User talk:Str1977

Welcome, but be warned: Enter at your own risk.

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

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>.

Questions and comments

Archives

Talk Page Archives

FK A 1 2 3 4

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

Please place questions or comments here

Did I offend you by any chance? Why "no need to segregate", reverts, no response? Is this a new style of collaboration here at WP? Please take a look at definition of anti-Semitism and explain why this doesn't apply. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Misusing an admin's good name

My edit clearly and precisely stated that I was quoting Jtdirl on the subject of homosexuality. Your previous repeated complete deletions of my edits on Eva Braun based on absurd reasoning without discussion certainly casts doubt on your credibility especially when suddenly you "allow" it after I point out what a respected Wikipedia:Administrator said on several occasions. You have done the same massive deletion on the National Socialist German Workers Party on 22:25, 27 February 2006 and did so by insulting me with a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy by calling my contributions "pet issue pushing. I'm not sure of the reasonoing behind your repeated reversal of edits on homosexuality but I note you have cooperated with Wyss who is banned from making such edits. Your games won't work, particularly with someone like Jtdirl. (cc Jtdirl) Karl Schalike 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pancakes

Let me finish my pancakes first! :-) AnnH ♫ 10:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Finished now, and have done the page move. You might want to check here to see if there are any links that should be updated. By the way, in case you're shocked at my late breakfast, I'm at my parents' house, and have been helping my mother to do a pulse test for spelt. We had both been off gluten grains for several months (as had a few other relatives) following a blood test for food intolerances. She has a little machine for testing her pulse, so I made a special non-yeast bread using spelt flour, and then, when it was out of the oven, she sat still for five minutes, took her pulse, ate some bread, and then took her pulse again after ten, thirty, and sixty minutes. No change. She's absolutely thrilled. I unfortunately did change by eight beats when I tested myself recently, which means that I shouldn't take it more often than once every three days. (Ten or higher would mean I should avoid it altogether.) I'm okay with wheat again (though I'm not allowed white flour until mid summer), and hope to test for milk products quite soon. The pancakes were made with unsweetened rice milk, which I wouldn't dream of drinking, but which is quite tolerable when used in cooking.

I'll have a proper look at Malachi Martin soon. I see you did a much-needed cleanup. I don't know very much about him, but I think he was right wing in a rather sensational way (conspiracies in the Vatican to protestantize the Mass, etc.). I do actually have a great deal of sympathy for people who were upset when their Latin Mass was taken away from them, and I do not at all hold Paul VI in the same high regard as, for example, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I was quite shocked a few years ago when I read something from Paul VI where he was criticizing (quite severely), not the people who went into schism over the changes, but the people who obediently accepted the changes but still preferred the Old Mass. (A bit like scolding a child for not enjoying his spinach, or even his green beans ;-), when he's obediently eating it up without complaint!) I've never seen anything that made me think that Paul VI had the kindness and sensitivity of his two great successors (I know very little about John Paul I). So when I see people promoting Fr Martin's stuff, I don't join them, but I do feel a certain sympathy for them.

Cheers, AnnH ♫ 11:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think you'll be très heureux about new attempts to remove the words la mort from a certain definition. (Sigh.) AnnH ♫ 19:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense about Messiah

Beat me to it by seconds! :-) Myopic Bookworm 16:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Administrator's warning ;-)

Hi, Str. You have been reported to me for 3RR violation. Of course, I could block you immediately, but some of the nicer administrators sometimes offer the criminal a chance to undo his revert in order to avoid punishment. So, I'm offering you the choice — either I block you or you undo your revert of christians are smelly people, christians are smelly, and Athlete rubbed in oil, etc. If you're prepared to insert back into the article the four edits which you so improperly removed, that would bring you back down to three reverts, and I'd be happy to overlook your disgraceful behaviour this time. AnnH ♫ 20:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive the intrusion, I thought reverting vandalism isn't counted in the 3RR violation. Dr. Dan 13:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Reverting vandalism is not restricted by 3RR. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I had a wink in the heading of the section! AnnH ♫ 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Vicarius Filii Dei

You might like to take a look at Vicarius Filii Dei. A user. Bob Pickle, who writes internet sites promoting the myth that the Pope has the title Vicarius Filii Dei and that that title is written on a papal tiara, is determined to push that agenda in that article. He does this using the "when did you stop beating your wife?" trick of insisting that WP prove there are no tiaras with the words. It is an old trick. It can never be physically proven that such a tiara did not exist and was not destroyed until you travel back in time. In reality there is not a single shred of evidence that such a tiara existed; no independent verification, no photographs, no reports by independent sources, etc. The only "evidence" is (i) POV claims "produced" by the Seventh-day Adventist Church which pushed the idea (all of it dodgy — claims that popes wore such a tiara at a High Mass when tiaras were never worn at Mass, a supposed witness statement by a former Catholic which suggests the guy is lying as the supposed former student priest got his terminology about Catholicism all wrong, something highly unlikely if one was a former priest who had spent a lifetime up to that time attending Catholic Masses and sacraments.) (ii) dodgy secondary sources such as a forged mediaeval document, a magazine article (yes! They "evidence" is something written in one Catholic US magazine published nearly century ago which the magazine itself admitted was wrong!!!) and a book by a nineteenth century cardinal that was famed at the time for its clangers and mistakes!

I have given up even communicating with Pickle on the talk page. I just revert his edits to the article at this stage. In true conspiracy theory style Pickle refuses to supply evidence for his claims, just demands you disprove his unevidenced claims. Your contribution would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the notes that I've included on the talk page, and the actual edits I've done on the article, can see that I'm not POV. Wikipedia policy requires NPOV, and the article as it stood was anything but that.

For example, Jtdirl doesn't want readers to know that the title in question appears in RC Canon Law. He doesn't want people to know that the alleged student in 1845 said nothing about seeing the pope wearing a tiara at a mass. He doesn't want his readers to know that the US Catholic magazine in question NEVER admitted it was wrong.

I say NEVER for the simple reason that when I ask Jtdirl for evidence for such an admission, which I would readily accept if he could provide it, he refuses to give any at all.

I'm a newbie here, but I think we're at the point where we need some mediation or arbitration. Otherwise, Wikipedia and its verifiability and NPOV policies are all a joke. --DrPickle 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I find it curious that you would revert my corrections this morning, claiming that they were inaccurate. Why would you do that? I had given the entire quotation of the alleged 1832 source, which states most clearly that the woman in question did not claim to have seen anything. It was a man who saw it, and he didn't see the title on the tiara. He saw it on the miter.

In light of how the quotation appeared in full in the footnote, for you to revert my edit to an erroneous version does not make you look too good. I respectfully request you to stop doing that kind of thing.

What should we do? Have a survey? Request mediation? What would you suggest? --DrPickle 15:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not allow pickle to foist misinformation in the article. He simply is unable to show that any legitimate source has ever officially used the title in question or that it appeared on any papal tiera. Error does not belong in an encyclopedia.Cestusdei 04:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Josephus article

Are you satisfied with the current state? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, please work on that some more; right now it looks like you're satisfied. I'm trying to achieve something more neutral for you, but I don't really have a dog in this fight. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Jesus-Myth

I've reported you for your out of control reverting (largely vandalism) on "jesus" myth. Please stop vandalising this article and stick to the rules. Robsteadman 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:TrumpetPower! has also been reported. KHM03 ^(talk) 22:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

TP was trying to proetct the page against the POV pushing, vandalism and reverts of Str1977 - it is ONLY Str1977 who should be banned - along with the TWO admins who have not taken action against one of their "edit pals". Robsteadman 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to 3RR page. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Software bug

Can you urgently check this ? AnnH ♫ 23:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That silly joke I made

I shouldn't have made that silly joke about your "3RR violations" last week :-( . First of all, I ended up inserting obscenities about God, as I hadn't checked the meaning of the word, and then I caused extra things to be reported at WP:AN/3RR. It really didn't occur to me that anyone would think that my offer of letting you re-insert "Christians are smelly" was anything other than a joke. I'll keep my sense of humour to myself next time. ;-) Your friend, who won't block you or her enemies ♫ 00:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I think you will agree that it's all going silly again so we need outside help. I've decided to start up and RfC so we can all come together on neutral ground with neutral referees and really sort out what the core problems are. At the moment we are going round in circles at regular intervals with only the tenacity of the particular interest groups deciding what stands in the article. Not a good editing environment for anyone. Hopefully it will settle all the major points once and for all and give us a reference for new users so they can get up to speed without having to open old wounds. I would want this to be a positive experience that will hopefully save us all a lot of time in the future. As soon as I have the link I will let you know but that may take a few days as I don't know what I'm doing! Sophia^TalkTCF 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Message on the same plans on another user page:

Hi Giovanni - I've decided it's time to put an RfC together about the behaviour of the editors on the Christianity/Historical/Historicity/Jesus-Myth pages. I and I'm suer you have had enough of the "wheel warring" that happens every time the status quo is threatened. We seem to be going down the "my scholars are better than your scholars" route so we need external help.

I've been reading Pagels "The Gnostic Gospels" and she fully supports your view of the beginings of Christianity such as using relativistic terminology with regards to heresy and the lack of a clear othodoxy as the development of orthodoxy was driven by political not spritual needs. Even though she is a well respected authority in this area we have seen that these views stand no chance of being fairly represented here.

If you haven't already read this book I strongly recommend it. Sophia^TalkTCF 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Did you miss my edit before you tagged? And by the way, regarding KV's edit summary "reverting Str's grammatically incorrect change....... heresy is the subject, and thus you do not change subject in the middle of a sentence", there was no grammatical error in "Church authorities condemned some theologians as heretics, the most notable being Christian Gnostics, and defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy." The "subject" was "Church authorities", and the subject didn't change in the middle, since it was the "Church authorities" who defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy. As long as the meaning isn't changed, putting "orthodoxy" or "heresy" at the beginning of the final clause is a question of style, not of grammatical correctness. Aurelie! AnnH ♫ 09:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Emperors

Hi. I see we have different point of views on several matters (Maxentius, Western Roman Empire, and possibly others). Instead of starting an edit war, I would like to settle this (controversial) matter.

I would like all the edits to keep consistency throughout WP, as far as possible. I think it is confusing (for example) defining Maxentius emperor in the List of Roman Emperors and in his own article, and usurper in Maximinus and Western Roman Empire. Let's choose a single definition of him, and stick to it.

You can answer here, I am watching this page. --Panairjdde 12:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande

I realized that I never sent you an E-mail despite your frequent edits on all the articles of the Roman civilization. Well, better late than never... Hi, I am Flamarande, I am a Roman-fan, and read alltoo much about ancient Rome. I am (somewhat) engaged in the reforms and improvements of the articles Western Europe, Barcid, SPQR, romanization (cultural), Roman republic, Roman empire, and, last but not least, Western Roman empire. I find that Wikipedia is fine idea , alltough far from perfect (as Jimbo also is). What I want of you? Well, nothing really, I am just saluting a fellow Roman-Fan. Flamarande 14:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Noch ein anderer verrückter Deutscher? Ihr seid wirklich überall :).

Ok, we trying to debate the issue: "Who was the first Western Roman emperor ?" at Template talk:Western Roman Empire infobox in a rational and civilized manner. Your opinion would be much apriciated. Flamarande 12:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"POV"

You reverted an edit of mine on the Christianity article which stated that the Bible clearly indicates that all one has to do is believe in order to be saved. You said in the summary that it isn't all that clear, and is POV. It is clear, and is not POV! It's not POV that the Bible says in Acts 16:31 that "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved"! That's exactly what it says! If you think I'm wrong go get a Bible and read it yourself! And the question of whether or not someone is saved is not a dark mystery. The theologians who believe this have done very little Bible research, obviously. I'm reverting the edit. Scorpionman 16:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)