User talk:Str1977/Archive5

Pope Pius XII

I know we've had our disagreements on this article in the past, but I'd like to invite you to come back to the article and read over it again. Your user page says you are a historian, and I have been unable to find sufficient information on:

1. Pius's canonization track--I know that he is now Venerable (step 2) but I was unable to find any information like which Pope's had promoted him to each level and whether there is any verifiable information on how that process is proceeding.
2. Pius's postwar activities--I know that he was quite instrumental in the Cold War, but the only author who discusses this in depth is Phayer and he makes the error reading Pius's Cold War activities as intertwined with his calls for amnesty to war criminals (unfortunately, because he quotes uncritically other historians who later went on to place Pius in a conspiracy with Stalin and Hitler, most other works I have read regard this portion of his work as erronious, although his book is otherwise highly regarded).
3. The Pontifical Aid Commission--although it gets 147,000 google hits, they are all copy-and-paste jobs from this site which I have found to be unreliable given their very selective summary of his "profile". The PAC is not listed in the index of any of the 11 books on Pius that I currently have in my possession. I you know of any published sources which discuss it, it seems like it might be a significant omission.

In addition to these three things, I would also obviously like your feedback on the more controversial sections. I think that we should dump the "Other views" section, along with the deluge of information which is not germane to Pius into a subartile perhaps titled Pope Pius XII and World War II, Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust, Catholic Church and World War II, or Catholic Church and the Holocaust, whichever seems more appropriate (I would favor creating the later two no matter what and the first two only if there so much information which is too tangential for the main Pope Pius XII article that we need them as daughter articles for the last two.

In addition to commenting on the articles, could you please hit me back on my talk page, by email, or on AIM (c6o6s6m6o). I think this article is close to Featured Article status if we can get the three main omissions that I mentioned hammered out as well as the more controversial sections. On page 72 of Shepherd of Souls: A Pictorial Life of Pope Pius XII there is a picture of Pius visiting the Vatican bakery which apparently distributed bread to people in Rome, but the resolution is too low for the online version, it would have to be scanned from the book (and it looks like Marchione reduced the size from the original). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please hit me up on the talk page about your most recent revert? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you are intersted in an image to "balance" the Hirshberger painting, I remember running across a picture of the Vatican foreign office with like paper everywhere because they were sending letters to nations asking them not to enter the war in one of Marchione's books but was unable to relocate it on Google Books. Maybe you know what I'm talking about or will have better luck. Or perhaps maybe one of his radio addresses (I was unable to find a image of sufficient resolution for this). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This edit may not have been what you intended. See the unsigned sentence fragment at the end? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII FAC

Hope your wikibreak was restful. I nominated Pope Pius XII to be a Featured Article. As you are one of the perennial contributors to the article and the talk page, I would appreciate your comments at the nomination page linked above, whether or not you choose to join me in supporting the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The second scan that you uploaded didn't come up for me (and I guess that was the important one!). Anyway, as I said, its not a problem, and I look forward to dealing with your comments specifically. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kurt Waldheim

Str1977, I'm glad to hear that you're happy with the re-categorization of Waldheim. It took me a few tries, but I also think that we've found the best solution for this. Peace. --(Mingus ah um 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

re:AD at Christianity

The MoS says AD is only required if using a range of dates that begins BC/E and ends AD/CE. Wikilinked dates starting at 1 all make it clear that its not BC/E, and commonly we never say AD 1998, or 2006 AD. On top of that, I agree with you. If someone inserts a CE in a place that isn't a range of dates, I will equally remove it for the exact same reason. In regards to CE vs. AD, that is something that each article must figure out on the talk page, and it sounds like AD is the prefered system for this article, dispite there not being any dates that would require such a qualifier. So if a date confrintation does pop up in the future, I will stand behind community consensus and what I stated above. Thanks for your concern! -Andrew c 15:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's Pope image

Seriously? Have you taken a look at how huge the "thumb" command makes the image if you don't specify how many px you want? It was at 200px before, which is probably the most reasonable given the size of the section. It's at least twice as huge now. Please just leave it at 200. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

List of German monarchs

I would like to bring your attention to the article List of German monarchs, where you made a series of recent edits. I have had to revert three times in the past day edits by User:Rex Germanus which continually obscure the subject of the article. I think you will find these to be unacceptable edits on his part. Perhaps you can rewrite the intro in a way more acceptable to everyone or simply revert to my version when/if necessary. Srnec 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hilter's Religion Section

I could delete it, but guess what? It would probably just come back up again and have everyone arguing it should stay there. Secondly, that won't solve the issue. The fight will simply be taken to the main article of it. What I am suggesting is simply keeping the whole deal of religion out until we decide on something.

Believe me, if it were really that easy, I would've done so forever ago. Colonel Marksman 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. Nice page. Colonel Marksman 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Separation of Church/State

I found you in this article's discussion (while doing an editorial on the very subject). Of course, before I came I realized it would be incredibly long and far from anything brief (the discussion and article). Would you please enlighten me of the current issues? 71.244.24.44 15:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Arianism edits

Str1977, while a lot of the pruning you just did to the Arianism article was necessary and proper, some of it falls back on oversimplistic language. There was a range of beliefs in the 4th century about the Trinity, much of which was not Nicene but not necessarily Arian either. There were factions within the church who rejected both the Nicene Creed and the label "Arian". Terms like "homoian" and "homoousian" which you replaced with "Arian" are attempts to convey this complexity.

In addition, the fact that the Nicene community in Constantinople is small is a fact and should not be deleted. Gregory of Nazianzus was ministering to them at a church that was in a small private home (he himself emphasizes its smallness in his later writings). No doubt the vast majority of Christians in the city just went to the city's main cathedral both before and after Gregory was installed as bishop, and didn't really care that much about the controversy, but the community who did care enough to make a conscious decision not to attend a church presided over by a non-Nicene bishop was relatively small.

Finally, I don't think it's right to minimize Theodosius' role in establishing Nicene orthodoxy. Theodosius was a devout follower of the Nicene Creed, and his strong backing of one side in the debate ended a dispute that had simmered for a generation under Emperors who refused to get too involved on one side or the other.

I'm not just reverting you because I agree with most of your edits and don't want to get into a revert war. But I would like to convey my concerns to you here.

--Jfruh (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Str1977, thanks for the changes. I think there is probably some compromise to be found in the section on Theodosius' role, but we should dig up some actual scholarship to figure out how to phrase it. I will dig back into my books on the subject (haven't really read much on this since I was in grad school many years ago) to try to come up with something solid to base a rewrite of that section on. I wrote the text as it was before you changed it and I admit that I was working from my memories on the subject.

As for the Michael Servetus material, that's as good a spot as any, though I think he may be safely excized from the article altogether, honestly. The fact is that just about anybody in Christian history who tinkers with the Nicene Creed is usually called an "Arian" by somebody; that doesn't necessarily make him one. In fact, in the article about him on Wikipedia, it says that only a "few scholars" tie him to Arianism at all, so perhaps he should be removed. --Jfruh (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Conrad of Teck and Lothair

Hi Str1977. "Lothair III" is an inaccurate usage that appears alongside "Lothair II." Between Lothair I (840–855) and this Lothair (1125–1137), there was neither an emperor nor a German king named Lothair.

On Conrad of Teck and his ephemeral tenure in 1292, see the following:

• Alpers, Karl-Otto: Ein Königsmord vor 700 Jahren ? Konrad II. von Teck, Indizien sprechen für Mord, in: Beiträge zur Heimatkunde des Bezirks Kirchheim unter Teck, 55, 1992, S. 17-22.
• Benz, Eberhard: Herzog Konrad von Teck, in: Eberhard Benz und der Altkreis Nürtingen. Gesammelte Schriften, Nürtingen 1984, S. 231-238.
• Gerlich, Alois: Rezension zu Armin Wolf: König für einen Tag. Konrad von Teck: gewählt, ermordet (?), vergessen, Kirchheim unter Teck 1993, in: Nassauische Annalen, 105, 1994, S. 420-421.
• Götz, Rolf: Herzog Konrad von Teck und die Königswahl von 1292. Bemerkungen zu Armin Wolfs Arbeit "König für einen Tag: gewählt, ermordet (?) und vergessen", in: ZSWLG, 53, 1994, S. 27-40.
• Götz, Rolf: Herzog Konrad und die Königswahl von 1292, in: Beiträge zur Heimatkunde dLes Bezirks Kirchheim unter Teck, 13, 1971, S. 51-58.
• Gründer, Irene: Studien zur Geschichte der Herrschaft Teck, Stuttgart 1963 (= Schriften zur süddeutschen Landesgeschichte, Bd. 1).
• Hoffmann, Frank: Konrad von Teck: "Ein König für einen Tag", in: Beiträge zur Heimatkunde des Bezirks Kirchheim unter Teck, 49, 1989, S. 21-24.
• Klemm, Alfred: Der Grabstein der Herzöge von Teck, in: Blätter des Schwäbischen Albvereins, 1894, S. 11-12.
• Locher, Rudolf: Die Grablege der Herzöge von Teck, in: Beiträge zur Heimatkunde des Bezirks Kirchheim unter Teck, 21, 1975, S. 57.
• Pfaff, Karl: Geschichte der Herzöge von Teck, in: WJbVG, 1846, S. 93-154.

Wendt, Nadja: König für einen Tag (Buchrezension zur Arbeit Armin Wolfs), in: Damals, 27,2, 1995, S. 45-46.

• Wolf, Armin: König für einen Tag: Konrad von Teck: gewählt, ermordet (?) und vergessen, Kirchheim unter Teck 1993 (= Schriftenreihe des Stadtarchivs Kirchheim unter Teck, Bd. 17).
• Wolf, Armin: Die Entstehung des Kurfürstenkollegs 1198-1298. Zur 700-jährigen Wiederkehr der ersten Vereinigung der sieben Kurfürsten, Idstein 1998 (= Historisches Seminar, NF, Bd. 11), S. 59-66.
• Wunder, Gerd: Herzog Konrad II. von Teck, in: ZSWLG, 27, 1968, S. 113-116.

His obscurity is surely no reason for non-inclusion. The usage "Konrad V" has popped up here and there since the 1990s. Best, Imladjov 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourg/Bohemia

Hi, this is just to let you know that I replied to your message re the History of the Low Countries template on Template talk:History of the Low Countries. Crix 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I replied, I like your template solution a lot in pricinple.. Btw, didn't you mention on Talk:Charlemagne that the Kingdom of Moravia was a part of the Regnum Teutonicum? Maps usually show this different, including this one on wikipedia:

File:HRR 10Jh.png

But I googled around and found a dissertation dealing with Frederick I. where the author basically counted Bohemia as a part of Regnum Teutonicum. I think I personally would like more clarity about this, the page on Bohemia is not doing a good job on this, and maybe the Holy Roman Empire article should spell out more clearly what the constituent parts were. Many people just think that the HRE and the Reg. Teut. are the same, when they seem to be not. Although I would wonder that in a time like 1789, when Reichsitalien was lost (or at least not part of the HRE anymore, I think it was still held by the Hapsburgs), would we have a complete identity territory wise here? [1]. OK what I'm aiming at, is

• if there were sources showing how the duchy of Bohemia developed to a kingdom while at the same time staying a part of the Reg.Teut. that would be helpful for rewriting the aforementioned articles more clearly. (I'm assuming that the Kingdom of B. had this status until the dissolution of the HRE)
• making it more explicit what the HRE consisted of at what time will make discussions about what Germany is less confusing perhaps. Crix 02:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words

Thanks for the message - I'm sorry to go too as I have met some great people. I just think I'm in the wrong place as I seem to be at odds with the hierarchy so much that it's not good for anyone. It saddened me to see what happened to Al and now Timothy Usher as well. Looking at Rob and Gio I don't think wikipedia brings the best out in some people and knowing my inability to sit on my hands and not try to help, I would just go from one problem to the next - not the point of being here at all! Thank you for what you taught me about myself with regards to my POV and how I view life and history. It has been very valuable for me personally and I'm glad I had the six months here that I did - my spelling has especially improved! Best wishes for the future and I'll pop back from time to time but I think it will take a few years for this project to settle, while it grows from quite a small concern to the global project it will one day be, before there is a place for me again. Sophia 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

hi

I would like to apologize. I have been exhausted defending my information. I would very much like to leave and stop however I feel other users will alter christian facts for heresay because it goes against there biblical interpretation.

I have created a new topic under Saint Paul's page here. I would very much like to discuss the information with you, I must relax however as I am frusterated already. I realize you already created a topic under the christianity section, i will do my best to respond to both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_of_Tarsus#Saint_Paul_information_dispute

Regards, Biblical1 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I am a bit confused as to your remark on Saint Paul. Paul's view of an imminent return of Jesus caused many to renounce Christianity and perhaps rethink things when the Temple fell in 70.

Paul's view on Jesus was critical. He gained followers by allowing women to host "in home" worship gatherings. This in essence was the first forms of Christian worship. Women enjoyed hosting these events because it gave them a larger role than that granted to them in society. Many pagans also joined Paul's Christian movement because they were the "have nots" in Roman Society. Paul gave them a role and made them feel important, he preached goodness as essential and his view that the "Kingdom of God" was imminent was paramount to the movement.

Biblical1 19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The line "many renounced Christianity" was in regards to followers other than Paul. Paul spent 10 years recruiting gentile Christians in his reformed Judaism in order to gain money to present to peter. After 10 years he gathered up an "entourage" in which he strode to the temple to give Peter the money he had promised, this money was to compensate Peter and the leaders of Judaism for allowing him to convert gentiles into Judaism through baptizing. Baptizing means "dunking", this way men wouldn't have to go through the strains of circumcision.

Paul was very much a believer in Christ; it is not my goal to dispute that. If it wasn't for Paul, there might very well be no Christianity so to speak. I am also quite intrigued myself as to how he become so "enveloped" over Jesus, as he never met him, yet he went to such strains to recruit others for 10 years and he is essentially the father of the early Christian movement.

Also there is a very good book (which I have yet to read mind you because I keep debating on Wikipedia) entitled "From Jesus to Christianity". There is also a book entitled "Original Christianity" by Peter Novak; both explain Christian history to a quality degree. The former book is probably better, the man was the main speaker in the documentary.

My comment relevant to women is true. I even saw it on my documentary last night (the one from the pbs link :) ) but irrevocable of this, if I were to classify it as hodgepodge I would be renouncing the professors of the religious studies field. I have no such grounds to do so, so I shall simply take this fact with solid affirmation until I can do further research.

Biblical1`

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 02:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Altarpiece?

Hello! Would like your help. Currently there is a misnamed article that needs to be Anglicized in WK, Oltarz Wita Stwosza. I have seen Stoss' beautiful work in person, and I think it's an error to call it an altar, at least technically. Would you agree that it is more correctly an altarpiece, or even a tryptich. I would like several opinions as I have made some changes already, and some people can get very touchy. Your impressive knowledge of Church history and artwork gives me some assurance that this matter can be resolved more easily than some of the other questions I have posed to you in the past. Best wishes, Dr. Dan 02:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Voltaire

So, why do you hate Voltaire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobomojo (talk • contribs) 06:07, 29 July 2006.

Forgive my ignorance (and my wiki-stalking!) but who was this terrible king? You could at least have wiki-linked it! AnnH ♫ 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From SwordofOdin on the Chrisitianization Map

European Heritage Alliance Christianity Map

Thanks for the comment, but I don't see why drafting a project myself makes a difference for posting on Wikipedia, as I see a great deal of images throughout the site created by Wikipedia members. I made sure to check Wikipedia pages to see if my dating and other information would be met positively before I wasted anyone's time. If I make specific changes, will this be acceptable? It greatly helps the historical understanding of Christianity, as the article offers almost none for a timeline.

I have redone the German region to be more clear, as the process of German Christendom was indeed gradual from the Goths, especially with Arianism, to the Saxons in the Carolinigian dynasty. Cyril and Method were noted in the Russian region.

Hope you can help me make this map work for the Wikipedian community :)

Charlemagne

I wish to thank you for you patience and your edits.CyrilleDunant 10:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

paul

Please see Paul of Tarsus' before editing content. nonsense is not grounds for ignorant editing. You are not to alter objective information to suit your bias views. If you are genuinely interested in learning, see the sources.

Perhaps it's best if I elaborate. The earliest Christians were told by Jesus that he would soon return.

There are certainly passages in the Gospels that make it clear that Jesus is anticipating an imminent moment of apocalypse. That the end is very near. Certainly the earliest Christians took away from his message the belief that his return would occur in their own life time. And in his final sermon to his disciples before his arrest, when he's asked, "What are the signs of the end times?" He tells them about wars and conflict and wickedness and evil, that then ends with the promise, "All these things shall be fulfilled in your own time. So yes." ... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/bios.html#boyer

If the above source doesn't suit your fancy you can simply do an educational search among your colleagues. Surely one in the religious studies department can elaborate on original Christianity. Paul's view is not unique and I am unaware of any source prior to 70 CE who did not believe Jesus would return and stage a judgment day. This judgment day theme was popular in Jewish antiquity in the inter-testamental period. It is also a reason why not much writing exists between 50BCE-50CE. This is not unique in the least. As for Paul, simply reading his epistles yields numerous references to his jewish piety, alone his belief in an imminent apocalypse. One only needs to read the gospel of Mark to refer to an apocalypse, .

I would also like to add that the word nonsense is rather unique as it can mean a number of things. Perhaps nonsense means 'not true', but saying such about a particular thing requires an idea of truthhood. Surely we wouldn't deem something false unless we knew what was true. You appear to be more educated as you are a historian, this is your refutation for why you make edits and so widely use the allegation something is nonsense. Since you have claimed to be the superior, I do challenge you to correct my falsehood. As you seem to know the truth and it would do me well to learn from you. Apparently you are wise about Saint Paul and original Christianity. Do tell me about apocalyptic tradition.

On a final note I would like to address your accusation that "professors can read the minds of women". This remark was made on my board quite a while ago while you vented. Women in antiquity had suppressed roles, as you should know this. It is not unlikely that they would take pride in such a christian movement preaching the return of Jesus. It should also not be a surprise to you that Chrsitianity, a largely gentile movement spread by a man who was rejected at Antioch by Peter and James (See Paul of Tarsus) would appeal to the lower ranks of society for housing. These in house church worships gave them place to speak about Jesus and who he was.. I do not quite understand how you can take offense that women of all people hosted these events.. and that it gave them a sort of pride. Your dispute over this is simply a desire to hear yourself talk.

Nevertheless, you are also not to alter objective information because you are unaware of it. The fallacy, "appeal to ignorance" is an appeal to something because you do not know it to be true. In other words, since you are unaware of original christianity and their apocalyptic views, much less the historical jesus and his apocalyptic tradition, you altered the picture of First Thessalonians. Nevermind the history of such, as a historian should know it, however you altered why Paul was preaching to them in the first place in perhaps an attempt to limit the controversy. I do say this is foolish. You can return to the christianity discussion and defend your views as I would like to pick @ your knowledge, do provide sources and use concise terms as anyone can use the allegation nonsense and appear to be educated. Unfortunately this falls through much like your fascade when you delete information due to your own ignorance. So much for being a historian.

It is not my intention to attack you, however it seems to me you only eliminate the controversies I make. Once because it was non sense, than another because it is non sense but then reverted to uncontroversial, in other words, you deem it to be true. However by definition controversy encapsulates various views, and one can easily agree that not all christians believed Jesus and Saint Paul preached the end of the world. I think we both agree on this, this is fair ground for leaving it as a controversy, as by definition, it qualifies. I would prefer me and you settle disputes back n forth instead of me undue your edits and vice versa, it is not my intention to frusterate you nor attack you, but it is quite frusterating going to such length to provide sources and information to others, only to have it refuted as already known and then eliminated. I hope you understand. Biblical1 11:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_of_Tarsus&diff=67220140&oldid=67218895

The Christian Article

I'm terribly sorry, and I don't intend to be unkind, but I must point out that your opinion and mine (and that of our traditions) are of equivalent value. You say that I may have my opinion (entitled is a better term, by the way) but you are dismissive of it each time it makes an appearance in the article, whether I or someone else makes an entry about it. I am unsure if this is because you feel your chosen faith's doctrinal obligations quite keenly or because you are concerned that the article will descend into chaos.

The fact remains, however, that the Neutral Point of View notion implies a willingness to hear, enter into dialog with, and respect the contribution of "the Other" as a legitimate expression of the diversity of the human experience of faith and the utter immanence of God. Based on your edits, you seem to be leery of entertaining interpretations of Christianity with which you disagree or have not encountered. Again, I do not mean to be reactionary and I am not one to lash out, but I was unsure if anyone had pointed this out to you.

If you look at team-edited ecumenical texts about what Christianity is you will find that everyone is able to present their side while affording their collaborators the same courtesy. None of us can ever allow ourselves the sin of absolutizing our own experience and applying it to the rest of humanity. There is a great deal of theological nuance depicted in those texts and they are better reference texts because their editors did not absolutize their own views. By allowing themselves to listen honestly to the Other they returned to their own world enriched, not diminished, because they allowed the input of those with differing views. Karl Rahner stayed Karl Rahner, regardless of who he wrote a book with.

Now then, Wikipedia is not The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and some of the contributors do not know their business and, frankly, can be jackasses. I'm not suggesting that when you find something with no merit you don't excise it or that you turn off your critical eye. What I am suggesting is that you pause now and then and determine if, in your editing, you are being dispassionately critical, or if you are responding in a not entirely objective manner. Again, my apologies if I have offended, but please consider what I've suggested. MerricMaker 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past one another. Allow me to clarify. I do not suggest that you abandon any position that you may hold. Dialog is about understanding and acceptance, not consensus. I’m sorry I didn’t make it clear that I’m well aware of this. At no point (to my knowledge) have I gainsaid anything you have listed about Christianity in the article. I disagree, for example, that Christians must be Trinitarian, but I also recognize how intellectually stimulating the concept has been for thinkers over the centuries. It is valid, in my estimation, for that reason alone. In other words, I recognized its ontology.

I’m not big on using Barth, but I think he pinned it in talking about dialectical theology. It isn’t that you’re right and I’m wrong, but that we are both wrong and both right on matters of theology. I say one thing and you say another, but we both recognize that the truth of things is somewhere in between, and always just beyond our ability to articulate or understand. However, in combining our seemingly contradictory points-of-view we can come close and help one another produce a creative tension. When you talk about mutual exclusivity, I’m reminded of the most maddening and useful theological concept: Yes and No. That is, the recognition that both sides have merits and detriments.

Was Jesus human? Yes and No. Was Jesus God? Yes and No.

Logic does not demand concrete answers with a firm yes or no when we are talking about God, that thing which we aren’t—but also sort of are. In temporal matters, we engage in dualistic thinking all the time, but in theological work dualism has less of a place.

What I have done is added a sentence here or there (all told, about a paragraph) to speak to elements with which I am familiar (these being Tillichian interpretations of Christology, Abelardian interpretations of salvation, Process and Tillichian God-models, and Form criticism). With the exception of the form criticism piece about scriptural interpretation, all such material has been edited out. I don’t know who the editors might have been, nor do I especially care. Again, this is not an indictment, I’m just trying to assure clarity between us and do my bit to see this article become something truly exceptional. In order to do that we who contribute to it must be in dialog. Cutting out a section because it is unorthodox, but ignoring the fact that it has contributed to what orthodoxy has become closes the dialog and robs the article and its writers of an opportunity to grow.

The “racism” comment with which you take issue was there as an illustration in extremis, not an actual reflection, just a rhetoricism. Sometimes satire and overstatement can carry the idea best. I assume people have as much of a sense of humor about their beliefs as I do; this can cause problems, as you have seen. Sorry. That aside, there are times when one Christian will point to another Christian and say, "they are not Christian" for reasons of dogma. That was what I was referring to. What is at issue for me in the Christianity article is that, by its title, it suggests that it is addressing the whole of Christianity. As that is the case, there needs to be a thoroughgoing voice about the dissenting voices and the faithfully Heterodox Christians, even if just a nod now and then. I don't understand your concern about majority and minority. The majority are in no danger of being shuffled aside, it's called the majority for a reason. What the majority should care about is that the minority continues to have a voice. If not, it is simply intellectual domineering; there's no chance for growth or dialog in that sort of environment. There are three ways to go about this that occur to me.

1.) Aim for the middle of doctrine and dogma in speaking about the faith, in which case the article is incomplete. 2.) Aim for thin description, in which case the article is incomplete. 3.) Address all of it, in which case the article may collapse under its own weight.

The question is which risk are we willing to take? MerricMaker 20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Belinda Carlisle

I left a message on the Relevant Talk Page as concerns wikification. --Eyrian 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

There was a vote on the discussion page. 3 voted for Version 1, and 3 for Version 2. Version 2 was being displayed at the time of the vote. Someone replaced it with Version 1 before the vote was over. Now, you mention that Version 1 is factual. That may be, but it is only part of the facts. Version 2 has a different set of "facts". I removed both versions until the dispute was decided. You have now decided the matter. You say the text can be altered. However, I think that would be almost impossible now... Wallie 21:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC) There is a very close vote on the WW2 discussion page going on at the moment about the overview of WW2. I would like it if you could vote, as I am very worried that the "narrow" viewpoint will win. Thank you. Wallie 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the discussion Thank you. Wallie 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned you were German. Do you live in Germany? Do you believe that Germany was entirely guilty for the whole war and that no other country did any wrong? Wallie 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your viewpoint. Wallie 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

At least I have learnt something. Nazi seems to be considered OK in Germany. Where I come from, people would not use this word, especially to any German person. My father fought in the war, and I never heard him say this word. He always had a high regard for the German soldiers. They never really considered us enemies, and did not know why we were fighting anyway. Wallie 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been getting at. The whole tone of this intro to my mind is trying to equate German soldiers with Nazis. Of course others will accuse me of being a nazi apologist. But I am just trying to be fair. After all German soldiers were just fighting for their country, as were the other poor souls. Wallie 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Th article did have quite a few references to Nazis, and Nazi Germany, which I managed to revert. I am trying to ensure that this doesn't come back again. I think the article's introduction as it stands is rather childish, and certainly not professional. Wallie 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

When you're looking at that article could you please revert the revert-warring anon? Arrow740 00:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the talk page has become so hostile. It's clear that one must be very careful what one says to avoid such exchanges, for example, it is probably best to use "Muhammad" in all cases. I hadn't meant to take you to task, actually, and appreciated your thoughtful response, even if Bless sins didn't.Proabivouac 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Saint Methodius

Str1977, there is a debate at Talk:Saint Methodius regarding the article name similar to other discussions you have been involved in. I wonder if you might want to put in your 2 cents. Thanks -- Pastordavid 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Axiomatic

"Ideas that are not of use but true should not be discarded."

Per Peirce, I had taken it as axiomatic that truth is of use. Even in mathematics, we find that truths that are not known to be useful when they are discovered turn out later to be useful. For those universes (supposing that they can exist) in which my statement does not apply, I axiomatically withdraw it. However, I don't think ours to be among them. It is an unfortunate coincidence that my argument superficially parallels those of some atheists. They are correct, I believe, on this point, but wildly incorrect in thoughtlessly assuming that religion is of no use.Proabivouac 10:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Words and music

I may also offer that religion is art. By that I emphatically do not mean that it is "untrue." The vast majority of things that are important to us resist characterization by conventional notions of what can be judged as true or untrue: morality, love, art, literature, music, etc. It is quite obvious that Bach, Rembrandt, Shakespeare and especially the Bible are mostly true in a way that formal logic has not yet evolved to describe. It is the shortcoming of the latter, not the aforementioned. I do not subscribe to the technical points of Catholicism, which I would call the words, some of which seem to me quite obviously false (though trivially, to me, as I view theology as essentially trivial) but I am certain that the music is true. Be wary of those with the right words but the wrong music. I hope I've not offended you or anyone else who's viewed this post.Proabivouac 11:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The pleasure experienced upon listening to music is subjective. Arrow740 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help in reverting the nonsense criticism of one user in the Nazism and religion and the Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs articles. Please continue to support the insertion of these passages, as they are only removed by those (sadly often liberals and communists) who want to imply a linking of the Catholic Church to "Fascism". The anti-Catholicism of the Nazi Reich does not fit into their picture, therefore they remove entire sections detailing it. Despite these sections being firmly documented and proven by Goebbels diary and Hitler biographical historians. Thanks again.Smith2006 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

about the Blood Pack (Blade II) article

i renamed the Blood Pack to Blood Pack (film), but i see you created instead Blood Pack (Blade II). But as per the films naming convention, we dont use the title of the source film in the article, but instead we use the word "film" to describe its a film, "comic" to describe its a comicbook-related article, "actor" to describe a person, etc. †Bloodpack† 06:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

okay, i finally understand, sorry for the trouble ;) †Bloodpack† 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Str1977, we still have a dispute to resolve. Please re-join the talk page on Banu Qurayza.Bless sins 05:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz recently added this to the Criticism of Muhammad page: "John Esposito states that the incident should be understood in its context: It occured in a world in which the traitors were executed." Is that true? Arrow740 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to that article, I'll examine it more closely tomorrow. Arrow740 10:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Ubayy

Sorry to have upset you. As you say, it seemed to me a trivial matter. I shall consider it a bit more.Proabivouac 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"The name is informal and unencyclopedic"

It's not a big deal... just, it doesn't belong on Talk:Muhammad. I have no reason to believe that you had anything but the best intentions... but, I just wanted to end the discussion so it went on in the right place. gren グレン 09:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation at Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661)

Mediation was requested a while ago, and Ive responded. None involved in mediation has responded however. I am requesting your presence at the article to resolve any disputes. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Which image

I'm not sure why your prefer one over the other but I prefer the last miniature image primarily because it is somewhat easier to actually distinguish the image of Muhammad. For me it is a minor point though and I was only reverting to Alecmconroy per his editorial comment. (→Netscott) 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

German help

Hello, Str1977, I've come across you at some Christianity-related articles, and I see from your "about me" page that you're German, or at least that German is your native language. I studied German at school, but I don't have a great deal of confidence with it. Today I was adding an image of my ice cream maker to French Wikipedia,[2] and I decided to be very brave and register an account with German Wikipedia. I added the image, but I just put "Eismaschine" as the caption, as I wasn't sure what adjective to use. I'd like to add a picture of my popcorn maker to de:Popcorn and my yoghurt maker to de:Joghurt. I'd be grateful if you could suggest a caption for the pictures. In particular, I'd appreciate some help with the yoghurt maker. As you can see here, when I added it to the article, I said "A yoghurt-making kit, with container, thermosflask, and thermometer." No hurry at all. The articles aren't crying out in desperation for some images! Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Amorrow

Thanks for your detailed response. As far as it being an internet cafe; has anyone considered sending an abuse report to the internet cafe proprietor? --Random832 15:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jude of James

I seem to recall that you spent some time looking over sources on the apostles recently. I wonder if you could look over the latest revision of this article (and also James, son of Alphaeus), I have tried to keep to the identifications that were laid out last month, while making the various conflations of identity clear -- Pastordavid 16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles II, Duke of Parma

It says in his mother's article: "Maria Louisa became Duchess [of Lucca] in her own right and was granted the rank and privileges of a Queen. Only upon her death [1824], her son, Charles Luis would succeed her, meanwhile he was known as the Prince of Lucca". So, was she regent, or was she indeed Duchess? I went with the latter, but if you find out otherwise, for certain, then revert it.SamEV 02:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Luxemb(o)urg

I just added the corrected link to that guideline to the article's talkpage. Here is another direct link to the guideline, but lets discuss the issue over at the Counts... of Luxembourg talk page if needed.--Caranorn 13:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

First, you should make sure that your edit summaries are civil, and avoid personal attacks; this is treated more seriously in edit summaries than in other contexts. Secondly, reverting an incorrect change (with an explanation) is hardly "stonewalling"; it's doing what an editor should do. Thirdly, I don't understand the insistence on explaining exactly what Christ Church is; that's what the link is for. You don't feel the need to explain the Oxford collegiate system, etc. (and nor should you) — what's the difference? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page (but you might not have read it yet, as I was still typing) I reject your characterisation of my edit as incorrect. Badly worded maybe, but not incorrect. I consider this incivil too. If you don't understand the need that's your loss. I don't care. But why do you have to hinder other editors from providing information? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my Talk page.

You're right that the failure to use edit summaries is widespread; if you check my contributions, you'll see many reverts of unexplained and unsourced edits — I'm not picking you out for special treatment.

Explaining in the edit summary is a start, but sources need to be given to back up the explanation. If someone changed the article on, say, Socrates, to say that he was an Egyptian pharaoah, we shouldn't accept it just because they explained what they'd done in the edit summary — we'd ask for sources...

When a change is made to an article, editors expect a source to be given. It's not possible to take responsibility for everything that was there before (sources may have been given at the Talk page, indicated in edit summaries, etc.), only what's new.

Making sure that one reverts only the problem part of an edit takes more time, but that's not a reason not to do it (I've recently spent quite a lot of time doing just that in a number of cases). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to the point about Christ Church at the article's Talk page. Your edits to other articles included changing "annexed by" to "integrated into" (or something like that; I'm quoting from memory) — that's the sort of thing that needs a source.

On the whole, where you've reverted with an edit summary I've been happy to leave things as they are; it's only when your revert involves reverting a lot of my own careful copy-editing, or where it includes changes that need sources, that I've intervened. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that messages at article Talk pages shouldn't be blanked; they're a record of what's been said. If the page fills up, it wuill be archived. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. And act. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack removed

Aw, thanks Str![3] Not that it bothered me too much; I do have a funny name, to those of limited understanding. It is my greatest hope that users are forced to scour Latin and Greek dictionaries in search of the relevant roots. I'm pro- "for" a- "not" bi- "two"...then what? Therein lies challenge.

Anyhow, that IP among a number of others is most likely an anonpuppet of Bless sins. I'm surprised and disappointed, as I'd no reason to think Bless sins inclined to engage in personal attacks, vandalism, vote-stacking or disruption, but that is what I have been reluctantly forced to conclude.Proabivouac 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The IP in question traces to Montreal, Canada[4]. Beit Or 15:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Honi soit qui mal y pense ;-) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"for not two" vou- Visus Oculi Utriusque (Latin: Vision - Both Eyes)

ac = "and" please help! Must give clue! Help me unlock the mystery of "Proabivouac" !  :-) --ProtectWomen 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Read the naming conventions"

Hi, Str1977. I don't quite understand what the problem was with that post. Perhaps the same words in German would be a bit peremptory? I don't know. But in English, unless it's said in a very peremptory manner, I see no reason to assume that it's anything more than a suggestion, in the sense of "Read the naming conventions and you'll see what I mean", which would be the same as "If you read the naming conventions, you'll see what I mean." Of course, there may be some prior history here that I'm unaware of, but in the absence of that, I don't see any incivility.

Anyway, I really don't want to be patronising, because I know you're a very experienced editor, and I greatly admire the work you do here, but since I seem to have got involved in this against my will (I never thought that my question about dates and titles would lead to that), I'll just make the observation that if someone says something that's uncivil, but not seriously uncivil, it's probably best to ignore the incivility. Not only does that remove the risk of reacting unfairly to words that you may have misunderstood because of the absence of clues from tone and facial expression, but it also prevents something small from turning into something big. I've seen a few examples here on Wikipedia in the last few days, where everyone ended up more annoyed than they had started, because telling the other party he was rude made the other party more annoyed, and didn't make the aggrieved party less annoyed.

Anyway, I know I have no right to lecture you, and I admit that I don't always follow that advice myself. But I feel a bit involved in this because it seems to have come from my innocent question about dates in titles. Feel free to remove this message if you want! ElinorD (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Elisabeth in Bavaria

I don't post incorrect information like that. In fact, I initially wanted the page called Elisabeth in Bavaria but was told that the most common maiden name form for Elisabeth is Elisabeth of Bavaria. Sorry, but that is the way it is. It is not my choice either. Charles 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the requested moves is that the guidelines need to be discussed rather than the individual pages. As such, I felt it necessary to restore the comments as they stood at WP:RM. My personal belief always has been that consorts should be given their maiden names without the title preceding their forename. For most women, this leaves them at Name of Place. Elisabeth is, however, Name in Place. My argument for this was that it was factually her name and that in was used for a very specific reason. Of course, it was shot down, and sadly it probably will be again. Elisabeth of Bavaria, however, is a very common form of her name, even if it is not fully accurate. Appending the title to the end of her name won't fly because it denotes sovereign status or status as head of a house. Such is an established convention on Wikipedia and elsewhere. So the proper place to address this is at the Naming Conventions. Don't get me wrong, I am not against you. I have always tried to go for the accurate names (Elisabeth in Bavaria, Zita of Parma/Zita of Bourbon of Parma, etc). Charles 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I just got your new comment. The titles you suggest only fits if Elisabeth was covered under monarchial titles, section 5. Charles 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to including the ducal title as you noted. However, the title Elisabeth of Bavaria is not incorrect even if it was not her primary title. Elisabeth was a duchess in and of Bavaria, because all members of the House of Wittelsbach were titled duke or duchess of Bavaria in the same way that all Saxon royals and princes were dukes in Saxony. Charles 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All members of the house of Wittelsbach were dukes and duchesses of Bavaria. At the time the Kingdom of Bavaria was born, there were two extant lines of the House of Wittelsbach. Collectively, they were all dukes and duchesses of Bavaria, but one line became royal and since there was only one other line extant it was seen to that they be raised to a certain status. The title that they still shared (Duke of Bavaria, a title of the Holy Roman Empire) at best carried the style of Serene Highness. A loftier title illustrating a special status as the only other line of the Bavarian house was created for this purpose. It must be stated that prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Bavaria, these respective lines used comital palatine titles with different territorial designations, as opposed to their ducal titles with the same designation (essentially, that of their "house"). The naming, of course, is another issue. Personally, I will vote for Elisabeth in Bavaria if it does come up, although the others will duly note that Elisabeth of Bavaria is very common. Charles 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a very tricky situation since they cannot be compared as such directly. Compare Austria and Spain at the point where the Habsburgs, as Archdukes of Austria, were also Kings of Spain. Royal being greater than archducal, one would assume all members of Spanish line to be of Spain, but several are known as of Austria because that is their house. The use of Duke in Bavaria over Duke of Bavaria is only definitive for the head of the Ducal House in Bavaria, as he was the Duke in, but only a duke of, Bavaria and thus has his title appended at the end of his name. Charles 13:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Istanbul and Constantinople

thanks for your edits on the "Gospel of Baranabas" page - but I am not sure it is correct to change the name to "Constantinople" for a document of the 1590s. All references I know written in the city already term it "Instanbul" - as of course the Spanish GoB does. TomHennell 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote the song "Istanbul was Constantinople" and in fact was so until the 20th century. Also, since the references were to Greek libraries, I think it is more appropriate a name. Str1977 (smile back) 21:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A neat point - but not in fact correct. "Istanbul" is how the city is termed in the Gospel of Barnabas manuscript; it is also the term used by both Jacob Paleologus and Adam Neuser in their writings of the later 16th century - when referring to the contemporary city rather than to its historic tradition. In addition, the two names are not quite co-extensive, Istanbul includes Pera (where Neueser and Paleologus both lodged), whereas Constantinople did no. TomHennell 16:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A Discussion I think you might know how to handle best...

On Criticism of Christianity, one of the latest topics of argument is Hitler's religion, a subject I am not really very familiar with. However, I think you're one of the people who actually was involved in that subject awhile ago I think for real, so I thought you might want to know about it, so far, the best i've come up with is that Positive Christianity is positive alright...positively insane, and I don't think that'll solve the discussion on its own :/ . Homestarmy 20:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindness

Hi, Str1977, I'm afraid I've been a bit rude in not thanking you for the barnstar, or for the note you left for me. I meant to, and then somehow it got archived. Anyway, I appreciated your kind words, and I'm proudly displaying the barnstar on my user page. Keep up the great work you're doing here, and if someone annoys you, before you respond, think "Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio." I notice that both you and Musical Linguist link from your user pages to your favourite quotations. If I ever do that, I'll have that quotation there. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Hello,

I'm waiting for your response on Banu Qurayza.Bless sins 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Str, your assumption would be incorrect. We may have had our heated discussions, but that has been many months in the past. The last several times this issue has come up you have been a model of wisdom. That is not to say that we think alike on this issue, but that for Wikipedia you understand the need for balance. I have no problem with stating that there is controversy among Christians as to which groups are "Christian", as long as the definition is then qualified as belonging to the traditional Christianity or supporting the doctrines approved in the great Councils.

What is so frustrating is the number of what I believe to be Protestants that have done nothing to prepare, but have only the words of their pastor, and are now ready to accuse those who believe differently then they do. I believe that this has been a curse of religion and Christianity in particular.

One of the things that has helped me is to put a different context on how I view other churches...in a battle against darkness or evil who will stand for the light and truth. I understand that this may be too liberal a position for many to take, but given that I believe all light and truth comes from God it allows me to simply acknowledge that which is good in others rather than focus on that which separates us. What I try to do is remove negative judgement from my thoughts in the hope that if I fail to be a source of peace at least I am not a source of contention here. I believe that you also have become that type of person. Peace. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are kind; thank you. There is so much more that I believe unites us than what separates us! As a LDS I seek first to serve our Father in Heaven, adn second my wife and family. However, after that I seek to serve my fellow man. It may be a weakness, though I hope not, but I do appreciate simply being recognized as a disciple of Christ. I think pride is too much bound up in that, but I have to admit it is true. One may easily reject my church affiliation, but it is my fervent prayer they do not reject my abiding love of our Savior.

I think I may have been too blunt above on our differences; they have been in the past. There is no rancor between us, rather I find that we complement each other's work well and I enjoy cooperating together. Further, I respect your counsel, correction, and guidance. My desire would be to one day recognized as your brother in Christ Jesus. Continued Peace be unto you. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mayors of the palaces

Hello. I have a slight problem with your move of the page List of Mayors of the Palaces to List of Mayors of the Palace. I understand why you did so and I'm not even considering moving it back because I doubt that anybody else sees the error in the new title. The error is this: the mayors listed were mayors of multiple palaces! Hence the original plural. Each "palace" (that is, royal household, of which there were three) had its own mayors. I think the current title would only be appropriate for a list of mayors of the palace of Neustria, for example. But the article has three lists for the three different "palaces." Srnec 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But I think you may have misunderstood me, or perhaps I wasn't clear. Indeed the title of these individuals each was major domus, where domus means household (I did say royal household above) and has been translated "palace" for various reasons. The office of mayor of the palace is only really apparent in the late sixth century, though it probably existed earlier as a minor palatial posting. I am not suggesting that there was any individual with the title "mayor of the palaces," only that these individuals were the mayors of the palaces: that is, they were the mayors of the various households (royal courts).

To make an analogy, the head of the government of Ontario is called the Premier of Ontario. That is his title. Collectively, all the premiers of Ontario (throughout her history) are called just that: premiers (plural) of Ontario (singular). However, all the premiers in all the provinces of Canada would be called the premiers (plural: there are more than one) of the provinces (there are ten). Similarly, when talking only of Austrasia (throughout her history), we have the mayors (there were many) of the palace [of Austrasia]. When talking of all the mayors in all the kingdoms of the Franks, we have the mayors (there were many) of the palaces (of all the kingdoms: there were three). Srnec 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But "prime" is an adjective, which is not pluralised in English. Thus, "prime ministers" is not analagous. "The premiers of the provinces of Canada" is analagous to "the mayors of the palaces of the Franks." There were many mayors of Neustria alone thus: "mayors of the palace of Neustria." But how do you distinguish between the mayors of Neustria and those of all the kingdoms collectively? By pluralising "palaces" because that corresponds to the kingdoms, which are now more than one. 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you say "Danny Williams and Jean Charest are the premier of the province of Québec and Newfoundland"? Or would you say "Danny Williams and Jean Charest are the premiers of the provinces of Québec and Newfoundland"? This is just pluralisation. It doesn't change the fact that neither Williams nor Charest has a plural title. Let's clarify: I don't think "mayors of the palace of Austrasia and Neustria" to refer to Pepin of Heristal and Berthar is correct. Do you? Srnec 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. All I will say is that to my English Canadian ears it sounds like there is ambiguity in the phrase "mayor of the palace of Austrasia." Does "of Austrasia" modify "mayor" or "palace": both versions make sense. Is "of the palace" an integral part of the title or is it a connecting phrase between "mayor" and "Austrasia"? I can understand your position a little better and I am not going to claim that one is correct and the other incorrect, but I do think that my version is less jarring and more clear in English. Also, I did think of one perfectly analogous term: the Spanish "presidente del gobierno" (president of the government [of Spain, etc.]). Here the Spanish Wiki provides an example of "presidentes de los gobiernos." Srnec 04:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

German edit summary

Hi, Str1977. I think I mentioned to you before that I have an account at German Wikipedia. I don't use it much, as my German is rusty. But I've been following a discussion at one of the admin noticeboards, and also at meta. Apparently there are some problems with certain links, and some admins want them blacklisted. Jkelly has already removed them from French Wikipedia. I'd remove them from German Wikipedia if I felt confident of being able to explain myself. If I just go in and remove dozens of links without edit summary, I'll certainly be reverted, and I'll probably be blocked. Could you please translate this sentence for me, so that I can put it in my edit summary:

"Problems with this link are being discussed at English Wikipedia and also at Meta."

Many thanks. ElinorD (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Str1977 for your helpful response. I'm afraid, though that the German Wikipedians don't like me! :) ElinorD (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Saber girl08 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Saber girl08 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

I think the new edits are misguided and have made the article less understandable to the common reader. Mark and I have been conversing on the Mormonism and Christianity article lately; I think he is allowing that to color his motivations.

The actual doctrinal point that he is attempting to highlight clouds the issue. Mormons are not Trinitarian; that is a known fact and is written in the article. His edits do not make this point any clearer; however, he unfortunately has made the language less clear on points that should be the most clear to the greater number of readers. He is bright and focused, sometimes too focused which prevents him from hearing other editors. I am confident that with continued effort logic will win out. Even as a LDS I would not want the context of the article to cater to LDS; it is awkwardly flattering in a way, but misguided. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!

As has been my custom in the past, I would like to wish you and yours, all the best during this holiday. Happy Easter. Dr. Dan 00:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)