Revision as of 03:53, 13 May 2006

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

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>.

Questions and comments

Archives

Talk Page Archives

FK A 1 2 3 4

Roman Emperors

Hi. I see we have different point of views on several matters (Maxentius, Western Roman Empire, and possibly others). Instead of starting an edit war, I would like to settle this (controversial) matter.

I would like all the edits to keep consistency throughout WP, as far as possible. I think it is confusing (for example) defining Maxentius emperor in the List of Roman Emperors and in his own article, and usurper in Maximinus and Western Roman Empire. Let's choose a single definition of him, and stick to it.

You can answer here, I am watching this page. --Panairjdde 12:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande

I realized that I never sent you an E-mail despite your frequent edits on all the articles of the Roman civilization. Well, better late than never... Hi, I am Flamarande, I am a Roman-fan, and read alltoo much about ancient Rome. I am (somewhat) engaged in the reforms and improvements of the articles Western Europe, Barcid, SPQR, romanization (cultural), Roman republic, Roman empire, and, last but not least, Western Roman empire. I find that Misplaced Pages is fine idea , alltough far from perfect (as Jimbo also is). What I want of you? Well, nothing really, I am just saluting a fellow Roman-Fan. Flamarande 14:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Noch ein anderer verrückter Deutscher? Ihr seid wirklich überall :).

Ok, we trying to debate the issue: "Who was the first Western Roman emperor ?" at Template talk:Western Roman Empire infobox in a rational and civilized manner. Your opinion would be much apriciated. Flamarande 12:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we need your opinion in the debate, or we will decide the matter between ourselfes. What am I talking about? Read above, for chris´sake. Flamarande 10:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I can agree with your opinion about the motto. If you know latin, and if you have the time, would you check the article SPQR for any bad translations? Flamarande 12:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic politicians category in Hitler article

What doesn't matter is your wish to cast bad light on Catholicism by making Hitler a Catholic. We have to face up to the fact that Hitler came from a Catholic family, but you have to face up to the fact that you cannot legitimately use this stick to beat the Church. Go and get yourself another stick.

I never said anything derogatory or polemic about catholicism or its adherents. Why should you accuse me of using Hitler's catholicism (or in your case, the lack thereof) as a "stick to beat 'the Church?'"

And about the comment you made about him killing Jews, I have one thing to say. He killed a lot of people, and specifically stating he killed Catholics is a faulty defense. I know Atheists who killed Atheists (Stalin killed countless numbers of Russian people, and some were undoubtedly faithless when considering the severe persecution of theists in the Soviet Union), but that doesn't mean he didn't believe the same things they believed.

Even if his deeds contradict his catholicism, he still professed the religion. If you were to use this logic, professing Christians wouldn't even be able to say they're Christians. And George Bush (using the example you used) wouldn't be a Methodist, because he's done a lot of things that aren't Methodist norm (say, invading a nation and lying about WMDs).

I believe he was a practicing Catholic. And although you may think otherwise, this is not about my beliefs against the Catholic Church (whatever they may be), but rather Hitler's perception of himself. Please don't delete this comment and reply on my talk page, it would be much more conventional. Эйрон Кинни (t) 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Names of Jesus

Please join the discussion on the talk page. We are trying to educate an annonymous user who refuses to sign posts, but wants his way. --CTSWyneken 21:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

Hi. Sorry but I had to revert your edits. Its more than possible that some of your changes are OK but please: do not remove sourced information, do not add unsourced information, do not restore the POV fork section (i.e. "Angering Hitler" which is essentially a duplicate of "Relationship with Nazi Germany" where I merged it), and do not remove {{fact}} template until sources have been found. That said the article could clearly use some work. But it is obvious to me that you loaded the old version of the page before my edits to make your edits because you "changed" things like verbose section titles, etc. savidan 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Ignore the last. If you have aim capability please IM me at C6o6s6m6o. If you have 15 minutes I'm sure we can come to a consensus on this. savidan 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hypatia

I disagree with your removal of the attempt to turn around the burden of proof: the removed passage simply states a fact and is not an anti-Cyril piece of pleading. The article still has a lot of anti-Christian POV, but that passage is not part of it. Apart from that, the lengthy quotations ought to be cut down.--shtove 15:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

abortion opening

I have posted the new opening for abortion on the talkpage in the poll section. Please weigh in and invite others with interest in the abortion article to do so. The opening is not my idea. I support it, though, with the exception of the inaccurate word "nonviable". ____G_o_o_d____ 11:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

inflamatory editsummary

You refer to an edit that you don't like as spam that could be viewed as a personal attack. I agree that a lengthy coment is not needed in that list - in fact no comment would be even better as the article sufficiantly covers the argument in question. Agathoclea 09:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Software bug?

One of my posts was deleted - is this part of your software problems? It doesn't matter as Ann wisely removed the whole thing as it was going nowhere but I thought I should let you know. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTCF 10:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

abortion opening pt. 2

I noticed you voted reject on a paragraph that already went through the hands of a large number of editors. I was wondering if you wouldn't join us on the talk subpage to work together with everyone to reach a finalized new version of the paragraph.--Andrew c 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

pro-life

You are invited to help remove POV phrasing from the article. Alienus is pushing. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, dear Str. I am taking the liberty of removing a comment from Alienus, based on my belief that sarcasm and sneering are not welcome on your talk page. If I have misunderstood your wishes, do please feel free to replace it. I promise I won't be offended! You'll find it in the history. But I thought it was just possible that you might prefer to see my name rather than his in the last diff. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 08:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Easter Greeting

Froehliche Ostern, hoffen dass Sie Brunnen sind und gelangen herum an einige meinen Fragen manchmal bald beatworten. Dr. Dan 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hiter and German citizenship

A lot of detail is in Dietrich Klagges. Agathoclea 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

German language scholarship and armour 500-1100

Excuse me to ask, especially as I am not sure this lies within your range of interests... but this is a matter I lack the necessary knowledge of German for. I do suspect that German language sources might confirm or infirm whether what is called in English ringmail, that is armour made of metal rings or small plates affixed side by side on a supporting garment was truly used during Merovingian and Carolingian times. I'm looking for sources that would specifically distinguish such armour from scale armour that is, overlapping plates affixed on the garment and chainmail, where the metal rings are interlaced together to form a mesh. I know chainmail has been used from times before christian era, but my sources hint that it's use decreased significantly during the dark ages, in favour of the ringmail that was less labour intensive and required less metal. English scholarship seems to ignore it all and decrees that all armour used by Germanic people and in Western and Northern Europe from the beginning of christian era, and the development of plate mail in the late 1300s was chainmail. So I'd like to know what the German speaking world says about this period of our history. --Svartalf 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Counterproductive edits, and edit-warring.

Your recent activity on Christianity has been highly counterproductive and is verging on an edit war. Please take to to Talk instead of fighting. Alienus 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

May I add sneaking major edits under a misleading edit summary: (in both cases you deleted info you did not like elsewhere in the article totally unrelated to your editsummary) -- Agathoclea 21:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you may not. The first accusation is clearly false, the second was an oversight. Str1977 21:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It certainly was. It took me a while to work out why you reverted the order of the intro ... you removed the link www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm way down the page at the same time. Agathoclea 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 has a rep as an extreme pro-Christian edit warrior. He lives up to his reputation. Alienus 22:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Extreme is right. He even stated his support for the murderous Crusades! Giovanni33 06:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

When was this, Gio? Alienus 07:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just recently on the Christianity talk page. He said:

"The Crusades were done by Christians and I may go on record that I don't have the slightest intention of covering them up, as I am not one of those who condemns the Crusades in general (notwithstanding the crimes that were included and notwithstanding the eventual corruption of the idea)." Str1977 (smile back) 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I responded:

"I find it most amazing that you said you are not one of those who condemns the Crusades despite the crimes you admit they committed and their "eventual corruption of the idea." It was a lot more than an idea--the crusades were mercenary murderers. So if you don't condemn the Crusades (in general) then does that mean you support it and defend it (in general)? How about a modern version of the crusades then? Its not often I run into someone with this hard-line POV. I'm interested." Giovanni33 08:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 did not reply to me, after that. I think he has a right to hold his POV, but it is an extreme one.Giovanni33 07:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hold it? Yes. Impose it on these articles? I don't think so.

I wonder if he's equally chipper about the Inquisition. Alienus 07:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, how nice. Gio, I did not respond to your post 'cause I hadn't seen it. I doubt you will be open to an explanation, but here it is anyway:

I have studied the crusade and know to distinguish between the actual idea of the Crusades and what they turned out to be, which included crimes and massacres. You may dislike both the idea (which you appearently don't understand) and the "practice" but not everyone must share your view. Now, if I said I don't condemn the crusades in general (which actually is not the same as I approve of them) while I condmen the actual crimes that occured (but not more than I condemn other massacres/crimes in other wars of that time) that isn't so shocking, IMHO. Now, I agree that such a nuanced take on things is extreme in the general public and even among some historians or clerics but that's because the crusades have become a topos of conversation apart from the actual facts.

Ali, if you have questions about the Inquisition (and please specify what you mean by that) than feel free to ask. But I guess you were only sneering.

Str1977 14:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I really want to know. In what way do you support them and their idea? I've looked and can't see anything worth any amount of support for the crusades. I'd like to understand your perspective.Giovanni33 09:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Deux choses

Hi, Str. As you know, I deleted your talk page to remove personal information / stalking before I went on holidays, and restored just the most recent version (or versions — I can't remember now). I meant to do the full restoration (minus the version I intended to remove) when I got back, as hotel rooms are not conducive to carrying out lengthy administrative chores, and I knew you wouldn't get belligerent over having no diffs for a week! I went to do it yesterday, and found that another kind amin had done it for me (I must thank him), so I hope you weren't inconvenienced in any way.

I made some minor changes to your Hitler edit, fixing typos, inserting "as an adult", and I think correcting an incorrect extra </ref>. There were two closing tags, so I removed the first one, as the second one seemed to be the stray one. But perhaps rather than taking away a closing tag, someone should have put in another opening one. I'm not sure if part of the quotation was missing. Maybe you can have a look at it This shows my version compared with yours, rather than compared with Agathoclea's which was in between the two. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 10:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Resurrection question.

While I am not a an expert: resurrection appears once in the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, under the "Resurrection of Osiris," on page 378—which is only a brief description of a local festival of the Resurrection of Osiris on a lake outside of Sais. The only online references that do not concern Budge seem to involve early Christianity rather than a term from Egyptology. -JCarriker 14:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Formatting Bible references

Hi Str1977. I appreciate the hard work you're putting into this project lately. I noticed on Historicity of Jesus that you changed a couple places that the 'biblemacro' macro was used to be hardcoded references to biblegateway.com, and abbreviated a couple books of the Bible. I really dislike abbreviating books of the Bible, mainly because not all Misplaced Pages readers will be familiar with the abbreviations, and spelling out the books seems clearer. And even though I'm familiar with most of the abbreviations, I'm still not sure whether 'Phil.' is supposed to be short for 'Philippians' or 'Philemon'. :-) Now I don't feel as strongly about the bibleverse macro/template/whatever, but it seems like a good, consistent, easy way to provide links to the texts. Any special reason you don't like it? Wesley 15:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Dagger-thrust legend

I would kindly ask you not to remove relevant sourced material by a major historian in the field from the article. Misplaced Pages takes an NPOV stance in matters under dispute. While you may not believe what Steigmann-Gall said, the fact remains that he said it, so you are removing a relevant fact from the article. Furthermore, the rest of the article with one exception is completely un-cited, so you have removed the only thing in the article that is absolutely true. Finally, will you please stop misusing edit summaries to carry on polemics? Edit summaries are not the talk page; they are for telling people what you did, not why. A reader should not have to see arguing in the edit summary section.Drogo Underburrow 17:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"They are for telling people what you did, not why." On the contrary, Drogo. The very first sentence of the Help:Edit summary guideline says, An edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?". An edit summary that provides a brief argument for why a particular edit was justified or necessary is completely appropriate, as long as it's not abusive towards other editors. If others, having seen the brief argument, disagree with the edit, then discussion will presumably take place on the talk page. In my experience, Str1977 is always prepared to discuss things on the talk page; but nobody is forbidden to give a brief explanation of the reason for the edit in the edit summary before or while discussion is taking place. There is no misuse of edit summaries that I can see, though if your post is referring to this edit, there may be a misuse of the word polemics. AnnH ♫ 18:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the guideline page also states, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content"; it also says to keep discussions and debates away from the article page itself. In my experience, when people explain why they did an edit, they basically are saying things that should go on the talk page. However, I think that the guideline page is not clear on this issue, since you pointed out that it asks people to state why they made the edit. So, I'll withdraw my complaint. Drogo Underburrow 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Change to your userpage

Hi, Str. You changed an image on your user page, but the new one doesn't show at all. Is it a problem with my computer, or is there something wrong with the image? AnnH ♫ 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

I know we've had our disagreements on this article in the past, but I'd like to invite you to come back to the article and read over it again. Your user page says you are a historian, and I have been unable to find sufficient information on:

1. Pius's canonization track--I know that he is now Venerable (step 2) but I was unable to find any information like which Pope's had promoted him to each level and whether there is any verifiable information on how that process is proceeding.
2. Pius's postwar activities--I know that he was quite instrumental in the Cold War, but the only author who discusses this in depth is Phayer and he makes the error reading Pius's Cold War activities as intertwined with his calls for amnesty to war criminals (unfortunately, because he quotes uncritically other historians who later went on to place Pius in a conspiracy with Stalin and Hitler, most other works I have read regard this portion of his work as erronious, although his book is otherwise highly regarded).
3. The Pontifical Aid Commission--although it gets 147,000 google hits, they are all copy-and-paste jobs from this site which I have found to be unreliable given their very selective summary of his "profile". The PAC is not listed in the index of any of the 11 books on Pius that I currently have in my possession. I you know of any published sources which discuss it, it seems like it might be a significant omission.

In addition to these three things, I would also obviously like your feedback on the more controversial sections. I think that we should dump the "Other views" section, along with the deluge of information which is not germane to Pius into a subartile perhaps titled Pope Pius XII and World War II, Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust, Catholic Church and World War II, or Catholic Church and the Holocaust, whichever seems more appropriate (I would favor creating the later two no matter what and the first two only if there so much information which is too tangential for the main Pope Pius XII article that we need them as daughter articles for the last two.

In addition to commenting on the articles, could you please hit me back on my talk page, by email, or on AIM (c6o6s6m6o). I think this article is close to Featured Article status if we can get the three main omissions that I mentioned hammered out as well as the more controversial sections. savidan 18:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and false statements

I am taking this discussion off of Talk:Christianity. It seems like you have accused me of putting "false statements" into the article, and I feel the need to defend myself. The statement in question was "According to Acts..." The way I saw the article was that there was a claim presented as fact that was footnoted, and when I read the footnote, the only source in the footnote was Acts. So, I added the qualifying clause and took my concerns to the talk page. My statement was not false in any regards, because the citation was "according to Acts". Since my concerns have been addressed, and modern scholarly sources cited, I feel totally fine having the qualifying clause removed. But I just wanted to clarify why I made my edits, and explain how I do not see them as being "false". Go to the Jesus page. When the only citation is a bible quote, the sentence is normally qualified with "According to the Gospels" or "Mark writes" or something along those lines. And when other, more factual, claims are made, such as the date of the crucifixion, or what languages Jesus spoke, we cite scholars like Meier and Brown. Maybe the criteria on the Jesus page is stricter than the criteria for the Christianity page, and I apologize if my take on citations was problematic for the context. However, I honestly do not see how my statements at the time were "false". --Andrew c 01:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I understand completely. Having the article say that ONLY Acts claims that Christianity started as a Jewish sect is factually false. I understand now. All I wanted was a couple non-biblical sources, and that what I ended up getting. Sorry for being a little defensive, and I'm glad that article has been sourced for the better! --Andrew c 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, in the end it improved the article and that's what we're here for, aren't we. Cheers, Str1977 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Adolph Hitler incivility

Your most recent edit to Adolph Hitler contained the following insult:

(tagging section rubbished by our most favourite POV warriors)

WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are two rules that are actually enforced on occasion, so it might be a good idea to follow them. Al 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Str77, your taunting of Giovanni33 on the Hitler talk page is getting out of hand. Repeatly calling him names is quite uncivil. Your latest taunt was calling him "Mr. Logic"; before that you called him "my parrot". Now you post a message completely off-topic on the Hitler page, taunting him by accusing him of violating 3-RR and that you might report him. Drogo Underburrow 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the first accusation, from Alienus, it is interesting to see that Alienus has just been blocked for a week for making (yet another) personal attack — this time referring to another editor's genitals in his edit summary.

With regard to the second accusation, from Drogo, calling Giovanni "my parrot" was prompted by three posts where Giovanni taunted Str1977 by repeating his words back to him, exactly like a parrot., He has done that one other pages as well. Drogo, if you want to send messages asking editors not to taunt other editors, perhaps you should start with the editor who "parrotted" Str1977's words. AnnH ♫ 00:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. And what is the justification for the taunt about 3-rr? Just what purpose is served by threatening that he might report him, after Gio already said he would make no further edits? And why are you answering for Str77, how is it that you speak for him, when I ask him questions on his talk page? Meanwhile you ignore what I say on your own talk page about matters specifically concerning you? Drogo Underburrow 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think your comment on my talk page was one that required an urgent response, Drogo, especially since I had previously alerted you to the fact that your understanding of what edit summaries are for was mistaken, so there wasn't really anything new to say. It's perfectly okay to use an edit summary as an alternative to making a short post (and using up server space) on the talk page, as long as you are still regularly contributing to the talk page, and as long as your edit summary isn't abusive. As to why I answered here first, I have this page on my watchlist, and I just thought that this thread was more interesting than the one on my own page. By the way, Giovanni frequently carries on a conversation in the edit summaries. I have no problem with that, but I'm surprised that you don't, since you chastise the Catholic editors for it. But it seems to be part of a pattern — undermining my status as an editor on the Hitler page because I claim to be obedient to the Pope, but finding Giovanni's commitment to atheism and to discrediting Christianity (as shown in his contribution history) irrelevant to his status, demanding a source to say that Hitler wasn't a practising Catholic, but not turning a hair when the article says that he received the sacraments "devoutly", complaining about the use of the fairly mild word "parrot", but not caring about the provocation in answering an editor by reproducing his words several times, etc. Oh yes, and Giovanni did once before say that he wasn't going to revert again, and then change his mind. AnnH ♫ 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC) and 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

She always speaks for him and supports and reverts to anything he wants. They have even joked to each other that they are each others meatpuppets. I was not taunting Str1977, and never have. True, I adopted his vernacular and language structure but did not parrot him. Parrots copy verbatim, I was responding with my own view of the edit conflict and changed words as needed to expresss my words. The differences were simple enough so that a few words being changed only sufficed for the purpose of making my stand clear. Infact, it helps illustrate the similarities and differences of our repsective possitions. But I doubt there is anything Str1977 can do that will ever get AnnH's disaproval. For the record, I do not dislike Str1977, however much we find ourself at opposite ends of the political spectrum--and I never taunt him. I actually appreciate oppositional points of view in the tradition of John Stuart Mills. If Str1977 did not exist, I'd have to invent him! Giovanni33 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, perhaps you missed my posts saying that I couldn't support Str1977 about the fascist/totalitarian wording, because I didn't have enough knowledge to have an opinion of my own on the matter. So your claim that I "always" support him and revert to what he wants is clearly false. I also do a lot of editing (and voting) that he is not involved in at all, and have absolutely no involvement with many of the articles he edits. On the other hand, there have been several accounts that supported you and reverted to what you wanted and that did nothing or almost nothing else. Of course I support Str when you try to edit an article to make it seem as if Hitler was a devout Christian. That has nothing to do with Str1977; it has everything to do with resisting your bias. As for having not taunted Str, it's hardly something to make an issue of, and probably wouldn't even be discussed here if Drogo had not felt it necessary to complain about the use of the word "parrot" to address someone who had been imitating another editor, reproducing his words in three separate posts. But I think most people would agree that if you are disagreeing with someone, and you imitate what he says three times, you are more likely to be trying to annoy him than trying to find a simple and helpful way of expressing yourself. AnnH ♫ 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not miss your post saying that but what you said was not true. Str1977 said he would support "authoritarian" as he has supported it before. So that is why you could also support it. I have no doubt that if he opposed it, you would not support it. So, yes you do always have supported him--so far from what I've seen. Its fine if you do, but its odd that you protest, and made a big point about this instance. Doth protest too much. But, in anycase the example you cite doesn't work--not that I really care if you always support him. Its your right. You say it has nothing to do with Str, well, I don't know, but again,it doesnt matter. You may just share the same conservative POV--just like other editors share my more liberal pov. Laslty, I did not reproduce Str's words--he has no ownership of the words. I can use many of the same words to compose my own thoughts on here. The fact that my word choice mirrored his served the purpose of clarity by giving a parallel and symetric prose making comparison easier. As usual, you fail to assume good faith when it comes to my edits but instead assume the worst intentions.Giovanni33 06:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I said here that I wasn't going to support Str1977 because I did not know whether the regime was fascist, totalitarian, or authoritarian. I suggested that since you, he, and John could all accept authoritarian, it would be better to use that than to keep edit warring. Str's last edit to Hitler prior to my remark had been to change F to T; your last one had been to change T to F. I then edited, not to revert back to Str1977, but to insert a word which I had no liking or dislike for, in the hope of putting an end to the reverting. I later made it clear here that I had not supported him because I had had no knowledge of the subject. Besides, it's silly for you to constantly jump in with your comments about how I support Str1977 with your history of puppetry. Now before you start claiming that Belinda and Freethinker really are different people, there's no doubt that their purpose on Misplaced Pages was to support you — a clear violation of policy. And Kecik now has 30 reverts to your versions, out of 32 article edits. How, with your history of BelindaGong pretending to have no connection to you, starting her wiki-life by reverting to your version, following you around to support you, revert for you, and vote for what you want, can you keep making remarks about me and Str1977? And "inviting a friend", "showing him how to use Misplaced Pages" so that his first edit, with you presumably standing beside him, is one where he claims just to be new (nothing about his relationship to you), to have read the talk page and agree with you, and his second edit is one where he reverts the article back to your version while you're blocked, is so clearly in violation of the policy that it just makes you look silly when you keep on claiming that you did nothing wrong.

Here, here, and here, you copied the words from a whole paragraph (or nearly), just changing Gio to Str, or F to A. I'm not going to make a judgment as to whether or not you were making fun of him — and if you were, I think he's more than capable of dealing with it — but I'll just say that in most cultures, those three diffs would be seen as evidence of making fun of someone. I imagine that you probably wouldn't do that with your bank manager or with someone who was interviewing you for a job. AnnH ♫ 07:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Its the other way around. You keep bringing up my alleged socket or meat puppets, despite the fact that its not true, and I only point out that based on your own standards, you always support him. Never once have you opposed his edits. Again, nothing wrong with that, but you are the one that seems to think that is wrong, since you blame me for the fact that others support my edits (nothing to do with me, really). Anyway, the example you use is not valid since, as I said, Str1977 also support the A word. He was only going back to the T word to make a point becaue he was annoyed. But, he also supports the A word, so your supporting it also is not going againts what he support. I don't think that will ever happen. But, its ok. Don't over argue the case.

So you think I'm in a suborinate possition to Str, that he is akin to being a manager or a boss I'm trying to get a job from? Actually the status here is one of equality in terms of being peer editors, comrades, on Misplaced Pages. Even more so in the sense of it involving debates of sorts. So, in this context its not making fun of someone its using rhetoric to make a point clear regarding the similarities and the differences in as clear a manner as possible. I changed more than just one word, btw. And, I changed the meaning completely. It was interesting. John K said it was even clever. NO one seems to think I was poking fun at Str1977 except you. I don't think he needs you to come to his defense all the time either. I'm sure he already had a very good mom who will defend him when he is in need. He's a capable young man, as I am. Maybe you should let him answer for himself?Giovanni33 08:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo I was not taunting Gio. I called him parrot because he parroted my responses. He took it rather with humourously, so who are you to complain. I called him "Mr Logic" because he called a vote of mine lacking logic (completely uncalled for, since he is not the Misplaced Pages minister for interpreting or commenting quotes).

I was not threatening him - I was merely pointing it out to him, especially since I have never reported anyone for 3RR and wouldn't want to do so with having warned him. This was my way of warning him. Str1977 10:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler response

Thank you for your recent response to some of the comments I made on my talk page and elsewhere pertaining to Adolf Hitler and his religious beliefs. Your extended post is much appreciated, as I made several points and allegations myself, some of which were in defense of my reputation here on Misplaced Pages.

"Let me first state that I in no way think you an anti-Catholic. I don't even need to look up your other contributions - I have no reason for believing you to be one. I also respect your disagreement with the Church on the religious field. That's a valid view to have."

1. I remember some time ago, perhaps in April or May when you accused me of using Hitler's being a Catholic "as a stick to beat the Catholic Church with". This is where I received the notion you thought I had something against Catholics, and I don't believe I was out of line in believing that you did. Hopefully, that matter is resolved up and you realize my edits relating to Catholic articles are very neutral.
2. I made the following very explicit, "I don't know about other contributor's edits, but this is certainly not the case when examining my edits ", because I could only speak for myself on this issue: "Now, unfortunately I cannot hold the same view in regard to all contributors or rather posters on this issue. If you look up the edit histories of them you will immediately see a certain streak. (So much for my "interpretations".)".
3. "I also see no "blatant vandalizing of cited sources" on my part." I apologize for that allegation, I now understand that I was mistaken in making it.
4. I did not know Bytewerk added the same quote to that section regarding Hitler's membership in the Catholic Church, so if you feel compelled to do so, then delete it, all I ask is that you add my source note to Bytewerk's quotation as a supplement.
5. I wrote "claimed" because I did not know if Hitler had indeed remained a member, but I only wanted to clarify there are differing views on his membership, a membership I had no knowledge of.

I hope this will help bring us to a mutual understanding while editing this article in the future. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I did make my case on the talk page. Perhaps you should read it before accusing me of editing without explanation. Thanks. Stanley011 13:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you agree with me content-wise is irrelevant--the fact is, you actually did accuse me of something--you accused me of editing without explaining my edits, which is patently false. Whoever changed my edit back to "authoritarian" edited without first discussing his or her change on the discussion page because my response has yet to be answered, as you will see if you actually check the discussion page. Stanley011 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's not logical to bring in facts that are not relevant to Stanley's objection to your message to him. Another red-herring fallacy? Giovanni33 06:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Invisible comments

Hi, Str. I don't want to cause an edit conflict, but this is how you <!--insert an invisible comment-->. The one you put into Adolf Hitler is still visible! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)