User talk:Str1977

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

Welcome to the Wikipedia

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

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

Notes:

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

Questions and comments

Archives

Talk Page Archives

FK A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Forget about this old stuff. You have new messages that are no longer displayed in a format that elevates your blood pressure

New Messages

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

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Christianity talk archives

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

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church

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

Francist vs Francoist

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

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

Sortable

Nick	Name
Nick1	Name2
Nick2	Name1

Voting

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

Same comment often heard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace

Queenie wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

User_talk:Queenie/Archive_2#November 2008

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

Your recent deletions

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

Template:GermanFMs

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

That still doesn't make Prussian ministers in office before 1870 German ministers - and that was what my edit was all about. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but the ones after 1870 were also removed. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And rightfully so, I removed all Prussian FMs from the template titled German FMs. In as much as they were German FMs - some indeed held the office at the same time or at slightly differing times - they are of course included in the grouping "German Empire 1871-1918)". But those that merely were Prussian FMs are excluded from this template. They have no business being in there.

The gist is: the template lists German FMs and only German FMs are listed. Not Prussian FMs or Bavarian FMs or Badian FMs or FMs of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Only German ones! Str1977 ^(talk) 21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, all of the entries for the German Empire oughtr to be removed, as they were state secretaries and not ministers. Weimar too had state secretaries, but they are not listed in the template. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI

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

I want you just to be my supporter in the list of french monarchs in order to firmly put Henry as a french monarch.His riegn is fine.I would like you just to be my back up on the matter.Charles was firmly put on the throne after his corination and so he became de jure king upon his corination.Henry was firmly on the throne from 1422-1429 since the dauphine was weak.We know HENRY had a corination as king of france but it wasnt at a traditional altar.Henry was regnal de jure king of france from 1422-1429.Again I just need you as a back up.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you now.Henry however was by fact king de jure until 1429 and king de facto until 1453.Good point.I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

De jure, De facto. These terms shouldn't be added on to the Royal articles. Particulary where pretenders are concerned. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Henry should be listed as a pretender to the French throne on the List of French monarchs article; certainly not as Henri II!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

We also need consistancy at Henry VI of England, Charles VII of France & List of French monarchs articles. We've currently got Henry's supposed French reign as 1422-29, 1422-50 & 1422-53. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How is he a pretender,he is regnal king of france.He has soveriegnty in france and so its a regnal title.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reganl means a monarchs years upon asscending to the throne.Henry asscended to the throne of france in 1422 thus he is a regnal soveriegn of france.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Str1977: Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. Should an agreement be reached on this one, it would be the first time the Anglos & the French agree on anything! That's why I began my comment with "Speaking for the French side" - and I trust that in my various comments, you detect the "witty" side of me.

1. On a discussion page, I feel that everyone can speak freely & expose his/her point of view as long as that POV is not carried into the article, that is what the discussion page is about with the aim of reaching consensus. It also happens that this article is on French history, and it seems to me quite normal that within the international debate symposium offered by Wikipedia, a French person could/should/would take part in a discussion relative to the history of France & explain the French view on the matter. I hope you noticed that I have not forced my POV on anyone, just discussed it while having a fun little duel with our dear friend HENRY V OF ENGLAND. Please also note that I have not even touched the paragraph within the article and, regarding what I think should be changed, I mentioned it on the discussion page asking if everyone would agree, ex: having "south of the Loire River" instead of "south of France" which is totally misleading.
2. If I understand you correctly, you do not accept the parallel I made with the Parlement de Paris breaking L.XIV's will because it was at a latter period; at the time of which we speak, the right of succession to the throne of France was the same: the dauphin was the legal heir to the throne and, if disinherited, had every right to fight for his right - whether his name was Charles (to be VII) or, at a later date, Philippe d'Orléans or Philip V of Spain, had all of L.XIV's direct heirs within France died - which would have been the signal for a war between France & Spain (and Austria), since the king of Spain was a grandson of L.XIV... In our discussion, we could also make a parallel between Charles VI's testament disinheriting his son (followed by the Treaty of Troyes), and Charles II of Spain's testament, which was opening the door for another battle of succession had the young Louis XV died. Every argument was based on direct & legitimate lineage down to the next guy until the direct line was exhausted, then cousins, nephews etc. could step in.
3. On the legitimity of the dauphin: the second a dying king let out his last breath, came the announcement: Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi!. And the dauphin was king.
4. Back to Henry VI of England: there is no argument as to his having been crowned king of France at Notre Dame de Paris - historians do not deny the fact - but he is not listed as king of France because of all the reasons we discussed previously, some of these reasons having a different interpretation whether you are anglais ou français.

A couple of weeks ago, GoodDay had found the perfect wording for the mention of Henry VI of England in the list of French monarchs & that is the type of consensus we should aim at. Now, if you come up with something better, I am sure we'll reach consensus.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Frania, Thanks for your message.

• Agreement need to be reached only in regard to how to word a certain article, not on the differing opinions.
• And sure you may express your opinion on the matter anytime. My nod to NPOV was not meant to preclude that but to insist that the article cannot be indentical to any one side of the debate.
• I for my part am actually not on the other side from you - maybe because I am neither French nor English (but then I do not know of what nationality our friend HENRY is) - as I think that the Valois had a much better claim to the throne than any Plantagenet or Lancastrian, at least after Philip VI was firmly settled on the throne (OTOH, I see that Edward III mainly aimed at securing his continental possessions, not at conquering the whole of France - a goal he never pursued to the end). And what was questionable for the still largely French-speaking Edward was bad for the by then completely Anglicised Harry. The Dual Monarchy HENRY speaks about turned out to be largely a sham, as de facto English lords commanded in France. This propelled the actions of Jean Darc.
• And sure French editors should take part in this debate. The only thing I reject is the impression that French editors are per se more qualified. But I have no complaints against you in that regard.
• And sure the south of France sounds a little bit like: well, he held the Provence.
• Yes, I do not accept the validity of your Louis XIV example because it was of a MUCH LATER period and because it is of course based on a French legal position that was long solidified in the 17th century - a thing we cannot simply assume for the 15th century (you might know that when one looks at even earlier times that France once was an elective monarchy). My point is that the King could disinherit his son and the son could contest that decision by the means avaiable (just as Edward III could contest Philip's succession by the means avaiable). I know of the Spanish sucession issue but am strongly of the opinion that in relinquishing his rights to the sucession, Philip did indeed do just that. One cannot take back one's word (that is the problem I also have with Edward III's sudden claim).
• "On the legitimity of the dauphin: the second a dying king let out his last breath, came the announcement: Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi!. And the dauphin was king." - When? Already in this day? And who is the legitimate heir that supposedly suceeds in this second? That by all means was the question so even the questionable principle you mention doesn't help. I call it questionable because it is a legal fiction that in the end has done more bad than good (some countries had mad kings because of it). And if taken seriously, the announcement would be superfluous.
• Henry is not listed as a King of France because the Valois perspective that he was an interloper prevailed politically and historically. Our list reflects that as we do not insert Henry as the sucessor of Charles VI (instead of Charles VII) - this would be the English POV - or even insert both contestant immediately after Charles VII - a quasi-neutral position. No, I inserted Henry at the next section break. This is because history does look backwards from the hindsight of how things turned out. The quasi-neutral stance would be proper if we were doing this article in the year 1425.
• Is GoodDay's wording that paragraph currently in place in the Lancaster section? If so, I am absolutely content with it. The only thing I want is that the section also includes the box for Henry VI. with a neutral presentation of the dates provided (not the POV slugfest that HENRY had put in there). I do think that this solution is something better.

Cordially, Str1977 ^(talk) 21:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Str1977: Thank you for your note & explanation. Yes, "Agreement need to be reached only in regard to how to word a certain article, not on the differing opinions" and I believe that, as a whole, you & I agree more than not.

• Henry VI navigation box: After long arguments with our dear HENRY V OF ENGLAND on the validity of the claim by both Henry VI (England) and Charles VII (France), we finally agreed on the use of GoodDay's word *disputed* to be inserted in the navigation box at end of article on Henry VI of England.

• Paragraph in Lancaster section: the few lines seem to have been there for a while, but several times edited. ON 21MAR09, our HENRY added a box for the House of Lancaster; it was reverted & put back, then corrected, and a few days ago, you stepped in & cleaned it up. I think that the only detail missing in paragraph is a mention of the long English held rich Aquitaine, with the important port of Bordeaux from where wine was shipped to England.

• As for what we do not agree upon, let's leave it at that & wish us good "working" relations in the future, as I am sure our paths will cross again (in fact, I believe they already hzve.)

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello and Gooday.I think we should both defend our possitions in the list of french monarchs disscution.We both agree that Henry VI(Henry II of France) was indeed a french monarch without doubt.you should check my post on the french monarchs disscution and check if you agree with what I stated.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Str1977. I'm not fully convinced of adding Henry VI to the List of French monarchs article. Truth be told, I'm mostly anxious that Charles VII's reign remains shown as 1422 to 1461 & Henry doesn't use the name Henry II of France. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay.I accepted your conditions and I will refrain from using Henry VI title as Henri II.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for accidentally reverting your text on Margaret of Anjou; I made a mistake.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RE

I guess I could. Not got much to say though.--WillC 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Legit

"What he may not have been legal, but is was legitimate." "What he was illegal but it was what he actually did." Neither of these sentences make sense to me. Tony2Times (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

double-monarchy

Hello and gooday.Do you think that a new article abot the double-monarchy of england and france should be created.IMO there should.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I never created an article but I started it yesterday.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Double-Monarchy of England and France

I think this article, might be a candidate for deletion. The Dual monarchies of Austria & Hungary are one thing, but this one's questionable. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Str1977 please review my latest EDIT on the article.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well.What have you been editing these days.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here [3]. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 11:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI GAR notice

Pope Benedict XVI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC Mediation

Your input is needed here [4] to decide on one of three options. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 03:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? [5] Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 18:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 8#Template:British monarchs.

English & British monarch template

I'm happy with your compromise. Wasn't sure about the Commonwealth realms anyway. ðarkuncoll 08:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I too favour adding the Scottish monarchs & creating a seperate Template: English monarchs. Also, the 'Picts and Scottish monarchs' will need splitting (as the Scottish monarchs had other predecessors). GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm soon going to leave the (IMHO) pro-English PoV Template. At least one of the editors (who I've sparred with in the past, over this topic) continues to resist the proposed corrections. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I just left it. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church mediation outcome

Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here [6]. Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise ^talk 14:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Tom Nash

I have nominated Tom Nash, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Nash. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jack Merridew 12:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Kinderkreuzzug

Das finde ich total richtig, dass der unbelegte Abschnitt aus dem deutschen Artikel Kinderkreuzzug entfernt wurde. Weitere Ergänzungen werden noch nötig sein... -- Sanblatt (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Gene Hunt

Hello Str1977,

Regarding the change you made on the above article, please make sure you do research before reverting something. I'm not sure if by stating "what's a portrayer?" you were trying to be smart or genuinely did not know what it meant, whatever the case see Merriam dictionary for a full understanding and also lists "portrayer" as a noun. For the reason stated above I am going to change it back to the previous revision which stated "portrayer" rather than "actor", if you disagree with this please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page.

Thanks,

[[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs)☺ 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Who other than you states that it is "unnecessary uncommon and doesn't help in any way who John Simm is"? Portrayer is very close in meaning to actor and is a better description in my opinion. I have no interest in edit warring over something so little. I'll let you in on a thing that you obviously do not know about Wikipedia or Wikipedians - it is common courtesy to talk it out on the talk page before reverting yet again, which you clearly did not do in this instance. This is so that we could both have gained Consensus, something again which you obviously do not know or choose to disregard, for this reason I suggest you read it. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs)☺ 17:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pyjamas

Hi Str1977

Could you please explain the {clearify me} here? What is unclear to you? I agree that we need more sources for all of this, but as far as I see, there are very few studies about this topic at all. There seems to have been one older german study, but for that one, I find only press releases about it, not the source and not even the date of when it was done. So this american study is probably the best we can get after all. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 09:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think my edit was quite clear. As you yourself said that the study (which is a dead link, BTW) gives only the present situation (and I will not speculate about the reliability of a lone survey). Furthermore, it suggests that there are only two choices: pyjamas or naked. How was pyjama defined in the study - in a narrow or in a wider sense? All these questions need answering before we can take this as a basis for that "have become less popular" statement. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Bohemia

Hi. Do you know what really is Kingdom of Bohemia? I think not. Kingdom of Bohemia is historical official name o Bohemia. And Bohemia is only western part of my country the Czech republic. Others are Moravia and Silesia, but they wasn't never part of Kingdom of Bohemia.--KirkEN (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Read this web: http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/kuk_boehmen.htm And watch this picture - http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/webpages/kuk_Boehmen.gif --KirkEN (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC) And here is another links http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/germany/haxlbc.html http://www.google.cz/#hl=cs&source=hp&q=Lands+of+the+Bohemian+Crown&btnG=Vyhledat+Googlem&lr=&aq=f&oq=Lands+of+the+Bohemian+Crown&fp=6e766ec921e3b3f4 --KirkEN (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why I should. I know that what I said is accurate and that the longstanding version of titles is more historically accurate. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Carinthia (province)

Hi, Str1977! I see you have been involved in the previous discussion about renaming the article Carinthia (province). I've opened a new discussion about the renaming of the article to 'Slovenian Carinthia' (see its talk page) and moving the material about the statistical region to a separate article (like it has been done for other Slovenian statistical regions; see {{Statistical regions of Slovenia}}). Koroška is now a disambiguation page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Kiderlen-Waechter

He was actually called Kiderlen-Waechter, see de:Alfred von Kiderlen-Waechter. Urban XII (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)