User talk:Str1977/Archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Notes 2 Sudeten German Party 3 Austrian National Socialism 4 Your request 5 Banu Qurayza 6 caps 7 Legal and lawful 8 Beatles' talk page 9 When "POV" becomes indistinguishable from unfamiliarity 10 Desposyni 11 Further fantasies from IP 12 Thanks for your expertise 13 re Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes 14 working together on 15 Stalking 16 Talk:Tessarakonteres 17 Image:AbortionLawsMap05.jpg requires attention 18 Re: Image:AbortionLawsMap05.jpg 19 Virgin birth 20 Anoa'i family 21 God 22 Note 23 Rosie case 23.1 "Persistant adding anti-Catholicism section to Rosie O'Donnell" 23.2 WP:3RR violation 23.3 Summary 24 First Crusade 25 Re: Battle of the trench 26 Charles V 27 Edit warring 28 A word of advice 29 Rose Line 30 Re: User:Wfgh66 31 German Pretenders 32 MacArthur Park rallies controversy 33 Banu Qurayza Mediation redux 34 Banu Qurayza 35 Nazi concentration camp badges 36 Removal of comment 37 Dalek 38 Priory of Sion 39 Block for continued personal attacks

[edit] Notes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_German_Party http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetendeutsche_Partei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party_%28Austria-Hungary%29 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei_%28%C3%96sterreich-Ungarn%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_National_Socialist_Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Nationalsozialistische_Arbeiterpartei http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Nationalsozialistische_Arbeiterpartei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party

[edit] Sudeten German Party

1.The Sudetendeutsche Partei was also formed from parts of the Deutsche Nationalpartei, which is different from the Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei. So the Sudeten German Party is not simply a successor of the DNSAP. Shouldn't we separate these things from the article? Maximilian II 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the article doesnt really do justice to a party that won a "landslide victory" in 1935, upsetting everyone. The DNSAP was outlawed in 1933, but unfortunately Masaryk did not try to outlaw the Heimatfront, not that that would have put an end to the political turmoil. Maximilian II 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

2.What about German National(s) Party or just German Party? Maximilian II 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austrian National Socialism

I had created German Workers' Party (Austria-Hungary) (DAP), but there is some overlap with the Austrian National Socialism article. Should we rename the latter to the German National Socialist Workers' Party (Austria) (DNSAP) (we need a German National Socialist Workers' Party (Czechoslovakia) as well I guess)? I can imagine an article about "Austrian National Socialism," but this is not what the Austrian National Socialism article talks about. Maximilian II 01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)-->

[edit] Your request

It's done, my friend. And the other task is done as well. I e-mailed you a second batch of files today, and once you confirm that you received them and were able to open them, I'll send you the final batch. I'm afraid I'm too busy to be doing much editing, though. Blessings. Musical Linguist 19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Final batch sent! Musical Linguist 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Qurayza

I don't mean to disturb you, as you seem to be busy in real life, but please respond back at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Another_attempt as soon as you can. Thanks!Bless sins 00:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] caps

Sorry, my mistake. I don't have the published version, but the lowercase seems to be correct. Paul B 08:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal and lawful

I had a look, but I'm afraid it was beyond me! If I knew more about the whole background to the subject, I'd probably be in a better position to judge. Sorry. Musical Linguist 14:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles' talk page

I am really sorry if you felt hurt - I was only having fun. The editors on The Beatles' pages often joke with each other, and it was definitely not a joke against you. We are a wonderful bunch, and you should join us. Trust me on this one, please... :) egde 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your reply. It might seem to be serious, but what can fans of a band that ceased to exist in the 1960s do? We're a hopeless case, but we do have fun. Read between the lines, and add some jokes of your own, which will be greatly appreciated. :) egde 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When "POV" becomes indistinguishable from unfamiliarity

POV is completely antithetical to the purpose of a respectable encyclopedia. In your case, however, you are (I presume) mostly unfamiliar with the subject matter, therefore content you are not familiar with can look very similar to POV. James Parkes' "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue", Rabbi Harvey Falk's "Jesus the Pharisee", and Hyam Maccoby's work, is really required reading for this subject. If you're interested, you're welcome to enroll in the khavruta (distance learning program) provided by the Netzarim in Ra'anana, Israel (http://netzaril.co.il), which documents all of the basic information and earliest extant references in a very accessible manner.

Btw, by apostasy, I simply implied various events (or major people) that lead to the end of such sects, in chronological order. Few readers are familiar with how groups such as the ancient Netzarim and Evyonim mysteriously 'disappeared', so that section is important. Any other title for that section would easily do.

12.65.66.235 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desposyni

Dear Ovadayah, I have seen you got involved in the Desposyni article. I have long held many concerns about this article and think it needs to be seriously redone, including retititling it (though I certainly cannot agree with you diagnosis that it was written in a conservative Catholic POV - quite the opposite) - regardless of this, it needs work. I hope we can cooperate in this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Str1977. I thought at first glance that the article could be polished up for GA without too much effort. My mistake. As you say, it needs to be seriously redone. That's why I put it in for Cleanup in April. Alas, no takers so far. I'm willing to spend more time on it with some other collaborators. I mistakenly assumed it was conservative Catholic POV because of the extensive quotes of Malachi Martin. All of these quotes were copied verbatim from some group's religious website. Ovadyah 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I have urgent business outside of WP and cannot devote much time to certain projects: the Dep. article has long been on the back of my mind. My intention was to have an article titled either "Holy Kin" or, if that is too controversial, "Brethren of Jesus" or "Relatives of Jesus" which covers all this from a neutral perspective, giving first what the sources say, New Testament, Church fathers, going to interpretations and theories. The Dep. would become a redirect or cut down to explaining the term (until today I never found it in the sources, now there is one source) and maybe, but just maybe, summarizing what M. Martin and fringe writers say about this.

I understand why you thought it conservative catholic but, to be honest, Martin's stance puzzles me: he was a very traditionalist Catholic, quitting the Jesuits because of this but at the same time writes stuff like this (as the articles says: without any sources I knew of) which fits neatly into the vein of esoteric writers. The website is some sort of esoteric pseudo-Jewish-Christian, pseudo-Essene group. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further fantasies from IP

My replies to your four critiques on my talk page:

1. Well, I'm glad you're familiar with his writings (though that doesn't tell me whether or not you've actually read any of them), since a good encyclopedia is nowhere unless its editors have a rudimentary familiarity of the subject matter.

2. You're correct on certain terms: the very first documented proto-Christians, starting from 64 C.E. as a breakaway sect from the Beit Din in Jerusalem, called "Notzrim" (not Netzarim) in Hebrew, were Jews. Sha'ul of Tarsus (after his excision from the Netzarim always thereafter called Paul) was the ringleader of the breakaway group. Because I can't think of a better term in vernacular English for early followers of the rabbi from the Galil, "Jewish Christian" sticks...for now, even though it can convey the false impression that Judaism and Christianity were somehow mixed at any point in history. The facts that I cite are recognized by mainstream Judaism (see Jews for Judaism's http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/j4jlibrary/DaVinciCodeBook.pdf). Distinction should be made between that, and between the ancient Jewish followers of "Jesus" that remained in good standing with the Sanhedrin in the environment of ancient Judaism documented in Qumran scroll 4QMMT (do you know what I'm even referring to here?) As for the term "apostasy", it isn't POV. Look up 'apostasy' or 'apostate' in a dictionary and it will say something similar to 'abandonment or excommunication from the principals of a religious or national doctrine'.

3. This is the most insidious and destructive part of your critique. I never "invent" anything. A critique of my documentation of Hebrew, from someone that (I presume) can't read or speak Hebrew? Ancient Jews had Hebrew and Aramaic names, and they used them. If Wikipedia is "the sum of all human knowledge", then there is no reason to exclude that information from the database. Example: The name James "The Just" the son of Joseph. "James" is a further Anglicization of "Jacob", the Hebrew form of which is of course, Ya'aqov. Documented to be the "son of Joseph", which is Ben-Yoseiph in Hebrew. Finally, the title "The Just" is from the still-common-today ancient descriptor in Hebrew "ha-Tzadiq", meaning "the Righteous".

4. The picture depicts a professionally forensically-reconstructed Jewish face from the 1st century mainly for the purpose of depicting "Jesus" according to the most comprehensive archaeological information, as well as others from that era and location, which of course would have included all "Jewish Christians". It much more accurately represents the subject matter than an oil-painted image of a Nordic-Aryan man.

Again, those that are not sufficiently familiar with the documented facts should not be the final judges of whether or not those facts are most properly applied in the encyclopedia. Otherwise, don't get too involved in it; those that aren't sufficiently educated in Evolutionary science become "Creationists" that falsely criticize Evolution as having "no evidence" or being "just a theory", but they're documented to be wrong. 12.65.66.235 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I have read one book by that man and heard more about him. Not that I agree with his speculations.

2. Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy. Beit Din nonsense. Christianity (not by that name of course, but still the same thing) started as a Jewish sect alongside of the Pharisees (with which they were closest), the Saducees, the Essenes, the Zealots. Only the former two survived. Christianity became eventually more and more ethnically gentile (as many gentiles adopted it, while most Jews rejected Jesus), the heart of Jewish Christians was destroyed by the destruction of Jerusalem 132/5. Some Jewish Christian groups continued on their own (including the Ebionites). Shaul did not lead a breakaway group (oh, utter fantasy) but was an important missionary of early Christianity, a former pharisee and persecutor. He called himself Paul (his Roman name) when he entered a gentile setting, you can browse in Acts when the name first appears). Of course there were conflicts in regard to whether the gentile converts should be subjected to the whole law of Moses, but Paul, Barnabas, James the Just, John, Peter all agreed that they shouldn't. Whether anything you call mainstream Judaism accepts this is highly irrelevant. "Good standing with the Synedrion? Well, it was the highest law court until the year 70. 4QMMT was written way before Jesus' birth. "Apostasy" implies that those called apostates fell away from their earlier beliefs. In applying it you are claiming that your fantasy nonsense is not only fact but true. But there was no apostasy of Paul or anyone from the teaching of the Apostles.

3. Of course you invent names. I gladly accept any Hebrew or Aramaic name you can provide from extant sources. There is no such source that calls James, brother of the Lord "Yakob ha Tzadik". Sure, I agree that Jews at the time would have called him by that name (or by his patronym) but unless sources say so, it is OR. The worst is your invention of a Hebrew name for the father of Simon. We don't know the Hebrew name of Clopas, we don't even have a proper clue about it (as opposed to the easy ones Yakob, Simon, Yehuda, Yeshua). Inventing such names and placing them as if we had any secure knowledge of them is OR and archeologism.

4. "The picture depicts a professionally forensically-reconstructed Jewish face ..." - Indeed. But it is still not Jesus. I don't object to the picture being used in the Jesus article with a proper caption, as its makes claimed "this is how Jesus MIGHT have looked like". I have seen the programme myself years ago. The arguments never convinced me. In any case, there have been long discussions about this on the Jesus page. In any case, it is much to controversial for a Template, which appears all over WP. And no, it is not more accurate than the supposedly "Nordic-Aryan" (Aryans are from Iran and India, BTW) - the painting at least actually shows Jesus, the reconstruction just shows some hypothetical average-Levantine-Joe. If you ask me, how Jesus looked like, go there. But I don't insist on any picture for that template (maybe a fish would be good) but I oppose that fictious image.

Finally, could you please get rid of your unbearable arrogance, lecturing others about WP, assuming that they know nothing about the subject, that they shouldn't edit at WP - I am a registered editor with over 16,000 edits at WP in over two years, who are you? what do you have? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't want to reconcile? That's alright... In the future, I should (as well as anyone) maintain a cool head during polemics, and keep it friendly. I probably shouldn't have ever argued with in the first place with me being just a student; debating the accuracy of the 4th century Greek NT (I vote in the negative) requires that the foremost in the field be doing so, such as the only person in history that has reconstructed every NT text from all earliest extant source documents (Paqid Yirmeyahu). Peace man, no hard feelings. 12.65.66.235 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your expertise

Hello again. Thanks for your very helpful posts about matter and form and history of communion under both kinds. Since you stayed at the article and showed interest in other issues there, I don't feel that I forced you into giving up your time on something that you weren't really interested in. By the way, there's an article Communion under both kinds, which I think should have a little bit more about other denominations. I might have a go at adding to it over the summer, but it's not an urgent matter for me at the moment. Hope you're enjoying nice weather in Germany, if that's where you are. ElinorD (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes

Hi. You recently participated in the above RfA. I would comment that you placed your "oppose" vote in the neutral section. Please could you move it to the appropriate place. Thanks. ps. I have tallied it as an oppose, so I would be grateful if you could move it a.s.a.p. LessHeard vanU 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been moved for you... LessHeard vanU 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] working together on

Str1977 -- I noticed you started to edit Jesus-myth hypothesis. Right now everyone is getting reverted on anything but I don't think that can hold up for long. The agreement was to make this an article about a particular group of writers rather than being an article about "the truth". So in other words its trying to accurately describe a theory not trying to describe reality. Chensiyuan version shows you where it is headed. Would you be interested in working together on this (since Atheist + Christian would kill most POV claims)? jbolden1517^Talk 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See the history you are working on the presplit version. Thanks for being willing to act as a 3rd partyjbolden1517^Talk 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well essentially its an entirely different version of the article (for after the split). Latest version is [1]. jbolden1517^Talk 17:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

I consider your following me from article to article in an attempt to revert NPOV edits to be wikistalking. Please refrain from such behavior. Orangemarlin 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OM, that is a pretty heavy accusation. Normally, I would simply say that I would not expect such behavior from an editor like STR, but I went ahead and checked the contribs for you both. I don't see the evidence to back up such a claim. Rather, it appears that you both share an interest in some of the same topics - and happen to be at loggerheads right now. The reason I would state it in that way is that you have made edits to unrelated topics (e.g., Treasure ship and Tessarakonteres) that STR has not been anywhere near; and similarly, he has made edits to articles that have nothing to do with your current disagreement. Pastordavid 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OM, listen to Pastordavid here. I realize you've been editing some highly controversial topics, but be aware Str1977 has been here a long time, and is no newbie to those topics either. Perhaps you're a bit twitchy; reconsider this please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not make any change either to disrupt WP or to spite Orange but each and everyone purely for the topic's sake. It is however true that I had a look whether Orange displays the same, IMHO aggressive behaviour elsewhere - unfortunately he did but that was not the point of my changes. That is not wiki-stalking in any sense of the rulings cited above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Aggressive? BAH!!! Orangemarlin 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about your vengeful attitude. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Str, Om is clearly unhappy about the articles being split and rewritten over a period of a very few days, almost exclusively by two editors. And you know, I agree with him. This was not Gaining consensus before making major edits to a contentious subject, this was DE. That he has become frustrated enough, and twitchy enough, to be thinking your actions might be considered stalking, or that you've been editing the post-split-and-rewrite version of the article and hence caught in the crossfire, but surely you can find a less accusatory word than vengeful? Please reconsider this. You are commenting on the contributor, not the content, and failing to AGF, none of which is like you. Please take a moment to consider how we can move forward in a more productive fashion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Vengeful??? That implies that I want to take revenge on you, which isn't true. So apparently you are mindreading again (please, move on to another career path), and in doing so you confused my thinking that you are assisting a travesty, and I'm going to put my foot down with the word vengeful. You really should get your mindreading skills fixed, because they are failing you.Orangemarlin 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a few minutes reviewing your edits in several articles. I'm going to go with the Killer puppy that you aren't stalking, though you kept showing up at various articles that I was editing. It's still curious that you would, but it might be an intersection of interests. You have called me several names, and I have called you nothing. That's a negative point for you. I reverted without adequately explaining my intent. Maybe a -.0000001 point for me. OK, maybe slightly more. I'm personally concerned that you did not take the time to review my reasoning of reverts. I had been clear several times, and I did not feel it was necessary or useful to explain myself for the 18th time. Also, I saw several positive comments towards you from dab, bachman and borden, all of whom decided to destroy the article. You appeared to be a part of that group, but others are saying you were just caught in the crossfire. I actually chose not to read your edits, because you were editing a version that was unacceptable to several of us. Yet, you continued to edit them without either listening to or maybe accepting our concerns with the base article. I've read your edits, and why they appeared to be OR and POV to me was that you were enhancing the OR and POV of the original document (meaning the destroyed one, not the original one). Please please please wait for us to get back to the original article. Orangemarlin 02:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I hit save before I wanted to. Last point. If you understand what I'm saying, then I want peace, and your help to reconstruct the original article and improve from there. On Noah's Ark, you need to review past commentary about mythical ships. If you don't agree with the consensus formed there, then you need to either build a new consensus, or relax. But forcing POV edits where a consensus was formed isn't fair to the whole host of editors that got there first. I have been told that you are long-time editor. It's interesting that you show up suddenly to several articles, where I've never seen your name. Then you go chasing me across a whole host of articles. Hence the accusation of stalking. But if you can see what I'm saying, you don't have to agree, but it will bring peace. That's all for now. Orangemarlin 02:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, one more thing. Don't copy my talk page to other locations. That's what trolls do. If you really are what everyone says you are (and I put it this way because I don't see it, it's just that people I trust are saying that you are a good guy), you wouldn't do trollish things like copy my page. Orangemarlin 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Orange,

I did not call YOU names but commented on what I think unacceptable behaviour. You may disagree but it is not name-calling.

You didn't call me either .... and that was actually what I complain about. That you didn't tell me your concerns.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept your explanation that I was "caught in the cross-fire": I did not edit based Jbolden's version - he was reverted quite independent of me and my edits - you did revert only my edits. And even if your explanation were true (I guess you reverted me without lookin under the impression that I upheld Jbolden) simply repeated unexplained reverting is not solution to this. :If you do "not read edits" than you should not revert them. "Yet, you continued to edit them without either listening to or maybe accepting our concerns with the base article." Not at all - I discussed several items on the talk page and got a go ahead. You reverted me asking where this was discussed but when I pointed it out to you, you didn't react (except by reverting).

Nor can I accept the reasoning that I was editing based on a disputed version (untrue, except from jbolden's perspective) and that was reason enough to revert me. If I revert someone on another page I must ensure that later valid edits do not get lost. And if I don't deem them valid, I must explain my case.

I also object to your deeming me guilty by association. I had contacts with Dbachman before (I can't remember where) but not on this article.

I will not get involved much on Noah's Ark but must say that article's are always subject to change, categories included. That's what the disclaimer on the edit page says. But never mind. I agree that the Ark is a mythological ship under a certain definition of mythology (with which I disagree but which happens to be accepted). The treasure ship however doesn't seem to fit that word under any accepted definition.

I copied your talk page content to the article talk page to get the discussion going. Had you only replied to me or would others not have ignored the issue, thinking jbolden the only issue worth rising, it wouldn't have come to this.

I am willing to let bygones be bygones and hope for peace. Could you please indicate on the talk page which of the several version is acceptable to you so that I can work on it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much confused where we stand now. I'll focus on it. Sorry about the guilt by association, but I pulled out a shotgun, because a sniper rifle was just not as efficient. I couldn't think of a better metaphor, so please don't think I was considering violence (I hate being misinterpreted). I'll try to figure out where we stand with the article. Orangemarlin 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tessarakonteres

The mythology/not debate is getting well and truly underway. I see you edited against mythology and thought you might be interested in weighing in. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AbortionLawsMap05.jpg requires attention

Hello. An image you had previously uploaded, Image:AbortionLawsMap05.jpg, did not have a licensing tag. Another editor has tagged the image as {{GFDL-presumed}}. You may wish to visit the image page and provide the correct license. You can view a list of all the image licensing tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All. The image risks being nominated for deletion as failing to have a license. Many of these {{GFDL-presumed}} image are used on User pages. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Go ahead and add your own license to the map. It's a derivation of an old version of Image:AbortionLawsMap.png, so, technically, it's not my work, and I wouldn't want to take credit for it (sort of like how AbortionLawsMap is based on Image:BlankMap-World.png). -Severa (!!!) 08:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:AbortionLawsMap05.jpg

Thank you for the clarification. Upon looking into it further, I saw that he had released it into the public domain which makes it A-OK for you to do with as you please. Sorry for any confusion. Zsinj^Talk 12:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin birth

I agree the virgin birth does not apply just to Islam, but why should it be in Christianity alone? Is there anyway we can somehow solve it and put it in both? Or is the purpose of the Islam section just to point out where we differ from Christianity (which is rather depressing). The reason I put Virgin Birth there was to hint at the other miracles at Jesus' birth besides his mother's virginity, ie him talking as a baby and bringing inanimate objects to life in the Qur'an (and in the Gospel of Thomas II). --Enzuru 20:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'll think about a nice way of doing that. --Enzuru 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anoa'i family

I have removed some links to online forums in this article. Kevin 05:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God

Would you mind, if you have time, to take a look at the recent edits to the intro to God and the talk page posts concerning it? Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, you did more than I'd hoped. I know you're busy, so I hesitated to ask - and much appreciate the improvements you've made! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

[2]

[edit] Rosie case

[edit] "Persistant adding anti-Catholicism section to Rosie O'Donnell"

Greetings, I notice you're not using the talk page to talk about re-adding the same anti-Catholicism section to Rosie O'Donnell that has been removed so I am bringing the discussion to you directly in good faith that you will read this and refrain from reposting that section until the following issues are addressed. The topic has been discussed at length and two of the points to the section you keep re-adding that you might want to consider.

"Quoting an inflamatory press release about two celebrities doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic to me. In context of the rest of the article I could see a phrase added "accused of being anti-Catholic for views on____" but the entire section needs to go unless beefed up and vetted." As a result the press release quote was removed and the abortion comments were moved into the intro section of The View.

"if this section is to have any meaning what is needed are quotes of what she said, not just what Donohue characterized it as. This is no more than his biased opinion, backed up only by his own POV press release. NO independent reporting whatsoever. The whole thing should go - it is clearly pushing a POV."

O'Donnell may very well be anti-Catholic but to re-add the section please find her quotes, if she is anti-Catholic these should be easy to come by from NPOV references and links. Benjiboi 18:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again please address the issues referenced above and on the talk page of the article before adding back a section that had previously been removed and tagged as NPOV before it was removed. The issues remain the same, Donahue and the Catholic League are not neutral and their press release quote is general innapropriate for an encyclopedia. The only other newsworthy quote I've found related to O'Donnell possibly being anti-catholic is her refering to pedophile priests moving from parish to parish because the Catholic Church was afraid of lawsuits. Benjiboi 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR violation

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've posted about this at WP:AN/3RR, but obviously, I didn't want to pretend I was a neutral administrator offering an unbiased review of the block, and even more obviously, it would be highly improper for me to unblock you! Cheer up. Think of the user who was huffing and puffing and spluttering and calling for my desyopping and banning last year because he submitted an invalid report against you and I refused to take action. No doubt if he sees this, he'll be singing my praises for not unblocking you! Musical Linguist 00:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Having examined the report, this block appears to be an error on Jossi's part. Hopefully you will be unblocked soon.Proabivouac 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been unblocked. Sorry about the delay; jossi asked for a review which I did and promptly went offline, unaware he had also gone offline. I was thinking he wanted my review and would be making any corrections himself, whereas it seems he was asking me to check and take action. My error entirely. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 is a good editor. I've worked with him for 2 years and I don't recall any 3RR incidents involving him during that period. It's unclear to me, from looking through the edit history at Rosie O'Donnell, at which point the edit conflict actually began. It seems that the "Accusations of Anti-Catholicism" section had been in the article for a while, first being inserted on February, 20 2007 by Mamalujo. It was removed from the article on May 31, 2007 by Benjiboi, and then reinserted on June 11 by Mamalujo, the editor who added it in the first place. Benjiboi took it out again on the next day. I don't support "class detention"-type 3RR blocks, but, in this case, I don't think we can hold a single editor responsible for having edit-warred to advance their preferred version of the article (I am assuming good faith on the part of everyone involved). The edit conflict between Benjiboi and Mamalujo over the "anti-Catholicism" section had evidently been going on for a while before Str1977 entered the fray. That said, though, I am a little concerned by how much of the O'Donnell article is dedicated to personal controversies and how little to biographical background. -Severa (!!!) 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro, KC, Severa, thanks for all your support.

However, I (or rather my IP) happen to still be blocked, so if anyone reads this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Need more info to unblock. A block ID or an IP address would suffice.--Chaser - T 06:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock-auto}}

Give us the ID of the autoblock, otherwise we can't lift it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. Sorry for replying so late but I was offline the whole day. Apparently it works now. Don't know what happened. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very good that you have been unblocked. I hope such errors will not happen again. Beit Or 10:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note I was working to avoid an edit war throughout this process. Also I pretty much had nothing to do with the previous edit wars (if there were any) and had little to no interaction with Mamalujo. I also did not, in fact, simply removed the section but split it as documented both before and after in the talk pages. Although my interest was not in getting someone blocked but actually improving the article I still feel the article is worse off than before because that section is as it was. A disappointing experience but a good lesson learned before I spent more time. I appreciate that Str1977 may be a wonderful editor but my experience was less than stellar, and I feel like a lot of my time and research was not only wasted but ridiculed. Benjiboi 12:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I will reply more detailed later but I find it hard to believe this story. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you filed two defective 3RR reports in just over 24 hours. The first was dismissed, the second was just confusing enough to result in a block and an ensuing debate. Whatever your intentions, such junk reports waste people's time, are objectively disruptive, and are no more a substitute for dispute resolution than is edit warring. As WP:ANI/3RR exists to report actual violations only, please familiarize yourself thoroughly with WP:3RR before proceeding.Proabivouac 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I find this a bit strange as well. Benjiboi, you say that your interest was in improving the article, not in getting someone blocked. So you filed not one but two invalid 3RR reports? I don't know if you're a new editor, but new editors sometimes do file 3RR reports that only involve three reverts, and they're gently told that the report is invalid, as you were. But the second report is hard to dismiss as coming from someone who wasn't trying to get Str blocked, and who didn't actually know that it was invalid. You seem to be trying to give the impression that he wasn't using the talk page, ignore the fact that he edited it eighteen times (which is more than you did) in the period covered by your report, and report one revert which was clearly outside the 24-hour period and another revert which wasn't a revert at all and which came after his previous edit, where nobody else had edited in between. Don't be surprised if people struggle with this a bit. Musical Linguist 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a new editor and only went to the 3rr to bring an end to what I saw as an endless edit war. The first 3rr was dismissed as it wasn't the 4th vio, the second report to me was pretty strait forward as far as I knew and I'm not supposse to be the expert. That's why admin people do 3rr's not me. I felt Str1977's escalating language and actions weren't productive, i suppose he thought the same as me. In any case if you look at the conversations I think they do speak for themselves. In the end y'all win, the section which seems flawed, in quite a few people's opinion besides mine, is back in just as it was. Benjiboi 20:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s.I forgot to reference [3] as proof of my intentions. Benjiboi 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

Okay, let's look closely at what happened in the Rosie O'Donnel situation:

I came across the Rosie O'Donnell article and found something to be POV pushing and therefore flagged the section as such [4]. Since I found the passage even worse on a second look, I tackled the problem myself and made the edit approproate IMHO [5]. A third change was merely one of wording.

At that point I was never concerned with the "anti-Catholicism" section that was part of the article at that time.

In comes Benjiboi and blanket reverts not only that section into oblivion (as his edit summaries says, though it also pretends that there were not a-C quotes in the section) but also everything in between, including my concerns about the controversy intro and the slight wording issue.

(As the next move, Benji included a even worse POV pushing when he pretends that Rosie's bigotted comment was somehow an issue of fact and as such confirmable by Mrs Walters [6])

When I found out that Benji had blanket reverted my edits (without any reasoning whatsoever I might add), had deleted an entire section (I was unaware of any previous discussion) and added the "POV pushing through Barbara Walters" to the little that remained I reverted him [7]

He reverted me back after a couple of hours [8] pointing me to the talk page. He also posted on my talk page (above). Though I indeed hadn't used the talk page on this issue yet I at least explained myself in edit summaries. All I did was included in my edit summaries, which cannot be said for Benji.

Benji also increased the POV pushing I initially had objected to by adding the "context" that these were "more important issues" [9]

Following Benji's advice I explained myself on talk and since Benji did not convince me or had provided any valid reasoning, I reverted him [10]

While Benji deleted the "a-C" section he also moved parts of it to the The View section. Re-adding the section made this redundant and so I removed the redundancy [11]. Adding this to The View also creates undue weight, as if the show would have contained little else.

Benji re-added the passage, claiming that it was not redundant [12] and then removed the a-C section again [13] (thereby hiding the fact that was indeed redundant).

I reacted by restoring what I deemed a proper coverage of the issue [14]

So, sure this can be deemed edit warring. But remember, that it takes two to edit-war.

After my last edit, Benjiboi filed a 3RR report at 10:11 June 13 with a reasoning that included false statements, e.g.

• that I had "strong" belief that the subject was anti-Catholic - I never talked about Rosie in general or her true beliefs but merely about her comments,
• or that you "carefully tried to reason" - merely saying "right-wing sources (whatever these are) don't count" and then revert is not reasoning - also your "reasoning" is not covered by WPS:RS

Anyway, if it were a 3RR violation it would still be a proper report as 3RR is enforced regardless of who is right or wrong in a discussion. But you report actually only covered three reverts and not four as required (because I had not reverted four times) - this was pointed out to you ant the report therefore rejected [15]

Now, you say you are a new user. You might not have known that the 3RR is actually a "no more than three reverts rule" - but that can't be quite true as you actually presented four reverts and a version reverted to that however only contained three reverts and two (currently dead) external links.

After this failure you should have educated yourself about the rule, the way of reporting, what constitutes a revert and what not. But obviously you were not doing the thing but only waited how you could get at me anyway.

And then I made a mistake. The mistake was that I actually tried to work towards a compromise and made this edit which IMHO solves one of our issues, how to include Rosie's reaction to criticism of her comments (discussed on the talk page under "Controversy intro").

What do I get for my attempt at compromise. Only twenty minutes later, you report me again,

• with a similarly inaccurate reasoning
• still with no version reverted too (what is it about the versiontime link? Use a proper version to link to)
• at first not giving any diffs
• with a revert that wasn't within a 24h span
• with my "compromise edit" that is no revert under the 3RR at all
• hence with only two actual revertsno, you corrected this afterwards, but still only the same three reverts as in the first report

Because I wasn't online during this whole business and because you didn't inform me that you reported me (as it is customary), your tactics at first worked through an admin's error. You therefore have succeeded in blackening my name. But thankfully I was unblocked again. And now you dishing up this story:

• "I was working to avoid an edit war throughout this process."

Actually, you were edit warring yourself.

• "I also did not, in fact, simply removed the section but split it as documented both before and after in the talk pages."

No, you actually worsened it by adding POV comments leading the reader in a certain direction, endorsing the bigotry (in denial) of the statement.

• "Although my interest was not in getting someone blocked

That's ridiculous. If I file a report at 3RR I am trying to get someone (who I consider disruptive) blocked.

• "but actually improving the article I still feel the article is worse off than before because that section is as it was."

Then why did you refile your report after I was moving in the direction of compromise on one issue? Or didn't you bother to read what I changed?

• "A disappointing experience but a good lesson learned before I spent more time."

Disappointing for me too, as I had to encounter edit-warring in denial, bigotry (Rosie's) in denial (Benji's) and have lost my clean slate due to the persistance of Benji and the error of an admin.

• "I appreciate that Str1977 may be a wonderful editor"

I can't comment on this.

• "but my experience was less than stellar, and I feel like a lot of my time and research was not only wasted but ridiculed."

I never ridiculed you. But then, I never saw any research, only the repeated (false) claim that only the sources you like do count.

And later:

• "I am a new editor and only went to the 3rr to bring an end to what I saw as an endless edit war."

Only, when you filed the report there was no active edit war. When you refiled it, I had just moved towards compromise in one of the issues.

• "The first 3rr was dismissed as it wasn't the 4th vio, the second report to me was pretty strait forward as far as I knew"

You mean the second report that didn't add any violation (as one edit was way outside the 24 hour period and the other no revert at all)

• "and I'm not supposse to be the expert."

Oh, yes you are supposed to be the expert. If you protest a rule violation you should know what the rule is.

• "That's why admin people do 3rr's not me."

No, they do it so that a third, involved person is involved - not because they know the rules better.

• "I felt Str1977's escalating language and actions weren't productive, i suppose he thought the same as me."

Indeed I did. But I didn't file inaccurate and invalid reports to oust my opponent.

• "In any case if you look at the conversations I think they do speak for themselves."

Indeed, a constant repetition of the same argument that sources you don't like don't count.

• "In the end y'all win, the section which seems flawed, in quite a few people's opinion besides mine, is back in just as it was."

Note Benji that those editors not agreeing with your 3RR report have no stake in the content issue. And as far as those "quite a few people#s opinion", it was you and you alone that was involved with me on this (with one single comment by another editor on the talk page - but the edit warring was solely you and me).

As for the reference of good intentions. It was merely calling me to the talk page. It contains the IMHO invalid reasoning that because a press release is supposedly "inflammatory" and "right-wing" it can be discarded. Donahue and the Catholic League can be criticized but to simply act as they did not exist and as if their utterances didn't count is a bit rich. Especially if one then turns around and not only denies Rosie's bigotted commented but actually rephrases it into an issue of facts (thus indirectly endorsing it). I guess some people would call utterances by the ADL and the ACLU or whatever organisation as inflammatory. And they might be (or not) but that cannot be a reason to disqualify them.

Case closed, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The same anti-Catholic section that you added repeatedly was in question long before I ever showed up and is documented in the talk pages, hence my encouragement for you to at least read them before you made your edits. That same section which I feel is suspect and POV pushing, at least in part, does not hold up compared to all the other "controversial sections" which I had also looked at to improve grammar and references. That section is as it was before I started any work on the article and it remains (I think exactly) as it was with the same issues I've referenced above and others have referenced before me on the talk pages. My intent has never waived from making the article better and _if_ there is merit to Rosie O'Donnell being anti-Catholic then fine. If the section remains _accused_ of being anti-Catholic then seems unencyclopedic as many public figures are regularly accused of being bigoted (your word) (or racist, or homophobic, or classist, etc). Benjiboi

[edit] First Crusade

Hi Str1977, I noticed you added a "fact" tag to the bit about not accepting a crown in Jerusalem...there is a section on the talk page about who said what, so if you have any input, you are welcome to join the discussion! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Battle of the trench

This is the second part of my comment on Talk:Battle of the Trench.

I think Watt means "sieges" in the sense they have been used in history. When the prophet "beseiged" the other tribes, the case was that the tribe simply locked themselves up and the Muslims waited for them to surrender. Muslims, or the "besieging" party, had the upper hand; while the besieged were militarily at a disadvatange. In this case, the besieging party (i.e. the Confederates) were at the disadvantage, and were desperate to find some way of breaking in. Indeed, this has been the case for most of history, where the besiegers have used all sorts of siege weapons. The fact that siege weapons were used means the besiegers coudn't simply "wait" for the besieged people to come out.

The above is Bless_sins' personal view and it not intended to be an interpretation of Montgomery Watt's book. The discussion on Battle of the Trench should be based only upon scholarly research.Bless sins (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles V

For the benefit of other editors, I here repost an exchange between me and Emperor001 on my and his talk pages:

You said that Charles V did abdicate in 1556. Well, the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition disagrees with you. From it, I draw the following quotation: "In 1556 also, he practically surrendered the empire to Ferdinand, and in 1558 he formally abdicated as emperor." You can look at it yourself at http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Charles5HRE.html. Emperor001 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your source has it wrong.

According to the detailed timeline in Ernst Schulin, Kaiser Karl V. Geschichte eines übergroßen Wirkungsbereichs., Charles handed over the Netherlands to his son Philip on October 25, 1555, handed over Spain, Sicily and America to Philip on January 16,1556, and finally resigned the Imperial dignity in favour of his brother Ferdinand on August 3, 1556 with however leaving Ferdinand at liberty to decide when to assume that dignity himself (note only the dignity of an Emperor elect, as Ferdinand had already been King for more than twenty years). Ferinand entered into negotiations with the Electors and on March 14, 1558 he was formally declared Emperor elect (it took a few more years to get the Pope to recognize this however). Charles was still alive at that point - he died on September 21 - but had no part in the matter.

So in 1558 it was not Charles who laid down the Imperial dignity but Ferdinand who took it up. Charles formally resigned all his rule in 1555 and 1556.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You sure my source is wrong. The way I interpreted formal abdication was that in 1556, he allowed Ferdinand to assume full control, but did not sign any actual document stating an abdication until 1558. I'm pretty sure the Columbia Encyclopedia would not make a mistake like that. Emperor001 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Please don't needlessly edit war over your personal style preferences. Thanks. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and I am the one who completely rewrote the article and put it in standard last name first style. Please don't move away from a documented standard for personal aesthetic issues. Not everyone agrees with you that it is "ugly". That's not a valid reason, only a personal preference. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely true that I rewrote the article to base it on secondary sources. Here's the diff for a long series of edits. At the end, all references were last name first. Please maintain that as it was from that time the established and consistent form used in the article. There is no need to keep changing it and then reverting it when I put it back the way I wrote it. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's clear that you have a personal preference for first name first. That's not enough to override a widespread standard that last name should go first. I carefully formatted all my references to adhere to the standard used all throughout Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but I ask you to stop messing with it. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't allow needless edit warring over AD vs. CE, British vs. American spelling, etc. The article was consistently last name first at this point on 13 February and stay that way until you started reversing the names on the 19th. Please desist. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A word of advice

Please be aware that you and Wednesday Next are both either already violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF or coming dangerously close. If you aren't careful, you will both be blocked. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have no intention of attacking Wednesday personally. Nothing I said was meant that way. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rose Line

Your edit confuses the facts. Rose Line, as a currently popular term, refers to the Paris Meridian. Brown mistakenly conflated this with the gnomon. We have a source, the church sign, quoted in an article, that the gnomon was never called a Rose Line. My version kept these distinctions clear. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Julian of Halicarnassus

[edit] Re: User:Wfgh66

As per your email regarding User:Wfgh66 - I checked his block log and it looks like User:Sam Korn unblocked him two weeks ago. I don't understand why he needs you to email on his behalf. In any case, prior of sion dot com was determined to the locus of much on-wiki disruption and spamming. I see no reason why that would have changed. You are welcome to appeal this to the folks that maintain the black list at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Ronnotel (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German Pretenders

Would you please stop removing the pretenders section from the List of German monarchs. The German Empire was not a federation. It was more like a federal government with a constitution unifying the states. There was an Imperial government and there were state governments. There were certain powers held by each level. For example, during a war, only the Imperial government could have an army and even during a time of peace, only the Kingdoms of Bavaria, Saxony, and Wurrtemburg could have limited armies. Money was issued by the German government. The pretenders to the Prussian throne are also pretenders to the extinct German throne because the Constitution of the German Empire stated that the King of Prussia was also German Emperor. All of the articles about the pretenders list Crown Prince Wilhelm-Georg Friedrich as the in pretense German Emperor and King of Prussia. Emperor001 (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, please stop removing the pretenders section. Under the Constitution of the German Empire, the King of Prussia was German Emperor. Therefore, the pretender to the Prussian throne is also pretender to the German throne. Emperor001 (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the section again? Also, why don't you ever respond to any of these comments. Lets solve this argument on our talk pages rather than starting an edit war. Emperor001 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MacArthur Park rallies controversy

Hello. I notice you created the above article on January 22. I don't know if you were aware, but Wikipedia already has an article on this subject: see The Los Angeles May Day mêlée. (That may not be the best title, but the article itself is much longer and more developed.) I have suggested merging these two articles together; your comments are welcome at Talk:The Los Angeles May Day mêlée#Merge proposal. Terraxos (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Qurayza Mediation redux

Hey, where have you been? How have you been? Look, I know the mediation didn't go so well and all that was happening was a revert war on the page but I've decided to try one last time on the talk page to solve the disputes but this time in a hopefully more controlled and now unofficial mediation on the many changes that you and Bless are disagreeing over and I'll be unofficial mediator seeing not only have most of the disputes you've had w/ me have been solved but the majority of reverts that were happening I didn't have connection with. Please, I ask that you give it another shot. I have the topic already setup on the BQ talk page if you want to join in w/ more details on how I want to approach everything. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Str1997, I just wanted to drop a note to remind you that anything that happens during a Mediation with the Committee is confidential and cannot be used against the participants later. Please do not edit the closed mediation, however, if anyone is trying to use the mediation or its closure against you, please let me know and I will resolve that issue. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 10:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not trying to do that to Str1977 but I don't like that we've all left off on a bad note and I wanted to wrap up what was left in the best manner possible. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no, you may not edit a closed case. This is not an action up for debate. I understand that you disagree with my reasons for closing the case, but I think the fact that you're willing to edit war over the mediation page with me yet again goes a long way towards showing my judgment was on point here. If you would like to bring up the issue, you're welcome to do so on the talk page for the Mediation Committee. Shell ^babelfish 21:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Qurayza

Hi Str1977, Firstly: Have you read Kisters article? Secondly: "Bat Ye'or" and Tariq Ramadan are no recognized academic authors - that's simply a fact. Thirdly: What you have deleted in the end was pretty much work of mine and was certainly not irrelevant. The issue is pretty important and has to be described in detail. I have tried to be brief and concise as far as possible. But, as Einstein once said: Make it easy, but not easier than that. The way it's standing there now is simply too short. You also deleted the mentioning of the fact about the circumstances and that it was not a model for later times, as well as one or two other sources next to Paret and Watt (namely Stillman and the EI1). There is certainly no harm in the way it was written by me. --Devotus (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made it shorter, just about between your and my version. Hope you're OK with it. --Devotus (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi concentration camp badges

Hiya, I notice that on 4th March 2008, you removed that women using birth control were assigned black triangles from this article, stating that 'referenced article does not mention birth control', or words to that effect. On the first line of the article referenced it states "Lesbians, unmarried mothers, prostitutes, women who had abortions"... Would you not agree that abortion is a form of birth control, if a distasteful one? Nanobot recurve (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of comment

Hello, I notice that you removed my comment (as you don't seem to have liked it). Whatever. Please undo your edit on child marriage, or I'll assume that you want to go out of your way to violate WP:STALK and WP:V. If you delete this message, I'll assume you have read it.Bless sins (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am free to remove posts from my talk page even if I do not have a header on the page like you have. Also, I did not just remove but also posted the answer in the edit summary: I reverted you because you provided no sound reasoning for your removal - WP is about verifiability not likelihood. I see no harm in retaining the tag a little longer. I don't understand why you call on me to und my edit. Why don't you do it yourself? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I will. But please remember a few things: Do not WP:STALK me again. Also, do not insert contentious unsourced information in. WP:V says "[unsourced information] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Therefore do not make such flagrant violations of the policy.Bless sins (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd advise you not to as by now some other editor has provided a reference. Which proves my reverting you wrong. Please be less quick to delete stuff. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No I think the "be less quick" is completely wrong. Jimbo Wales has said:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Note where he says "aggressively" and "true for all information".Bless sins (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dalek

Stop removing the fonetic spelling from Dalek. Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation), especially the first paragraph, which states: "Sound-alike" transcriptions may be used in addition to the IPA. There is nothing "childish" about that; fonetic spelling is quite normal, as not everyone (if most) cannot read IPA. — Edokter • Talk • 10:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fonetic" is not even a word and has no article on WP - yes - is and remains childish. If you can't read IPA, educate yourself or listen to the soundbite. An encyclopedia containing this nonsense cannot be taken seriously. A pity some people safeguard this nonsense. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. And don't edit conflict me on my page. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean "phonetic", and I really can't edit-conflict on purpose. WP:MOS-P is very clear however; you can't expect everyone to be able to understand IPA, and as such 'sound-alike' spelling is permiited. — Edokter • Talk • 10:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Priory of Sion

Str1977, can you help us in standardizing the citation of sources for the Priory of Sion article according to the Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines as soon as possible? Can you tell me which citation style you will follow from now on because the one User:Wfgh66 have been using is not appropriate? --Loremaster (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Before editing their respective articles, please read my comments and questions on the the Talk:Priory of Sion and Talk:The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail pages. --Loremaster (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block for continued personal attacks

I know this has been mentioned to you before, but attacking other editors you disagree with really isn't acceptable at Wikipedia. Calling someone a "supporter of terrorism"[16] because you don't agree with a source they chose is way over the line. You've had plenty of warnings, so I'm afraid I've had to block you for 24 hours. Please think about finding a way to make your opinions heard without resorting to name-calling; this kind of behavior really weakens your position and makes it difficult for others to work with you or take you seriously. Shell ^babelfish 08:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that while Str1977 is technically correct in that he called a living person and not another editor a supporter of terrorists, this does not excuse the remark or the history and pattern of uncivil behavior and attacks on other editors. If anyone would like further details or diffs, please feel free to shoot me a note or an email. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 09:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop copying and pasting other discussions here. As I said in my edit summary, this violates the GFDL by fragmenting the history and thus breaking the chain of authors required. Also, during your block you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia, which includes article talk pages - copying them here to get around that restriction is not acceptable. Shell ^babelfish 10:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I will not force this issue now because you obviously have the power to enforce your strange ideas and, given what you already did, would be more than happy to harm me some more.

I have every right to edit my own talk page. I will not abuse this right as others have done. Most of what I did was maintenance. Despite your bad faith comments, I did not try to get round any restriction. When you falsely blocked me, I was in the midst of comment on a talk page. I couldn't save my comments because of you. Hence I put them there.

As I said I will not force this issue but let me state that any remaining respect I might have had for you has been utterly erased. You are not welcome here either. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)