Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:32, 11 June 2005

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

Question marks

What browser are you using? If you're using Internet Explorer, try clicking 'Tools', then 'Internet Options', and checking 'Fonts' (you want your language script set to 'latin based'), 'Languages' (you want English (US) or English (UK)), and 'Accesibility' (make sure all boxes are unticked). If you're using a different browser, most of them do the same sort of thing.

If that doesn't work, try checking for spyware (as opposed to viruses) - try www.adaware.com, and make sure your computer's default language options (Start, Control Panel, regional and language options) is set to the normal ones. And if THAT doesn't work, try upgrading your browser to the latest version. And if THAT doesn't work, you need someone clever. Hope that helps. Proto 08:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Other (Please place questions or comments here)

Thanks str1977 for your conscientious efforts in finding compromise language for several issues in the Pope Benedict page. I know I gave you a little bit of a hard time in a few edits, and your documentation and phrasings are admirable. I started out just making some minor change, but then got to following the pope page... my perception is that a lot of contributors mistake official Vatican positions (or at least explicitly pro-Catholic) on the pope for NPOV; but it's important for Wikipedians to make a distinction between these. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:36, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

It's funny to be cross-talking on each others user talk pages, but I guess that's the easiest way. I appreciated several changes you made in the way of NPOV and clarity. The "His Holiness" suggestion (formally ...), but also the citation to the politician/abortion letter. My hunch is we actually do have different underlying opinions on the pope, but it's nice to see someone I might disagree with producing quality entry text. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:04, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the Centre Party (Germany) article - it really needed a ton of work, and I'd gotten so frustrated that I had a hard time looking at it anymore. john k 22:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Flamekeeper is a difficult one. I don't know how to deal with him, either. john k 23:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Is cool, thanks for apologising. I'd see 'living' as a POV term cause a lot of people don't believe a fetus is alive, certainly not initially. Me, I think it is fairly soon after conception, but I sat through enough ethics lectures to know that isn't necessarily everyone's point of view. And especially there, I don't really see what it adds to the sentence by having it in, so leaving it out is better. Proto 12:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I salute you. Flamekeeper drove me away from the Pius XII page permanently. I just don't have the time or energy. Lawrence King 09:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. It seems to me that the recent activity around this issue is likely to end for now. The relevant posts probably should remain on the Pius XII talk page for considerable time. Personally, I think the historical problem and its influence on our times have their importance, but all the other issues are best to be ignored. Conf 13:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have it on my watchlist :P gkhan 21:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Str1977 - check out the latest on Abortion - people are calling medical definitions POV. (214.13.4.151)

Hi there Str1977, yesI miss you too . I suggest that our communications that you have archived and the rest that remain on the other page , could be better placed on a special linked page . Our discussion which is so rich in analysis and detailed law could then remain useful towards a settlement of this matter .Just as John Cornwell's analysis is absent from the earlier Pacelli history , none of this is finished withneither us find it as useful ,however, to analyse each others motives , but the above , and your editing history , you evidently wish to keep in question . I agree , there is a question . And, this pompous name I took from a real person - I could revert to a variation of flamekeeper 's macafree-eaten cookie -say fiamekeeper , for ease of tracking my disquiet . Hitler's Pope , didn't you suggest ...Corecticus 21:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)=Fiamekeeper 21:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Didn't mean to step on your compromise so fast--I was working on the same thing and tried to merge them and keep them on the topic of culture. Stratton 22:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)--

In order to not give you any more ammunition, I withdraw from all two-way discussions with yourself and with others. I will use fair-use copyright extract from hereon, everywhere necessary. Your own actions hereon can speak enough without further human response. My actions hereon shall be limited strictly to references and citation. Goodbye Fiamekeeper 09:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your interpretation is correct - the quid pro quo was only in 1933, after Hitler came to power. Kaas did not purposely allow Hitler to come to power (the Centre Party had, at any rate, no control over the machinations surrounding Hitler's coming to power, and calling Papen a Centre Party member at that point - he had been expelled from the party months before, and had always been a far right renegade within it - is simply incorrect). So, yeah, it was all in the Concordat negotiations, not before. john k 16:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the book anymore, so I can't look to find out for sure. I don't think it said there was an explicit quid pro quo at the time of the Enabling Act, though. It's a very general book, though, so it was not describing the precise sequence of events. john k 17:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)