausdrucksweise angebracht, wenn man denn schon zum ersten Mal anschreibt. Sobald ich über die Lage im klaren war, habe ich ja auch nichts mehr dagegen unternommen. Ich glaube nicht, dass das länger dauert als gleich mit Drohungen zu kommen. Str1977 (Diskussion) 21:11, 8. Aug. 2021 (CEST)

Heinrich Maria Janssen

Hallo, ob bei Heinrich Maria Janssen eine Redundanz vorliegt oder nicht, ist eine inhaltliche Frage.

Aber nach Wikipedia:Edit-War ist eine begründet zurückgesetzte Bearbeitung nicht zu wiederholen, sondern auf der Diskussionsseite des Artikels eine Klärung herbeizuführen. Dort ist aber der letzte Eintrag von 2021.

Um den Edit-War zu stoppen, hab ich den Artikel für zwei Wochen gesperrt. Bitte auf der Artikeldiskussion klären, ggf. mit 3. Meinung. Bei vorzeitiger Klärung bitte auf Entsperrwünsche melden. Freundl. Grüsse --Nordprinz (Diskussion) 15:45, 13. Nov. 2022 (CET) (@Jordi: zur Info)

Klimawandel-

Hallo Str1977, du bist mir inzwischen mehrfach damit aufgefallen, dass du elementare Fakten zum menschengemachten Klimawandel nicht akzeptierst oder als strittig bezeichnet, merkwürdige Diskussionsbeiträge zum Klimawandel verfasst oder gar Klimawandelleugner weißzuwaschen versuchst. Ich bitte dich dringend, solche Edits zu unterlassen. Wie du sicher weißt, gibt es in der Klimaforschung seit Jahrzehnten einen eindeutigen Konsens, dass der gegenwärtige Klimawandel existiert, menschengemacht ist und schwere Folgen hat. Dementsprechend bildet die Wikipedia das entsprechend ab. Edits, die versuchen, diese Fakten kleinzureden, Klimaleugner schönzuschreiben oder gar aus so notorischen wie eindeutigen Klimaleugnerorganisationen wie EIKE als wissenschaftliche Institute zu machen, sind grob irreführend und damit krasse Verstöße gegen enzyklopädisches Arbeiten. Ich hoffe, du lässt das zukünftig bleiben, denn sonst muss ich langsam von vorsätzlichem Vandalismus ausgehen. Viele Grüße, Andol (Diskussion) 22:57, 12. Dez. 2022 (CET)

Es ist ja wohl die Höhe. Wir sind uns noch nie begegnet und Deine Anwürfe hier sind schon deshalb absurd, weil sie einfach nicht zutreffen. Ich wüsste auch nicht, wo ich mich zum Klimawandel überhaupt geäußert hätte. Und nicht jeder nimmt die eigene Meinung zum Maßstab von Bearbeitungen.

Im vorliegenden Streitfall geht es mir nicht darum, ein Urteil über EIKE zu fällen. Ich habe es nicht zum "wissenschaftlichen Institut" gemacht. Und zum Charakter von EIKE steht genug im entsprechenden Artikel.

Aber ich sehe aus Deinen Aussagen, dass Du vom Prinzip WP:NPOV nicht viel hältst. Das gilt wohl auf der deutschen "Wikipedia" nicht.

Desweiteren solltest Du Dich darüber informieren, was WP:Vandalismus ist.

Guten Tag, Str1977 (Diskussion) 23:04, 12. Dez. 2022 (CET)

Ich bin mir sehr sicher, dass wir uns schon begegnet sind, und zwar nicht nur einmal. Und NPOV heißt nicht, mit einer Dampfwalze über Fakten und alternative Fakten drüberzurollen, damit anschließend keiner mehr sehen kann, was was ist.Das ist ein leider nicht seltenes, aber eklatantes Missverständnis von NPOV. NPOV heißt in allererster Linie, dass die Fakten stimmen müssen. Nicht das Fakten und Alternative Fakten gleichberechtigt nebeneinander stehen sollen, damit Leser sich entscheiden können, welche Infos ihnen lieber sind. Die neutrale Form der Darstellung bei einem wissenschaftlichen Thema ist, den Forschunsgstand darzustellen. Und er ist beim Klimawandel nun eben mal so klar und eindeutig wie bei nur sehr wenigen anderen Themen. EIKE ist davon abgesehen zweifelsfrei kein wissenschaftliches Institut, wie jeder selbst recherchieren kann, denn es haben sich nun wahrlich genug Fachleute zu dieser Organisation geäußert. Diese Schlüsselinfo erst mit gar keiner und dann mit einer extrem fragwürdigen Begründung zu löschen, damit nur der vorsätzlich irreführenden Name stehen bleibt, ergibt nun wirklich keinen Sinn und ist das Gegenteil von Neutralisierung. Eher ist es Wegbereitung für Desinformation, ob gewollt oder nicht. Daher nochmal: Bitte nicht weiter wissenschaftliche Fakten zum Klimawandel o.ä. relativieren, kleinreden oder Klimawandelleugner schönschreiben. Das ist nämlich keine Neutralisierung, sondern Falschdarstellung des Forschungsstandes. Andol (Diskussion) 23:22, 12. Dez. 2022 (CET)

"Ich bin mir sehr sicher, ..." - und wo sollte das gewesen sein? Belege Deine Anschuldigungen oder ziehe sie zurück. Das ist auch eine Falschdarstellung.

Vorher habe ich mit Dir überhaupt nichts zu bereden. Abgesehen davon argumentierst Du immer noch gegen Aussagen, die ich nicht getan und auch nicht per Edit hergestellt habe.

Guten Tag! Str1977 (Diskussion) 07:51, 13. Dez. 2022 (CET)

Hauptautoren

Hallo Str1977, auch wenn Du es nicht magst, es gibt in der Wikipedia Hauptautoren von Artikeln, und diese haben schon lizenzrechtlich einen anderen Status als jemand, der nur "Freitod" in "Suizid" ändert und wegen solcher Beiträge ohne Schöpfungshöhe von keinen Nachnutzer zu nennen wäre. Und es gibt auch jenseits von Rechten einen guten Stil, der etwa in WP:Korrektoren formuliert ist: "Es ist kein guter Stil, in einer schlüssig formulierten Passage eine zulässige in eine andere zulässige Schreibweise zu ändern. [...] Im Zweifel respektiere man die Vorlieben desjenigen, der zu einem Artikel inhaltlich am meisten beigetragen hat." Dieser Respekt vor der Arbeit des Anderen ist nur leider in der Wikipedia nicht sehr ausgeprägt. Gruß --Magiers (Diskussion) 18:30, 15. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

In der deutschen Wikipedia ist leider der Respekt vor (oder auch nur die Kenntnis von) Wikipedia-Regeln nicht sehr ausgeprägt. Auch wenn der Text bei jedem Speichern erscheint, wird er oft übersehen:

"Mit dem Speichern dieser Seite versicherst du, dass du den Beitrag selbst verfasst hast bzw. dass er keine fremden Rechte verletzt, und willigst ein, ihn unter der Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Lizenz 3.0 und der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation zu veröffentlichen. Falls du den Text nicht selbst verfasst hast, muss er unter den Nutzungsbedingungen verfügbar sein und du stimmst zu, notwendigen Lizenzanforderungen zu folgen. Du stimmst einer Autorennennung mindestens durch URL oder Verweis auf den Artikel zu. Wenn du nicht möchtest, dass dein Text weiterbearbeitet und weiterverbreitet wird, dann speichere ihn nicht."

Deine "lizenzrechtlich" Begründung ist doch, gelinde gesagt, Unsinn. Das oben zitierte gilt für alle Autoren. Kein Autor ist Eigentümer des Artikels und hat Anspruch darauf, dass "sein Text" nicht verändert wird. Selbst dein verlinkter Artikel WP:Hauptautor sagt klar und deutlich: Hauptautoren haben keine anderen Rechte an Artikeln als alle anderen Benutzer. Siehe dazu Wikipedia:Eigentum an Artikeln." und fährt fort "Die Bezeichnung Hauptautor ist in der Wikipedia umstritten."

Es hat auch kein anderer das Recht, solche "Hauptautoren" ins Felde zu führen, wenn man selbst keine (Gegen-)Argumente hat.

Was Du über Stil schreibst, mag ja schön und gut sein, nur krankt es 1. daran, dass man dann erstens mal den sogenannten Hauptautor herausfinden müsste (er steht ja nicht oben auf dem Artikel, weil es ihn ja eigentlich auch gar nicht gibt), was 2. angesichts der Kleinigkeit und Offensichtlichkeit mancher Änderung (so auch meiner) nicht der Mühe wert ist. Str1977 (Diskussion) 09:34, 17. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

Fangen wir hinten an: Wenn das Ersetzen von "Freitod" durch Suizid eine solche Kleinigkeit wäre, dann würdest Du darum keinen Edit-War führen. Ich denke wir beide wissen, dass es hier um weltanschauliche Positionen geht, und eben niemand das Recht hat, seine Position in der gesamten Wikipedia durchzusetzen. Wenn der Autor bei einer Filmfigur den Begriff "Freitod" verwendet und eine kleine Suche zeigt, dass das auch diverse Sekundärquellen tun, dann kann man einen solchen Ausdruck auch mal akzeptieren. Mir persönlich ist die Frage aber auch zu unwichtig, um darüber einen Bearbeitungskrieg zu führen. Was mich vielmehr stört ist Deine Despektierlichkeit gegenüber Autoren, ohne die es solche herausragenden Artikel wie Das Leben der Anderen gar nicht gäbe. Da steckt wochenlange Arbeit drin, neben dem zeitlichen oft auch finanzieller Einsatz. Aber was sie als Dank erhalten ist der Hinweis, sie sollen doch gefälligst ihren Text nicht speichern, wenn sie nicht wollen, dass nachher jemand über einzelne Worte darin bestimmen will. Wie es wieder in WP:Korrektoren heißt: "Korrektoren sollten stets bedenken, dass allzu forsches Eingreifen und Beharren auf rein formalen Standpunkten einen inhaltlich produktiven Autor entmutigen und von weiterer größerer Mitarbeit abhalten könnten." Und genau deswegen sollte man sich bei reinen Geschmacksänderungen zurückhalten. Gruß --Magiers (Diskussion) 11:43, 17. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

Von einem Edit-War kann man hier nicht sprechen. Der Edit ist formal eine Kleinigkeit: es lohnt nicht für die Änderung eines Wortes einen Riesenaufwand zu treiben. So lange es keine fundierten Einwände gibt, lohnt noch nicht einmal der erste, normale Schritt - eine Begründung auf der Diskussionseite -, denn der Edit wurde ja bereits im Edit Summary begründet.

Inhaltlich ist der Edit natürlich keine Kleinigkeit, das stimmt. Ich stimme Dir auch zu, dass niemand das Recht hat, seine weltanschauliche Position in der gesamten Wikipedia durchzusetzen. Auch kein sogenannter Hauptautor (wobei ich ihm/ihr das hier nicht so ohne weiteres unterstellen will) - aber das genau geschieht doch nicht durch das neutrale Wort "Suizid" sondern durch das positiv bewertende Wort "Freitod" (die entgegengesetzte, negative Bewertung wäre "Selbstmord"), was darüberhinaus dem Kontext des Films Hohn spricht. Christa-Maria Sieland handelt definitiv nicht aus einer Position der Freiheit hinaus. Das ist auch nicht die Aussage des Films. Und genau darum ging es mir.

Es ist keine Despektierlichkeit gegenüber vedienten Autoren, wenn ich Sonderrechte und Sonderstellung ablehne. Jedenfalls war das nie meine Absicht und ich habe auch keinen "Hauptautor" erlebt, der das selbst für sich beanspruchte (sondern immer nur andere, um den Status Quo zu zementieren.) Das von Dir gebrachte Zitat solltest Du auch selbst beherzigen, denn das "Hauptautor"-Gerede ist neben der Nonsense-Begründung "keine Verbesserung" einer der Haupt-Entmutiger der deutschen (nur der deutschen) Wikipedia. Und nicht umsonst war das Wort mal im Rennen als Unwort des Jahres. Str1977 (Diskussion) 09:10, 19. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

Mo Asumang

Lieber Str1977, Du hattest bei Mo Asumang alle sechs neuen Filme gelöscht. Deine Begründung war "Biografie nicht aufblähen". Die sechs neuen Filme haben aber jeweils immer ein kompklett anderes Thema, mit jeweils immer komplett anderen Protagonisten. Es wäre wichtig, dass die Wikipedia Nutzer diese sechs Themen gleich sehen. Die Filme haben die Themen: Thema Rassismus: "Mo Asumang und die Gedanken der Rechten" Thema Querdenker: "Mo Asumang und die Welt der Querdenker" Thema Männerrechtler: "Mo Asumang und die Krise der Männer" Thema Querfeindlichkeit: "Mo Asumang und die der Streit ums queere Leben" Thema Linksextremismus: "Mo Asumang und der Kampf der Linken" Thema Evangelikale: "Mo Asumang und das fundamentale Christentum"

Ich hoffe, dass Du Dich dafür einsetzt, dass wir in der Gesellschaft die oben genannten Extreme besprechen. Wenn unter Filmografie nur "Reihe" steht, wird keiner wissen, dass vielleicht eins seiner wichtigen Themen dabei ist, zu dem er oder sie sich interessiert. Ich werde Deine Löschungen wieder Rückgängig machen, weil sie verhindern, dass wir hier bei Wikipedia über diese wichtigen Themen wie Rassismus, fundamentalem Christentum etc. hier offen besprechen.

Ich habe gesehen, dass Du auch zu anderen wichtigen Themen, z.B. Klimawandel Löschungen vornimmt. Das alles kann nicht im Sinne von Wikipedia sein. --1freedom (Diskussion) 11:14, 19. Jan. 2023 (CET)

Also, ich finde Deine unterstellungsgeleiteten Kommentar nicht wirklich hilfreich, zumindest nicht wenn man kollaborativ ein Enzyklopädie schreiben will. Der Artikel Mo Asumang gehört Dir nicht.

Bei der Gelegnheit: spricht hier Frankheilab (der innerhalb seiner drei Beiträge den Revert tatsächlich vorgenommen hat) oder 1freedom (der es nur ankündigt)?

Ich habe die Titel der Episoden entfernt, weil ja auch bereits die Reihe genannt wurde. Ich habe sie für entbehrlich gehalten, aber man kann sie auch gerne drinlassen, wenn auch klar als Teil-Episoden erkennbar (war vorher und bei Deinem Revert nicht gegeben) und ohne diese massenhaften roten Links. Ob sich für die Filme einzelne Artikel finden werden halte ich für fraglich.

Sicher muß man über extreme Positionen sprechen - ich habe einige der Filme gesehen und halte zumindest diese für unglaublich schlecht gemachte Filme, bei denen der Erkenntniswert gleich Null ist. Dass man bei einem noch nicht mal den Gegenstand richtig zu bezeichnen weiß, spricht auch nicht gerade dafür. Aber das war nicht der Grund für meine Lösung.

Zu schlechter Letzt: "Ich habe gesehen, dass..." Nein, kannst Du gar nicht gesehen haben, weil ich zum Thema Klimawandel keine Löschungen vorgenommen habe. Ich fürchte, Du plapperst einfach Unterstellungen anderer nach. Str1977 (Diskussion) 00:19, 21. Jan. 2023 (CET)