Revision as of 22:41, 28 April 2008

I am busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. For more urgent matters, please send me an e-mail.

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

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

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

Notes:

• The link to the POV-section template is {{POV-section}}.
• {{subst:test3}} is preferred.
• Errors that need correction should be treated like <strike>this</strike> or <s>this</s>.

Questions and comments

User_talk:Str1977/Chr-hist

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)

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)

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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_adds 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

MacArthur Park rallies controversy

Hello. I notice you created the above article on January 22. I don't know if you were aware, but Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 21:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)