User talk:Str1977

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Busy desk.svg 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[edit]

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


  • 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>.
  • Sortable
Nick Name
Nick1 Name2
Nick2 Name1
This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2 and PAGE3.


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[edit]

Paul Robeson[edit]

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


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 .--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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Political views of Paul Robeson[edit]

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[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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[edit]

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

Thanks for joining in the discussion. I hope you will visit again today. (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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

ArbCom Case: Abortion[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate: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)


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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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[edit]

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

Celibacy of priests (in Pope Francis)[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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

Source please?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Information icon 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)


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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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) 09:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

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[edit]

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

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]


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)

Reference errors on 22 May[edit]

KOMania16 1st May, last 5th July, 16.03 TheTexasRattlesnake17, 5th July 16.14, active KO PopUpPowerbomb 10th July, also last

unnecessary words and pronouns

Disambiguation link notification for July 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wrestling tag teams and stables, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Morrison (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) 09:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. P.S. It wasn't me... Kleuske (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)