User talk:Str1977/Archive3

Pius XII
Da du deutscher Muttersprachler bist, aber in der deutschen Wikipedia keine eigene Diskussionsseite hast(zumindest ist da ja nichts los) denke ich, dass ich das hier mal reinstellen kann.

Es ist schon etwas länger her, als ich auf der Diskussionsseite zu Pius XII dargelegt habe, dass der Protest der niederländischen Bischöfe keine Vergeltungsaktion zur Folge hatte. Daraufhin wurde mir dann vorgeworfen, dass ich irgendetwas falsch gemacht hätte, ich keine große Diskussion anfangen sollte, weil man auf der Diskussionsseite nur die Änderungen bespricht und weniger große Diskussionen führt etc. Da mein Englisch so oder so für eine längere Diskussion nicht ausreicht hab ich mich dann zurückgezogen.

Du meintest, dass es nicht viel Sinn macht danach zu fragen, ob der besagte Protest schlimm Folgen hatte oder nicht - wichtig ist was Pius XII darüber dachte. Aber gibt es überhaupt Beweise dafür, dass der Papst das Beispiel der Niederlande in seine Überlegungen miteinbezog? Die Formulierung dieses Gedankens lautet ja bekanntermaßen "ad maiora mala vitanda" und findet sich in einem Brief an Bischof Preysing. Beispielsweise hier:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:NKZcdPO37b0J:www.pthv.de/akademietage/hummel%252004.pdf

Aber dort findet sich kein Hinweis auf die Niederlande. Was gibt es denn für andere Argumente die die Behauptung stützen der Papst hätte sich die Geschehnisse in den Niederlanden zu Herzen genommen? --87.122.87.130 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Du bist schon ein Scherzkeks. Da weise ich dich in der englischen Wikipedia daraufhin, dass der Protest der niederländischen Bischöfe keine Verschlechterung der Situation für die katholischen Konvertiten mit sich brachte und frage einige Zeit später dann noch mal, ob du denn zumindest einen Hinweis darauf hast, dass Pius XII eben dies tatsächlich dachte. Und du gehst gleich in den deutschen wiki-artikel und schreibst deine Version der niederländischen Geschichte dort hin.

Wie sieht es denn mit dem Beweis dafür aus, dass Pius XII tatsächlich das Beispiel der Niederlande in seine Überlegungen mit einbezog? Weder in dem Brief an Preysing, noch in der Ansprache an das Kardinalskollegium(beides 1943), die oft als Beleg für das Argument "Ad maiora mala vitanda" gelten finde ich einen expliziten Hinweis auf die Niederlande.

Gibts dazu was in den ADSS? Ich hab natürlich nicht jedes Dokument durchstöbern können, dafür sind es zuviele, aber ich habe in den entsprechenden Bänden das Jahr 1942 per Namensregister auf Erzbischof de Jong oder Edith Stein durchsucht und nix gefunden.

Auch in der bekannten Sekundärliteratur fand ich immer nur den Hinweis darauf, dass der Protest de Jongs angeblich das Leben der katholischen Juden gefährdete, aber nie einen Verweis auf ein Dokument in dem der Papst diesen Sachverhalt niederschreibt.

Da ich in der englischen wiki keinen Account hat: Ich bin der User narziss.

Edit Wars Over Notation
Reverting of vandalism is not subject to the 3RR rule. However, edit warring is not vandalism.

It is common for POV-pushers and edit warriors to say that they are reverting vandalism, but the ArbCom has usually been very strict in what they consider to be vandalism. Also, making a false claim of vandalism is a personal attack, and can result in being blocked.

I know that one ArbCom case involved an edit war over AD/CE.

I would suggest just ignoring the dispute. We all know that CE and AD mean the same era, and if we believe in Jesus, that is more important than what we call the years. I have not read the Historicity of Jesus article in detail and do not plan to read it. I know what I think and believe. Present-day Catholic teaching is that Catholics should try to win converts to Christianity by setting a moral example, rather than by arguing. We can set a moral example by being respectful, because even atheists are human beings. You knew that.

I don't think that I answered your question. Wikipedia attracts some very unpleasant people. Some of them think that they are Christians, and some of them hate Christians. Tomorrow (by United States time) I will listen to a priest tell me how to be a better Christian, and will then join with other Christians in the Body of Christ. Robert McClenon 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

German Wikipedians' notice board
May I invite you to contribute here? I am sure there are many topics where more cooperation or coordination between German editors could help build a better Wikipedia. Feel free to suggest what we should do (the board is still in its infancy) or how or to request help at Wikipedia talk:German Wikipedians' notice board. And please invite others to the board as well! Danke, Kusma (討論) 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's supposed homosexuality
Regarding your Revision as of 00:09, 14 February 2006. Your deletion of the my entire input on the homosexuality of Adolf Hitler with the edit comment "reinsert proper numbers, rv POV-based (see edit summary) insertion of details" is unacceptable vandalism as is any form of homophobia at Wikipedia. The information I inserted on Hitler's sexuality is NPOV and is fact-based with direct quotes from impeccable scholarship by William L. Shirer, Professor Lothar Machtan and others and endorsed by numerous scholars, respected critics, and major media including those from the gay community. The Arbitration Committee has already banned others from making homosexuality/bisexuality edits. If you have concerns as to the validity of anything I insert into the article, then please follow Wikipedia policy procedures and enunciate them here. Karl Schalike 15:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, the info you inserted into Hitler was word for word accurate (I guess you are referring to this by naming Shirer - Machtan is not impeccable scholarship but the author of the fringe theory). However, the info was also mere details of which we could included thousands and your edit summary "Hitler's sexuality" betrayed your POV, as did your follow-up posting of a category. We will not have fringe hypothesis with bascically not a strain of credulity in the article, especially not by decreeing them as fact or by sneaking them in by not stating but alluding. I don't care what the Homosexual community thinks on this, I care for the Historical community and what it thinks on Machtan. How the deletion of poorly based, overblown claims that one of the biggest mass murderer in history were an homosexual can be considered "homophobic" is beyond even the wild extensions of that term one commonly encounters. If your care for procedure, than put it up for discussion on the Hitler talk page. Thanks very much. Str1977 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on Professor Machtan is irrelevant. And, as noted in The Hidden Hitler article, his research and conclusions have been widely accepted by other scolars, critics, book reviewers, and major media. Wikipedia details reliable and credible sources for such claims such as that in Abraham Lincoln as one example. Plus, there are dozens of others where statements from far less credible sources appear in the biography and they are given the "gay" category. Wikipedia reports credible sources, and NPOV means we editors don't make claims as to their veracity. Karl Schalike 16:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for your information. It should be noted that there is some evidence that User:Karl Schalike is identical with User:Ted Wilkes and multi-hardbanned User:DW. See Schalike's contribution supporting the deleting and reverting tactics by Ted Wilkes which were criticized by several Wikipedia administrators here. For facts supporting the view that Ted Wilkes is a sockpuppet of DW, see. Ted Wilkes is currently placed on probation and banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See []. He was, and still is, involved in an edit war with me concerning claims that some celebrity stars such as James Dean, Elvis Presley and Nick Adams may have been bisexual or gay. Last year Wilkes even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page I had created to a Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but this page never came into existence, as the content was totally deleted by him. See also the articles on Elvis and Me, the Memphis Mafia and related talk pages. It is very interesting that Karl Schalike is now providing an argument in support of the view that Adolf Hitler might be homosexual. However, these claims exist. Therefore, the material may be included in a separate article entitled Hitler's sexuality or Hitler's supposed homosexuality. Onefortyone 20:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fighting some of the silly additions to the list. I'm perplexed by your edit to Udo Kier though. Do you not understand our annotation and citation effort, perhaps?

In general, from about the same timeframe as the alphabetic refactoring, me and a number of other editors decided to bring this list up to WP:V, WP:NOR, and more specifically WP:LISTS. As a compromise with prior edits (but also as a good approach in general), we adopted the following:


 * As a rule, every name must have inclusion justified either by longstanding consensus of WP editors on corresponding individual page or by provision of explicit external citation.
 * Names that were there before will be given an indefinite "grace period" to obtain citation.
 * New names should be "deleted on sight" unless they have proper citation
 * A name whose article itself says clearly "so-and-so is GLB" (ideally because that person themselves stated such) should be annotated with a "+" (as explicitly described at the top of every GLB list page)
 * A name whose article does not include that (e.g. because it's not notable within the article context) should have a footnote using the ... style described on the list talk pages.
 * A name under "grace period" that doesn't have support in article itself should be tagged with to indicate it's been examined, and found to need an external citation (or should be removed failing that).
 * A name with no annotation has not yet been examined at all (please help).

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lulu, long time no see .. eh .. read. Well, I agree with you about the nonsense additions. And you are right ... I was mistaken about the annotation. I thought a cross meant "dead" and since I couldn't find any reference to his death but movies filmed in 2005 I came in to recitify the error. Sorry about that. I won't study the annotation details though, as I don't have the intention to enter into setting up such lists and have quite enough things already on my mind. Cheers though, Str1977 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Format User Page
I am sorry to bother you with such a simple issue, but I find I need your assistance. I am trying to get my user page to do two things: 1)  not say Babel, but rather Pentacost and 2)  have my narrative appear along site the box. Any help would be appreciated. Storm Rider 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance. I continued researching how to have narrative material appear to the left of a user box; I found an example that I could follow.  Prior to you assisting me I was able to achieve the desired affect.  Though I don't understand the logic of the language, I was finally successful.  Thank you again for your assistance.  It is much appreciated.  Few things are as frustrating for me as doing something that produces a desired outcome, but possess not understanding of the logic.  I am reminded of the children of Israel.  All they had to do was look at the staff of the serpent and they would be healed, but many refused.  I need to learn to just follow/do without needing to ask why all the time.  Stiff-neckedness is not an admirable quality or sign of a true disciple.  Storm Rider 09:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitler & VW
Dear Str1977: The version I edited said Hitler had sketched the design of the VW in 1932, and cited a rather dubious source. There is good evidence that Hitler did more than simply push production, but I'm not sure of the accuracy of the 1932 bit. I'm looking into that, but in the meanwhile, the wording I use is accurate, I think. Bytwerk 12:24, 15 February 2006

Both Karamanlis Articles are under attack, please help
Hi, I sent this message to John Kenney as well, but I think that you can also help.

User: Theathenae is vandalizing the articles by putting both Karamanlis in the category of Macedonian Politicians of Slavic origin, even though Karamanlis is Greek-Macedonian. This has to stop, otherwise the articles will become a hotbed of editing and counter editing. Please help. I apologize for not telling you who I am, but I hope we can communicate again in the future.

Thanks, User: 69.158.156.139 20:51, 15 February 2006

Papen
Hello, Str1977.

In your recent edit of the section in the article on Franz von Papen Vice Chancellor under Hitler &mdash; we were unfortunately working on the same section simultaneously &mdash; you restored some text that I had removed:


 * Papen and his conservative allies planned on "putting a frame" around Hitler, counting on their majority in the cabinet — they had eight cabinet posts to the Nazis' three — and on Hindenburg's trust to restrain Hitler. Papen boasted to associates that "Within two months we will have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he'll squeak."

You must like the phrase "putting a frame" around Hitler &mdash; this is the part you restored. I have seen the quote about "pushing Hitler so far in the corner that he'll squeak" several places, but not the "putting a frame" part. Is this a direct quote/translation from the German? If it is, I would like to see the original with the hope that between you and me, we could make it sound less awkward in English. On another note, have you ever seen a transcript of Papen's Marburg speech?

Regards. &mdash; JonRoma 20:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I reinserted "putting a frame" as the translation of the verb that's usually used in English for this occasion. In German it is "einrahmen", which means putting a frame around something, e.g.a picture. But you also "einrahmen" someone by putting people or things around him.


 * I am afraid I haven't seen a transcript of Papen's speach.


 * Cheers, Str1977 21:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have googled and found the speech here, alas only in German, so I don't know whether you can read it. Str1977 21:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the transcript. I do not read German too well, but I think I should create at least a stub article for the speech.


 * As to einrahmen, it is always difficult to translate colloquial expressions, but I would suggest that "putting a frame" sounds awkward in English and may be misleading. One of the English uses of the word "frame" or "framing" is is to denote a pre-arranged plot, for the purpose of incriminating someone.


 * My feeling is that the best English equivalent would be "to box in" (i.e., to put someone in a box from which they can't move), even though this is not a direct translation. Thus:
 * Papen and his conservative allies planned to "box Hitler in", counting on their majority in the cabinet — they had eight cabinet posts to the Nazis' three — and on Hindenburg's trust to restrain Hitler.


 * Do you think this would serve as a reasonable rendition of the German original? Regards. &mdash; JonRoma 22:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hesse and other minor German rulers
No clear rule has ever been established on English vs. German names. The basic rule is to use the "most commonly used form in English", but sometimes this can be unclear, and it is especially so in contexts like this. I'd say to just use your best judgment and make it uniform. john k 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I would say that the usage on this is basically inconclusive. Probably the anglicized version is somewhat favored, but in decline. That is, more recent books are more likely to use the German versions of the name. Which means I guess I'd vote slightly for the anglicized forms, but it doesn't really matter - it's more important to just be consistent. john k 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Str1977. I'm contacting you regarding your changes at Frederick II of Hesse-Kassel and Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel. It seems like you wanted to move one page to the other, and did so by cutting and pasting the text of one to the other. Unfortunately that leaves us with no easy way to trace who wrote what. The GFDL requires that we keep track of authorship information, and the way we generally do this is by using the "Move" function to move pages. There are cases when this can't be done without administrative powers (when both pages have histories and must be deleted or merged), in which case you can ask an administrator to help. And when page names are changed, redirects should be checked and pointed to the renamed page, as double redirects don't work. - Nunh-huh 21:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you tagged article howch  e  ng '''  {chat} 19:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:John Kenney has taken care of this. Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Use your best judgment, I guess. john k 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the redirect and moved it to Ernst Ludwig, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine, as per your request. All the redirects ("what links here") seem to be in order! - Nunh-huh 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

filioque question
Hi, I wanted to follow up on a comment you made on Talk:Christianity, but this seemed a more suitable place. You said regarding the motivation for the filioque, "What the Popes insisted on was the orthodoxy of the Fq and not so much the purdence of including it or not - they had to insist on it, as it was a dogmatic matter in which there could be no diversity (of "it's heretical" vs. "it's orthodox") - in contrast to matters of discipline, rite etc. Such an agreement was reached twice, but unfortunately it didn't hold."

How could this be a dogmatic matter, if the creeds of 325 and 381 were also orthodox? And don't the Eastern Rite churches within Roman Catholicism say the Nicene Creed without the filioque, with the Pope's approval? I have never understood how the Roman Catholics could insist on including the filioque for its own sake, if it previously approved the Creed without it (before its introduction) and if it still approves the Creed without it today in its Eastern Rite/Byzantine Rite/Uniate churches. It seems there would have to be some other reason, maybe to affirm the Pope's solitary authority, maybe something else. Would you mind explaining the RC's position on this to me? (and please understand, I really don't mean to sound confrontational. I'm just puzzled.) Wesley 06:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for taking the time to reply. After reading your response, I remembered reading about a group of Orthodox and Catholic bishops in North America studying the question of the filioque together, went hunting and found this "Agreed Statement" from 2003 that seems to give a fairly balanced view of both the complex history and theological issues; being produced by both "sides" working together, it isn't too polemical. My favorite line in that vein is this (from page 3): "The division between our Churches on the Filioque question would probably be less acute if both sides, through the centuries, had remained more conscious of the limitations of our knowledge of God." May God grant unity to our churches within our lifetime, undeserving and sinful though we be. Wesley 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

EC
Have you seen this? KHM03 23:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Elser
Dear Str1977, a friend of mine who uses Wikipedia and actually introduced me to it recently, asked me to review some changes he made to the Elser article this evening. By the time I got to it, you reverted most of these changes. Further looking into the article's history showed me that you have an unusual interest in George Elser, and have changed lots of information that others have added. I jokingly told my friend you're probably Manfred Elser. I hope I can get him to write to you and speak for himself. Two things that I agree on with him, are that an Encyclopedia's articles should not be a forum for propaganda of any stripe, and that terrorism is wrong, even when applied to Nazis, Communists, Bush's Foreign Policy, or any other thing that some support and others don't. So, let me ask you for example, why you removed "Eight innocent people died", and re-added,"Seven of the people killed were members of the NSDAP who had taken part in the meeting." Is this to say that of the eight that died, seven were Nazis and good for them? Why this emphasis re-added by you? If you care to answer me on this point, I have a couple of similar types of questions about your edit. Being new to Wikipedia, I'm not sure how you would contact me. Perhaps you can help me from the discussion page. Lastly, I saw on your homepage, that English is not your native language, however I must compliment you on your ability to write in English. With that in mind, my friend's corrections of your grammatical typos regarding "...AT the end of the 1960s" and "...neither his son OR the son's mother were molested," are right. It's improper to use two negatives in a sentence in English - "neither and nor", - and to say "in the 1960s" is correct, while to say "in the end of the 1960s," is not correct. Dr. Dan 00:09, 27 November 2005

Dear Doctor, thanks for your message and your compliments about my language. And thanks for your considerate words despite my revert of your friend 63's edits.

Let me first explain how to communicate on Wikipedia. You can leave messages at an article's or an editor's talk page. All posts should be signed by typing for tildes (~) at the end of your post - this will automatically add your user signature, the date and the time of your post. Through your wiki-linked user name another editor can easily switch to your user/talk page and reply to your posts. Exchanges about articles should be done at the talk page, so that others can read your posts and profit from the content.

Anyway, concerning 63's edits and your comments:


 * I agree with his statement "murder, terror,and assassination are either justifiable or not justifiable" (and I think they are not) and don't advocate a double morality that your can do bad to the bad. So, Elser's act was an act of murder, aimed at Hitler but also implicating and actually killing others. I don't advocate distinguishing the victims. My reinclusion of the passage "Seven of the people killed were members of the NSDAP who had taken part in the meeting." was only due to the revert of your friend's edit. Sometimes that some good gets reverted along with the bad. And I think the info is not bad in itself, as it gives only facts, but I see your problem and will remove this sentence (but also the "innocent") it again. In fact, after this passage I removed this sentence: "This made his actions justifyable and less terroristic, since mainly nazis were killed and injured." There is nothin I loathe more in this world than Naziism, but even Nazis are human beings and hence have the same right to life as anyone else. If you look at this edit you will see other "hagiographic" statements I removed - despite my own admiration for the man.
 * However, I don't think "terrorist" is an accurate description of Elser or his acts. He meant to kill Hitler in order to prevent/stop the war. This is murder, but it's not terrorism. The terrorist's objective is not so much to kill someone but to strike terror into other people - anarchists tried that in the 19th century, the original IRA around 1920 and now the terrorists in Iraq are doing the same (they are not trying to kill all US troops and "collaborators" but to kill as many so that the Americans will leave and the Iraqis will be too afraid to oppose them). Also, Elser didn't make a habit of killing people except for this special case.
 * When I say that I admire Georg Elser that doesn't mean that I am blind to the fact that he's a murderer. And even murdering a tyrant is murder, though there a longlasting debate (since the Middle Ages) about the moral quality of tyrannicide in Christian morality.
 * You're right - WP should not be not be a forum for propaganda of any stripe - in fact I'm involved in a major confrontation with another editor who is doing just that.
 * Your friend removed "Through this job he came into knowledge of the Nazis' rearmament program", but this is a perfectly neutral statement that is important and has its place in this article, unless your friend claims that it's factually incorrect.
 * Your friend included "an out of wedlock son" - it's true that he was born out of wedlock and I'm not aiming at denying that, though the article already says "girlfriend", but I don't think it's essential to explicitely mention that. (And no, I am not Manfred Niedermann. My user name gives you my birth year. You can work out the difference.)
 * Your friend replaced "Though he was not a Communist" with "Although he was not a member of the Communist Party" - I guess he was misunderstanding the meaning of the passage: the fact is that Elser was not only not a party memeber but he also was no Communist in his political thinking, hence "that was where his political sympathies lied" is too general a statement. But he thought that the Communists were "the best defenders of workers' interests" - that should not be read as saying that his opinion was true - it certainly wasn't true, but that's what he thought (BTW: I wasn't the first to post this opinion of Elser and I haven't been able to check whether it's accurate, but it doesn't sound impossible. If it were proved to be factually wrong, it should be removed).
 * Your friend replaced "by his longing for personal freedom" with "by his Marxist political associations" - the two are hardly identical, are they? His working class views is one thing, his longing for personal freedom another. To state this is not POV, though I see that the wording is a bit dramatic.
 * There is absolutely no reason for your friend to delete "As a devout Protestant Christian he also deplored the growing restrictions on religious freedom" - It is a well known and essential fact about Elser. This fact is not liked by some leftists editor (hence the German Wikipedia didn't have it), but to exclude this is to misrepresent Elser.
 * Your friend removed the reference to the Kristallnacht, but again, this is essential as it was the event which made Elser decide to do something.
 * Your friend removed "During these preparations, World War II started on 1 September, 1939, which proved his estimations correct" - again, this is a fact. If you consider my anti-hagiographic edit (see the link above) you can see what others can make of this if they don't care about NPOV - but to simply state that his prediction became true is not POV.
 * I deleted the comparison to Timothy McVeigh because it does not contribute anything to an understanding of either McVeigh or Elser.
 * Some smaller bits I will correct, unless they have been already corrected. (Though neither-nor is correct IMHO - and it has also passed Ann's edit).

If you (or 63...) have anymore questions, please feel free to post them here on my talk page. Cheers, Str1977 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, Str1977, you may have seen that I sent a note to Dr Dan on his talk page. While I realize that the "in the end of the 1960s" phrase probably didn't actually come from you in the first place, Dr Dan is quite correct in saying that "at the end of the 1960's" is correct. However, I disagree about "neither . . . nor". It's perfectly correct to say that, as stated in Hart's Rules and Fowler's Modern English Usage. I did change the article to make the verb singular, as I explained to Dr. Dan. But again, I realize that the plural didn't originate with you.


 * I have no special interest in the Elser article. At the risk of shocking you, I'll confess I had never heard of him. (Was he very famous?) But I am very interested in language issues, so when I saw the above post on your talk page, I couldn't resist snooping!


 * It's bedtime where I am. Good night! AnnH (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind greetings. Since I know very little about Elser, I will get back to you on your detailed remarks after doing a little research on the topic. I had a big argument with my friend for using my computer to express points of view that do not coincide with my own. Originally he was only to check emails, etc., until he replaced his broken computer. I explicitly told him not to buy anything from my computer, nor to visit "chat rooms" or the like. As a consequence, he will have to make contact with you from another source, as he is "persona non grata", for failing to do so, and is "banned" from using my computer. This is ironic, since he introduced me to Wikipedia in the first place. And yes, we are still friends all the same.

A quick glance at the Elser article however, gives me pause, because it is in fact not scholarly and quite "propagandistic", in my opinion. I will expound on why I think so, after I do some more research on the subject. My friend is the one who wrote some "hyperdulia" on Elser, in order to smoke out the source of what he called "lesser hyperdulia and sympathetic propaganga about Elser". I think he is correct to some extent, that you have interjected many superfluous facts, many that should be documented or removed. This goofy "smoking out of the source", is precisely the kind of mind game that I deplore, when sharing different viewpoints with others. Not only did I tell my friend this, as I'm telling you also, but told him if he looked in the History of the article, he would see the evolution of the article as it has changed. In truth, the article took a very different turn when you added a lot of information on September 12, 2005, which can be challenged, as to where this information came from. An example is when you added that Elser was not a Communist. This is in contradiction to your earlier comment to me on the talk page, that he was in fact a Communist. Which is it? Have to go now. More later.Dr. Dan 16:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dan,

that explains the over-the-top nature of the hyperdulia edit.

I think my edits on September 12 are quite justified. I removed terms like "anti-fascist" as they are tainted by Communist propaganda and IMHO not appropriate in regard to an opponent to Nazism (which is not Fascism). The rest was merely rewording.

The "though not a Communist" passage I translated from the German wikipedia, even though the previous editors there had tried to paint him all red as well. However, to portray Elser as a Comumunist is untrue.

Elser was not a Communist in the sense that he adhered to Communist ideology or that he wanted to turn Germany into a Soviet-state. Neither was he a member of the KPD, only of the Rotfrontkämpferbund. He voted Communist and he had his reasons for doing so

I object to the allegation that I included "superfluous facts" - they are facts and have some bearing on his personality.

Str1977 16:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm almost ready with my research on Elser, and look forward to getting on the Elser talk page with some of my thoughts. Just wanted to let you know. By the way, I see you like Biblical and religious quotations. Can you tell me what you think of, briefly, what the quote, (paraphrase?), "If thy right hand offends thee, cut it off", means. Thank you.Dr. Dan 02:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Str1977, I'm still waiting for the sources and basis for the inclusion of Kristallnacht as one of the impetuses for GE's actions. I'm waiting for the source and basis that he also was a "devout Protestant Christian" too. I've looked and looked and have found nothing. I'm beginning to think this is pure POV bordering on propaganda. On a different but related point, was it possible to be a member of the S.A. and not be a member of the N.S.D.A.P., and also possible to be a member of the Rotfrontkämpferbund and not of the K.P.D. ? Dr. Dan 18:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) I think you said you'd look them up for me about a month ago.

Hello, I recently thought of or discussion about Elser as a result of the U.S attack on "terrorists" on the Pakistani border. This idea of the end justifying the means illustrates my fundamental problem with Elser. Obviously there are differences between these two events, but my problem with Elser and others who disregard innocent Human life, so-called collateral damage has to be interjected into the equation. Personally, I reject this concept with the strongest possible feelings. I also was reminded of the tone of the Elser article, when I read the article on Gaetano Bresci in Wikipedia, and perused Emma Goldman's "tribute" to him. Concerning Elser and Kristallnacht, and Elser's religiousity (sic), I think its going to be difficult for you to come up with the sources for this, other than the aforementioned Brandauer film and a magazine article from Der Spiegel. If I'm right about this, I hope you'll agree this is far from "commom historical fact". Dr. Dan 18:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

New Sturm und Drang
As you know I'm new to the Wikipedia geopolitical debates, and the ones we've had seem tame compared to the ones I've had with Polish and Russian contributors and "editors", concerning some issues. Thought you would be interested in reading the talk page of the German 17th Infantry Division, and giving me your opinion on it. Currently, I'm thinking of letting it go. Any advice or thoughts on the matter? Dr. Dan 02:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thought about you after stumbling upon this today, Eugen Schauman. What do you think about him and the remarks made by Matti Vanhanen, regarding him? P.S., still waiting for the references promised over two months ago. Saw a little activity on Elser's talk page, an RV by our friend, Ann, didn't want to weigh in. Not yet, anyway. Dr. Dan 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection
Str1977, you should know better than to edit the article when it's protected. I only just warned Giovanni about it, and now I am going to request an admin that it be locked. Please do not edit or encourage editing of the page. -- Simonides 14:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about Adolf Hitler, Simonides, it wasn't protected; it was semiprotected. I've just changed the tag. See here for the block log. If it had been fully protected, Str1977 and Giovanni would not have been able to edit it. Ta bu shi da yu fully protected it, and then changed back to semiprotected, and then Sean Black changed the tag to fully protected, presumably without realizing that Ta bu shi da yu had just changed back. I've changed the tag back to semiprotected, but won't change the protection status, as I have recently been involved with the article. AnnH (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please
Please do not begin an edit war on Jesus. This will cause the page to be protected, preventing encyclopedic progress, and likely get you and User:Robsteadman blocked for violation of the three revert rule. I don't want to see this happen. Please stop for your own sake. Deskana (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit
I understand. Next time, you can do what I did; make a non-change and make a comment to the effect that the previous change was not minor. -JohnRDaily 12:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Roman Empire/reorganization
See the article's talk page for my reaction to your question on the article's title.--Hippalus 19:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Server problems
There definitely seems to be server problems again today - your last edit zapped my edit where I said that we should draw a line under the back-and-forth about "dictatorship" until it actually comes up as to what to put in the article. Maybe we need to leave a few minutes between edits to let the server catch up? Camillus (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, in my experience, waiting a few minutes doesn't help. Either it's going to happen or it's not. One possible way of avoiding it is to press the "Show changes" button before saving. If it shows that something on the left hand side has been "eaten", I just select and copy the new content on the right. Then I reload the page, click the edit button, and paste in the bit that I've copied. I also check the diff after my edit. But really, someone should fix this problem. I just don't know where to report it. AnnH (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman
Dear Str:

Would you do me a favor? When Rob repeats an old argument which has been constantly refuted, do not reply to him at all. When he says something new, feel free to engage him. If we do otherwise, we simply fuel useless debate. --CTSWyneken 11:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not shut up, exactly. Just stare coldly and move on. --CTSWyneken 11:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure how you can "stare coldly" while your signature invites people to "smile back". That wouldn't exactly be fair would it? As regards the temptation to answer every time, I had the same problem on Friday night, and I know I should have just moved on. But I think a lady should be able to cook, speak French, play the piano, and have the last word. I've no problem with the first three, but the last has been rather difficult in the last few days. ;-) (Which is why I must thank you again for archiving that page!) Cheers. AnnH (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Str, Please.... Don't talk to him on this matter. I just lost all my time to add to the citations due to an engagement that needn't have happened. We could have simply not said a thing to what he said, but now, because I respect you all, I had to fight to get a word in... --CTSWyneken 14:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
I think you accidentally deleted a post I had left at Talk:Christianity. Regarding your "delete" button...watch where you point that thing! :) KHM03 23:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC or RfA on Rob
Well, I've tried and I've failed. There is only one thing left to do. --Avery W. Krouse 20:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

When Rob is Back
Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we co this, nothing will come of it except frustration. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fast One being pulled on Jesus talk
Quorum call. Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I may be taking a wiki-break
Hello, Str. I may be taking a wiki-break. I spent the night at my parents' house a few days ago, when my mother was sick, and I think I picked up something nasty from her. I may have to get antibiotics from the doctor tomorrow. Don't be surprised if I don't contribute much in the next few days, or if I only make the kind of posts that require no effort.

By the way, don't laugh at me (well, okay, you can if you like), but I've ordered several out-of-print Noddy books in German. My fluency in French results mainly from my reading of children's books which I had originally read in English years before. I was still very familiar with the stories, so I didn't have to reach for the dictionary every time there was a difficult word. I went from Noddy to more difficult Enid Blytons, to The Chronicles of Narnia, to Little House on the Prairie, to Anne of Green Gables, to Agatha Christie. I only started recently in German, and I find I'm struggling a little bit with Hanni und Nanni, so I decided to be less ambitious, and go right back to dear little Noddy and Big Ears. :-)

Going to bed now. Bonne nuit. AnnH ♫ 01:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Feeling much better now, but my stomach is reacting slightly against the antibiotics. The doctor put me on Amoxicillin and clavulanic acid. (Isn't Wikipedia wonderful &mdash; I can wikilink to almost anything!) I won't be fasting properly today as I have to take the tablets at timed intervals, and I have to take food with them. And my contributions may remain low for the next few days while I catch up with other things that I couldn't do at the weekend, but I expect to be back in full swing by next week. By the way, three of the Noddy books arrived this morning. German post must be very efficient! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 11:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Vote (again)
I think we're approaching a consensus that can stick. Please come and vote. --CTSWyneken 15:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"AD" removing
About Template:Roman Empire infobox, I really don't see how someone could possibly think that years such as 395 or 1453 are BC. There are two BC years in the template, 31 BC and 27 BC (both starting years for the empire), and really thare is no confusion. Please, provide a good reason for keeping this collection of "AD", which are in the wrong position too - they should go before the year, not after.--Panairjdde 12:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Vote Runoff
Our hopefully last vote on this paragraph is underway. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your help requested
I was asked to help Christianity with it's discussions on becoming NPOV... there is a debate on Talk:Hermeticism on whether it should be stated that some scholars believed Hermes Trismegistus to be a real man. In my arguments I have noted the Christianity article, and I feel that the contributors of it may be able to give some view on how a religion article should be NPOV. I don't know if you will agree with me or not, but your help is requested.

KV 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

More on Christianity
Thanks for your note, and for the useful reverts. I have been in the text again to tweak a couple of things - hope it's OK with you (and others). (1) I think it is important to distinguish internal heresies from entirely distinct religions such as Mithraism; so have clarified that. But Gnosticism is a special case, because it was syncretic, and some sects were effectively both Gnostic and Christian; so I've tried to indicate that too. (2) I've reinstated my comment about the Goths. Someone had set out a very simplistic tale which went 'after the Great Migration, the Slavs became Orthodox and the Germanic peoples became Catholic'. This is wrong on two counts: it wasn't after but during the 'Migration Period', and one of the most important Germanic peoples in Europe (i.e. the Goths) were mainly Arian Christians, which is often forgotten or ignored. Myopic Bookworm 16:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler
In my POV, the previous revision was more NPOV than yours. I'm not going to revert you. Thanks for your civility! Compu terjoe  21:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't really describe. Nothing major. It does seem a little a little biased against Hitler. Compu  terjoe  21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to argue on this matter. Can't we agree we were both right? LOL. Compu  terjoe  22:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)