From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IF you happen to be a troll (let him who has ears understand), don't post here but click here and get "stoned".

Contents 1 Welcome to the Wikipedia 2 Questions and comments 2.1 Archives 2.2 WW2 2.3 My very last post is for you 2.4 WW2 and the SU 2.5 Luna Vachon's children 2.6 Pius XII 2.7 Billy-Goat Bite Theory 2.8 Hitler's Religious Views 2.9 I'm back 2.10 Smile 2.11 Crusade 2.12 Userbox 2.13 Constantinian shift 2.14 Anti-Sacrilege Act mediation 2.15 Dein Revert von de:Justin der Märtyrer 2.16 hmmm, I'm puzzled 2.17 Michael II..... 2.18 Ten Lost Tribes 2.19 Anfrage zu Papen 2.20 Adolf Hitler 2.21 Human Person and Divine Person - Oh No! 2.22 EffK 2.23 explain 2.24 Nero and me 2.25 Divinity of Christ 2.26 Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_20#Category:Bavarian_Soviet_Republic 2.27 PPXII cites 2.28 John his book 2.29 You are responsible 2.30 3RR 2.31 Re: Christianity 2.32 User:Aminz 2.33 Appreciation 2.34 Not response 2.35 Mediation 2.36 Concilium 2.37 Request for Mediation 2.38 Thanks 2.39 Minor edit 2.40 Singer's Campanion to Ethics 2.41 Jesus Seminar 2.42 Criticism of the Quran 2.43 German user box 2.44 Your RFM 2.45 Thanks 2.46 John the Presbyter 2.47 3rr report 2.48 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 2.49 Criticism of Christianity 2.50 Carl Jung -> C. G. Jung 2.51 Christianity 2.52 Charles Gray 2.53 Jesus article and category 2.54 Christian mythology

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

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

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

Notes:

• The link to the POV-section template is {{POV-section}}.
• {{subst:test3}} is preferred.
• Errors that need correction should be treated like <strike>this</strike>.
• http://dict.leo.org/?lang=de&lp=ende

[edit] Questions and comments

[edit] Archives

Talk Page Archives

FK A 1 2 3 4 5

[edit] WW2

I changed the intro, as I though there was duplication. I also tried to move the complication down to the (new) participants section. I fully expect (and hope) that these two parts will change for the better. Sometimes if things get too complicated, then it is best not to go into too much detail. The readers are able to think for themselves, and can delve deeper themselves, if they want further explanation. Wallie 11:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My very last post is for you

Hello, Str. Even though I don't adhere to this doctrine, I'm convinced that with my flawed human nature, the only way I can expect to be able to finish writing my assignments is to make it impossible to see new messages, or to see Wikipedia discusssion threads that look to be of interest. I need to keep Wikipedia in my browser favourites, though, in case I have to look up things about phenomenology or epistemology, so as soon as I've posted this to you, I'm going to log off, so that I won't see any "new messages" and my watchlist won't function. Please keep an eye on my user page and talk page, and remove anything that you think I would want removed. I trust your judgment, and will, in any case, check the page histories when I get back. Keep up the good work without me. Keep in touch, if you have anything to tell or ask me. And, please God, the name Musical Linguist will suddenly appear when you refresh your watchlist in September. See you then! AnnH ♫ 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WW2 and the SU

I don't understand why you think the war was only in two "theatres". I cannot imagine dismissing the Great Patriotic War as a non event. Also, you describe the Soviet Union as being in Europe, which I find very strange, given that you live in Germany, and Germany has never really considered it as being part of Europe. In reality, much of it is in Asia. Also, I cannot understand why you do not consider this important, as the move into the Soviet Union involved many more participants than did Poland or Pearl. However, if you insist on this, it is OK, as many other issues I was irritated with have got smaller, and I am interested, as you probably are, in keeping the intro small. Wallie 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luna Vachon's children

I went on Luna's website and found this information. It's in with the interview section.The site didn't say who the father was but I suspect it wasn't Gangrel.I thought she had children with him but in the interview section (The RAW magazine article) it seems state that Luna and Gangrel had the children before they got together. That's all I know. I thought I would add it to Their pages.Okay.MgHoneyBee 00:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pius XII

Hi Str1977, what are we going to do with User Savidan, who is behaving like a dictator over his very site Pius XII ? I don't mind dealing with different oppinions, but I specificly do not like this near-subtile suggestion of the image of a cardinal steping on a Jew. Wikipedia is not made for this kind of biased and suggestive information. --UAltmann 10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Für den Fall dass Du es noch nich weisst, ich bin auch deutscher Muttersprachler. Mein Benutzername in der deutschen Wikipedia ist derselbe. --UAltmann 10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note the newly initiated discussion about the Hirshberger - Image on the discussion site of Pius XII. --UAltmann 06:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy-Goat Bite Theory

In the words of Rosenbaum:

The billy-goat bite story first came to light in 1981 in a memoir published in Germany under the title Tödlicher Alltag. Its author, Dietrich Güstrow, who was then a prominent attorney,...tells us that in 1943 he served as a military-court martial defense attorney for a certain Private Eugen Wasner before a military tribunal that tried the soldier for "maliciously slandering the Führer". In fact, according to Güstrow, Private Wasner was being tried for an embarassing explanation of Hitler. According to the lawyer's memoir, the occassion of Private Wasner's slander was a barracks bull session in which Wasner boasted that as a youth he had attended the same school as Adolf Hitler, in Leonding, Austria. Bitter about recent defeats on the eastern front, the private told his buddies, "Adolf has been warped ever since a billy goat took a bite out of his penis". Wesner proceeded to give a graphic description of the bloody consequences of young Adolf's attempt to urinate in the mouth of a billy goat. (p.xxx)

Of course, if true, this could explain the newly raised claims that he was a virgin... Paul B 08:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler's Religious Views

Someone finally recognized that I was talking. :P You got it. Is the page making anything called "progress". I've long since abandoned it. Colonel Marksman 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea not doing it yourself, but then again, what good will it do if someone ELSE does it? The same nutcases will change it back and bark.
• I'll see what I can do. Colonel Marksman 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm back

Hi, Str. I got my two papers finished, and I'm exhausted. Going to bed in a moment. I just have some revision to do for a German (undergraduate) certificate course,[1] which finishes at the end of the month, but it's not as important as the doctorate — I'd survive the humiliation if I failed! Feeling a bit wobbly at the moment, because I'm short of sleep, and my body is full of illicit substances. I was virtuous for nearly a year, but felt that relaxing the strictness while in the final stages of writing my papers would help. (And it did!) By the way, did a line get swallowed up in a recent edit? "Ilsa and collapses" doesn't make sense. Anyway, even though I did look in from time to time, although I had promised myself that I wouldn't, it's nice to be "officially" back, even if I'm still going to be contributing less than before until the end of the month. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

[edit] Crusade

Hi - could you clarify what Footnote #2 is? Not sure if its a typo or I'm mis-reading it. Thanks! -- Stbalbach 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Hi! Wenn du willst,kannst du dich ja hierdurch {{User sge}} auf deiner Benutzerseite "brandmarken" ;-) Gruß -Lemmy- 15:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constantinian shift

I sympathize with your effort, Str, but I simply don't have the time to look into it right now. Maybe if you want me to comment on some specific point (such as a diff) I will get round to that, otherwise I will just make a mental note to revisit the article come some idle moment, some time. regards, dab (ᛏ) 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Sacrilege Act mediation

Hi, I’m the volunteer mediator working on this request for mediation. Please participate in the discussion so we can resolve this issue. There's also a new section for discussion on the article's talk page. If you need to reach me, leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, and have a great day! Tsetna 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dein Revert von de:Justin der Märtyrer

Woher hast Du die Erkenntnis, daß es sich um einen anderen Justinus handelt als den, über den ich hier geschrieben habe? Es sind nachweislich die Reliquien dieses Märtyrers Justinus, die Otgar von Mainz nach Höchst in die Justinuskirche brachte und deren Schicksal durchaus nachvollziehbar ist. Einen anderen Justinus gibt es nach sämtlichen Heiligenlexika übrigens nicht. Insofern wäre ich Dir dankbar, wenn Du den Revert wieder zurücknimmst. --EvaK 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Der Justinus, den ich ich meinte, ist Justinus der Bekenner (noch kein Artikel), ich hab mal etwas nachgefragt. --EvaK 10:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hmmm, I'm puzzled

Hello my buddy. I happened to have stumbled across your page just now, and I noticed the below comments on your main user page. I have not kept up with Wikinews, I guess, so Im completely in the dark about what happened. Are you really forbidden from editing certain topics while exrpressing your religious views? That seems to be unjust. Was this an arbcom decision? I don't know anything about Jim62, but what was his "religious racism," and why was that allowed as a basis for you to be punished in anyway? Do you mean racism based in religious belief? Please forgive my ignorance on this matter and its ok if you don't want to talk about it. Im just suprised to read that on your page and had to ask, in case I might be of help in some way. Well what better place to ask than here? Be well and dont let the wikistress get the better of you.

"Due to religious racism by Jim62sch (in clear violation of Wikipedia policy), I am forbidden from editing certain topics while expressing my Christianity - therefore I have replaced the Labarum with this "Christianity banned" symbol. Long live the Emperor Diocletian!" Giovanni33 10:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. I'm glad to know that it was nothing of an official nature! Your reasoning seems reasonable to me. Be well.Giovanni33 11:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael II.....

Dear Str1977,

Thanks for your comments on my sentences. It is a waste time for me to attend like a discussions. I know that almost all religions use power (including rock/sword/gun)on nonmembers/paganists. Christians and Muslims also. How some Turcs accept islam and some others(Magyars,Bulgars,Fins) Christianity?-it is a good example-. I know the story/history. But, here, in Pope's speech something is wrong. It is not Popes's business to make reform in islam (which is needed). This words guide the pure christian people against to Muslim.To speak about fundalism is ok but to speak about another religion is another matter. Pope has no right with that spech as a religion lider or a president. I believe there will be some reform in islam, but muslim will do it not anybody. Regards. Mustafa Akalp 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Str: He pasted the same splat on my Talk page. Oh well...I hope he feels better, at least. Doesn't he realise the Pope has a right (even duty) to talk about whatever the hang he likes.DocEss 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Lost Tribes

The Jews were exiled completely, becoming known as the The Ten Lost Tribes

I'm probably doing this wrong so excuse me in advance. I just had a question on an excellent article in Wikipedia and thought this may be an inobtrusive way to pose my question.

Why are the Northern 10 tribes of Israel being referred to as "the jews". I thought that the kingdom of Judah was comprised of Judah, Benjamin and 1/2 of the tribe of the Levites. This remanent eventually became known as "the jews" being an abbreviation for the southern kingdom. Thanks for any insight and education. Shalom from Charlotte. You can e-mail me @ jashofat @ yahoo.com Todah (Thank you)

Well, I don't know whether this relates to an article here on WP, so I'll just go straight ahead at the question:

"Jews" is a form of "Judaeans" and originally only referred to the tribe of Judah, but later also to the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah (the southern kingdom) and later the region of Judaea. Among the latter two groups were also Benjaminites, Levites, Simeonites (whose tribe had merged into the tribe of Judah) and splinter of other tribes (see the Prophetess Hannah of the tribe of Asher in the gospel of Luke, or Tobit in the book of the same name of Naphtali - the latter's narrative of course occurs in exile but the tradition had to come down in one way to some inhabitants of Judaea writing it down).

Judaea took is name from the tribe of Judah, as this was by far the largest tribe that survived.

And because the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom were lost, Judah made up the largest group within the surviving people of Israel and the name Judaeans (Jews) was transferred to the entire surviving Israelite people. In that sense, Jews has been used in the sentence on top: "The Ten Lost Tribes of the Jews" of course contained no Judaeans but Jews here stand for Israelites.

Why above setence says that "the Jews were exiled completely" and became known as the Ten Lost Tribes is beyond me.

Yes, the Israelites, meaning the whole 12 Tribes, were exiled completely. The Northern Tribes (of the Kingdom of Israel) disappeared from history (at least the largest part, see Hannah und Tobit) and hence are known as the Ten Lost Tribes. The Southern Tribes (of the Kingdom of Judah) were exiled too but they came back from exile. Hence they are not lost. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anfrage zu Papen

Ich schreibe an einer Arbeit über Franz von Papen. Gerne wüsste ich, wo ich Informationen zu seiner Tätigkeit als Geheimkämmerer des Vatikans (was ist das genau?) finde. Insbesondere wie er dazu kam, dass er gewählt wurde. Könnten Sie mir Buchtitel nennen, auf die sie sich stützen?

Mit freundlichen Grüssen R. Fischer (raffiniert Wiki-Benutzername)

[edit] Adolf Hitler

Hi, I admire your patient determination with 'Xanon' (whom I believe to be a sockpuppet-is that the right term?), but this is not a matter that will-sadly-be settled by debate. The user at best has a highly eccentric point of view, not open to persuasion, and at worst is a straightforward Nazi revisionist. I suspect the latter is closer to the truth. Best wishes. White Guard 05:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Person and Divine Person - Oh No!

Hi, I was fixing some silly vandalism to Christ and I wasn't comfortable with what was already there. It said that Gnostics did not believe in a Jesus who was both a Divine Person and a human person, which seemed to imply that mainstream Christians do believe that He was two persons (rather than One Person with two natures). So, while removing the vandalism bit about golf, I also modified the non vandalism bit about being a human person. If you're online, could you have a look and check that that section is okay, since I don't know much about what gnostics believed. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EffK

I checked the logs. His talk page has been protected. I will see if it needs reverting. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] explain

do you mind explaining how the hijacking, or whatever you want to call it, had nothing to do with the pope thing? dposse 17:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nero and me

See this page, and scroll down to 666. I'll have to start doing more (or less) editing!

Will e-mail you later today about a book that arrived in the post this morning! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been updated, so I'm no longer the Beast! I've just finished another study weekend, so not am not completely up to date on Wikipedia, but am wondering if your "rm tag" edit is partly a product of the software bug or intentional? I'm talking about Category:July Monarchy and Category:Contemporary French history, neither of which means anything to me! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 09:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divinity of Christ

Str, would you please share with me your meaning of the divinity of Jesus Christ? I think I may be missing a deeper meaning. When Jesus asked, "But whom say ye that I am?", Peter responded, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." To me this is a declaration of Jesus' divinity. However, I sense that when a Catholic uses the term, they are not only defining Jesus as the Son, but also that Jesus is the same essence as God the Father. Is that accurate?

For a Latter-day Saint Jesus is divine because he is the only begotten of the Father. He was mortal because he was the son of Mary, but he was divine because he was the only begotten. If he were not divine he could in no way have provided the atoning sacrifice that allows all mortal men and women to be forgiven. The fact that he was crucified and rose again is testament to his divinity. Though I think these beliefs are held in common, I still think I may lack a full understanding of the Catholic perspective. I would appreciate your thoughts. Storm Rider ^(talk) 11:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_20#Category:Bavarian_Soviet_Republic

Could you please take look on the CfD? It is about Munich vs Bavarian Soviet Republic name. Pavel Vozenilek 15:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PPXII cites

Some citation stickler has descended upon the Pope Pius XII article. Please add in-line citations to the information that you added to the Reichskonkordat section as soon as you are able. If you can't, I will try to do so (once I finish will all the other nit-picky requests), and if I can't I'll move whatever I can't find an in-line citation for to the talk page. Thanks. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I took care of all the other citation checks. The three in the RK section are all that remain. Hopefully, you'll be able to help me out with these. I'd hate to have to prune this section down to what I can reference. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that guy has gone through and strucked out the ones I took care of yesterday. All I would worry about if I were you is the three ^{[citation needed]} in the RK section. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John his book

Hi, Str, there's a very interesting article (to me, at least, though perhaps less so to you!) here. Basically, it's about a period in the history of the English language when people thought that "John's book" was a contraction for "John his book", and began to say "John his book", as a sort of hypercorrection, in an effort to be really correct — a bit like saying "between you and I". While I can't stand "between you and I", I remember teaching a piece by William Byrd from the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book called The Earl of Salisbury his Pavan, and thinking that the title was delightfully quaint and archaic.

I recall from the days that I lived in Holland, that "van" (of) was the most common way of forming a possessive — the brother OF Marc, for example. However, some of the students did casually say "Marc zijn broer". Anyway, if you have anything interesting to add (you may not have) you might like to comment on the talk page about "Jan sein Buch", etc. — how acceptable or unacceptable, widespread or rare it is. See here, for example. What about feminine or neuter? Maria's book? The house's chimney?

What says the "German history horse"?

AnnH ♫ 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's quite a good section on other languages now, so no need for your input. Also, I've discovered that The Earl of Salisbury his Pavan is not in the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book at all, so I've crossed out my error. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 11:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are responsible

for bothering me. I will complain to God against you in the judgment day. --Aminz 11:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And you are responsible for bothering me. I will ask God to forgive your offenses and mine as well, for the sake of His son's cross and the blood of all the martyrs. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is extremely dramatic. Thank you.

The scientist specialist saying this is not known and also that is not known, but this we can be reasonably sure of because of this. THat is how one talks who knows something. But with things where NO ONE really know. Funny people only sound more certain! Maybe its the overcompensation?

Me I dont know much about God but Id be REALLY SUPRISED Aminz if he didnt ignore your histrionic complaining and judgement day revenge fantasy and Str1977 your self-righteousness passive agressiveness request. If youre angry you should just say so and if you really forgive someone whats the point in telling himOpiner 07:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Was to ask only Str1977 since hes usually more reasonable BUT since Aminz is here LOOK at the most ridiculous UNneutral of the article Hinduism. Its saying God IS this and that llike the pamphlet of Dawa! No neutrality at all!Opiner 07:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mein Gott Aminz recent edits are SO NOT NEUTRAL! Muhammad the lover of the children and the animals!Opiner 08:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Str1977 please look at my report of latest Aminz 3RR on WP:ANI/3RR, hes saying his first one of you is not a real revert just a misunderstanding SO your input is asked here. Did he revert you or only misunderstand?Opiner 10:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Now hes breaking 3RR AGAIN with a bunch more reverting! but no ones doing anything to the report so what can we do??Opiner 00:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Christianity

Ahh. I didn't know if you realized it. Per your concerns I have reverted myself. Good day. —Aiden 12:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Sorry for the confusion. —Aiden 12:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aminz

Well I've noted to him that its a 'suspended' block. If he breaks the 3RR again - or indeed, any other related rules - then I would be happy to block him again, for at least the 72 hour period. He has started talking to a few people - look at his recent contributions and a lot of them are on talk pages. The 3RR is not just policed through blocks; if a user can be persuaded to change his behaviour, that's so much better.

So I'll keep a watch of Amniz's beahviour. If we continue to assume good faith for now, then maybe he will return the favour and follow our guidelines. --Robdurbar 15:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[2] Hilfe haelfe. Arrow740 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't look at the latest version by me. They have removed a lot of referenced material from there. [3] compares my last one with the latest version. If we get this article in hand I'll get sources and work on the frontline articles. Arrow740 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Maybe you'd like to express your opinions about these two guidelines I suggested [4]. Arrow740 10:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We have one more obstacle to overcome, then I think the article will be under control. Aminz has insisted that before we begin discussing the criticism of the violent verses in the Quran, we have a summary academic opinions on the subject of war an violence in the Quran. Obviously, he has chosen an academic that shares his POV and is stating her opinions as fact. I've suggested that we summarize relevant material already found in the Islamic military jurisprudence and jihad articles and link to them for the full treatment, but he is resisting. See the discussion here about this section. Thanks, Arrow740 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an RfC over this. Please read Tom's comment. --Aminz 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not (currently) whether or not there should be a summary. The issue is your summary. Arrow740 07:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In the War and Violence section in Criticism of the Quran, we used to have only cited criticisms, and cited responses. Aminz unilaterally decided that this should be prefaced with an "academic" viewpoint (you know what that means). Someone filed for an RfC eventually, and the admin said that we should have a short summary of the general Islamic viewpoint. Aminz is using one scholar exclusively, and you can find his summary here. I recently mildly reverted his version back to someone else's, and no doubt, when he wakes up he'll revert it back. Arrow740 09:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

Str1977, I appreciate your efforts to keep the discussion focussed on the topics at hand.JustAnIdea 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not response

Str, [5] is not a response to criticisms. It is just the academic view on this section. --Aminz 08:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hello! I've requested for a mediation, here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661). Please join it and sign your name. Thanks --Aminz 08:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aws and Khazraj were now a new community, Umma, the relation of which with Jewish tribes was specified. For example when Qurayza were attacked, Aws didn't helped them (cause they were on the other side; the Umma). You may also want to read the source. Can I put previously back? --Aminz 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Watt says:"Indeed there seems to have been a strong desire in various sections of the Aws to honour their old alliance with Qurayza. Muhammad met this feeling by ..." --Aminz 09:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concilium

Str, I was reading the Pope Benedict XIV article and came across a link for Concilium that did not exist. I find it very dissatisfying to find red-lettered links that go nowhere. After researching the issue I wrote a brief article taking the bulk of the information from the English website. It is very brief and could use a review of someone with more refined Catholic scholarly awareness. You represent one of those people. When you have some time, please see if you can improve the article. Thank you. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Thanks

I am just glad that we atleast agree on something. Cheers! :) TruthSpreader^Talk 13:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit

Hey Str - you made an edit to Christianity here that probably shouldn't have been marked as minor. Just a thought. standonbible^Talk! 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singer's Campanion to Ethics

Hey Str1977, As I am sure neither of us are interested in editwarring or arguing about NPOV on Aquinas through edit summaries, I thought I'd leave a relpy here. The reason I removed the line, "According to Peter Singer," is becuase the Companion to Ethics is not authored by Singer but edited by him, meaning I believe, that it is the combined work of many academic philosphers. Because of this, I don't think that it is correct to claim that the statement on Aquinas's beliefs regarding our duties to animals is attributable to Singer alone. Also, since the statement is referenced clearly, I do not see it as sneaky or subtly POV. It may be biased towards the opinions of contemporary academic philosophers as recorded by the Oxford Companion to Ethics, but bias is natural while POV is eliminatable. Thats my two-cents. Hit me back, and we'll figure something out. If we can't agree, perhaps we can at the very least include an additional sentence about the nature of Singer/the Oxford Companion as a source, instead of tagging the point on as a dependent clause. - Sam 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Seminar

Str, thanks for coming to the Jesus Seminar page and contributing to it. Personally, I don't see why you made the change you did and think the paragraph was better before. But I don't want to be defensive, and I want you to feel welcome contributing to the page, so I'm not going to argue about it. See you around. Jonathan Tweet 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Quran

We need more voices to speak up here. Arrow740 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German user box

Hi, Str. I'm thinking of promoting myself from {{User de-1}} to {{User de-2}}. It's certainly true for reading, though I'm less sure about speaking and writing! The problem is that the Level 2 user box has too many words: it takes up three lines. Now, in English, if a user box took up too many lines, I could change the wording slightly. For example, "speaks English at an intermediate level" is shorter than "is able to contribute at an intermediate level of English". I'd like to get it into two lines, not necessarily on the template for everyone, but at least on my own page. It's possible that there's nothing shorter in elegant German, but if you have any ideas for shortening "Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse", I'd be glad to hear them. Also, should it be Diese Benutzerin? There's a female version for native speakers {{User de-f}}. Obviously, I don't aspire to that! As an English speaker, I have a dislike of words like "chairperson", and of people making unauthorized feminist changes (e.g. "brothers" to "brothers and sisters") at Mass. I find such politically-motivated changes to be awkward, inelegant, and irritating. But if it's natural to use the female version in German, I'd use it — even though it makes the line longer! If you can't think of a natural-sounding shorter version, I might try a smaller font. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I heard the expression "brothers in skirts" addressing the female section of the congregation. Try "Benutzerin mit fortgeschrittenen Deutschkenntnissen" Agathoclea 14:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just started my user page. I'm using your Catholic box, but I could use some help. If you have a couple minutes to spare it'd be great if you could show me how to get the thing going. Thanks, KittyHawker 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I need to fix the boxes and I don't know how! I hoped you'd be willing to edit my user page a little. KittyHawker 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep working on it. To change the subject, the more I read about the Septuagint the more I think the Church should use it. Also did you hear if the Ecumenical Patriarch communicated the pope or not? We didn't get that in our coverage over here. KittyHawker 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFM

I have volunteered to mediate your case. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee, but have some experience conducting mediations. I'll only do so, of course, if all the parties consent. Please indicate on the mediation page whether you agree or not. Cheers, JCO312 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

...for your comments and contributions at talk:God. I thought your proposal was fine, and I implemented it in the main article. I also tweaked a couple of bits in other paragraphs for better flow. If you would review it when convenient, that would be great. Thanks again : ) Doc Tropics 16:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we've wrapped that up, and I wanted to thank you again. When editors of differing opinions cooperate to produce a stronger article, that's a benefit to the project. I suspect we could all agree that it's still not perfect, but it's better than it was. Good luck with your other projects, and happy editing. Doc Tropics 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John the Presbyter

Would you add to the article the quote from Irenaeus as to the identity of the "John" who taught Papias? It seems most relevant. --Wetman 01:22, 10 December 2006

Vladamir: I felt this article was fair.

[edit] 3rr report

Sorry! I should have spoken up so you didn't have to waste your time. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] Criticism of Christianity

Str, I noticed you recently edited this article. I don't have time to straighten outthe formating of the quotes near the picture of Luther. Could you look at it and correct the problem. THanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Jung -> C. G. Jung

Hi, I'm confused about your vote/comment in the move survey at Talk:Carl Jung. You voted to oppose the move of Carl Jung → C. G. Jung, but your comments,

This really should be uncontroversial, as there is no notable person called "Carl Jung". There is CG Jung or Carl Gust Jung but no Carl Jung.

if I understand them correctly, seem to favor leaving the article at Carl Jung. Did I misunderstand, or did you accidently vote Support when you meant Oppose? --Serge 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Just wanted to commend you for your hard work in maintaining this article and keeping it free of sensational and/or dubious content. The article, for the most part, is well-written, NPOV and accurate. LotR 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Gray

Well done. The grave was Charles McNeill Gray. The Colchester connection was an MP who seems not to have an article yet. -- Beardo 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus article and category

I recently noticed the new category added to the Jesus article of "Christian mythology". When I review the category, I am puzzeled by the category and do not feel it appropriate for this topic. Jesus and demonolgy or any of the other listed articles have nothing in common. Under proper context I am not opposed to the term mythology, but in general I oppose the term because of the difficulty of providing the proper context outside an academic environment. I would be curious to hear your thoughts; I might be completely off base. I will check back here to maintain a constant, more easily understood thread. Thanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian mythology

This editor has methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology, removing them. Not in the interests of the non-indoctrinated Wikipedia reader. --Wetman 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this visitor to this talk page thinks that this owner of this talk page would prefer to be addressed in the second person rather than referred to in the third. Sorry, no disrespect to Wetman. Just feeling a little flippant because it's so close to Christmas.

Also, this owner of this talk page did not remove "them"; he removed "some of them" — presumably the ones that he thought did not fit.

Actually, Str, if you wikistalk me, you might find something interesting here!

I'm cutting down on Wikipedia for a while. I know I keep saying that, but I really mean it this time. Apart from that paper that I have to write, my mother isn't very well. She had a discouraging result of some test — something to do with her heart. I don't actually think it's serious, but, as you know, I'm not the panicky type. She's very discouraged by it.

Oh, and if I do keep my promise to cut down, could you keep an eye on repeated attempts to remove a certain word from the opening paragraph of a certain article? ("Leading to or caused by . . .". See the talk page, and the sub talk page.) Thanks. AnnH ♫ 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to tell you — I just got my results for my German certificate this afternoon. I passed! Actually, I got distinctions in the exams, but not in the courses, because I didn't submit all the assignments (and consequently got zero for the ones I missed). I took the two courses in the same year, because I wasn't really a beginner. So I'm now officially about school-leaving standard. Mais je trouve que le français est beaucoup plus facile. AnnH ♫ 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)