This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Proabivouac (talk | contribs) at 09:11, 11 March 2007 (→Edit summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

IF you happen to be a troll (let him who has ears understand), don't post here but click here and get "stoned".

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>.
• http://dict.leo.org/?lang=de&lp=ende

Questions and comments

Archives

Talk Page Archives

FK A 1 2 3 4 5

New Messages

Banu Qurayza

When you're looking at that article could you please revert the revert-warring anon? Arrow740 00:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the talk page has become so hostile. It's clear that one must be very careful what one says to avoid such exchanges, for example, it is probably best to use "Muhammad" in all cases. I hadn't meant to take you to task, actually, and appreciated your thoughtful response, even if Bless sins didn't.Proabivouac 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Saint Methodius

Str1977, there is a debate at Talk:Saint Methodius regarding the article name similar to other discussions you have been involved in. I wonder if you might want to put in your 2 cents. Thanks -- Pastordavid 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Thank you, my dear friend, for consenting to my posting of this. I'm sure you'll get your reward in heaven, because I don't think you'll get much reward here! But I'm positive this was the right thing to do. Anyway, I e-mailed the Arbitration Committee, and I'll leave it with them. I hope you won't become the target of a lot of new abuse. Hopefully he'll see that a real, "sinister Vatican agent" would be delighted at the thought of having him permabanned with no second (or third or fourth) chances. Anyway, there are various remedies in place, and if it doesn't work out, I won't object to a reblocking. At least, such a reblocking would be as a result of what he chooses to do in full awareness of the consequences. The block extension isn't. I won't be around much for the next few days. Musical Linguist 10:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Axiomatic

"Ideas that are not of use but true should not be discarded."

Per Peirce, I had taken it as axiomatic that truth is of use. Even in mathematics, we find that truths that are not known to be useful when they are discovered turn out later to be useful. For those universes (supposing that they can exist) in which my statement does not apply, I axiomatically withdraw it. However, I don't think ours to be among them. It is an unfortunate coincidence that my argument superficially parallels those of some atheists. They are correct, I believe, on this point, but wildly incorrect in thoughtlessly assuming that religion is of no use.Proabivouac 10:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Words and music

I may also offer that religion is art. By that I emphatically do not mean that it is "untrue." The vast majority of things that are important to us resist characterization by conventional notions of what can be judged as true or untrue: morality, love, art, literature, music, etc. It is quite obvious that Bach, Rembrandt, Shakespeare and especially the Bible are mostly true in a way that formal logic has not yet evolved to describe. It is the shortcoming of the latter, not the aforementioned. I do not subscribe to the technical points of Catholicism, which I would call the words, some of which seem to me quite obviously false (though trivially, to me, as I view theology as essentially trivial) but I am certain that the music is true. Be wary of those with the right words but the wrong music. I hope I've not offended you or anyone else who's viewed this post.Proabivouac 11:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The pleasure experienced upon listening to music is subjective. Arrow740 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help in reverting the nonsense criticism of one user in the Nazism and religion and the Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs articles. Please continue to support the insertion of these passages, as they are only removed by those (sadly often liberals and communists) who want to imply a linking of the Catholic Church to "Fascism". The anti-Catholicism of the Nazi Reich does not fit into their picture, therefore they remove entire sections detailing it. Despite these sections being firmly documented and proven by Goebbels diary and Hitler biographical historians. Thanks again.Smith2006 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

about the Blood Pack (Blade II) article

i renamed the Blood Pack to Blood Pack (film), but i see you created instead Blood Pack (Blade II). But as per the films naming convention, we dont use the title of the source film in the article, but instead we use the word "film" to describe its a film, "comic" to describe its a comicbook-related article, "actor" to describe a person, etc. †Bloodpack† 06:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

okay, i finally understand, sorry for the trouble ;) †Bloodpack† 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A favour requested

Hello, my dear friend. Will you do me a favour and refrain from posting anything more on the Christianity talk page until tomorrow? I won't make that request of anyone else, because you're the only person I'd feel comfortable asking that, but I think if even one person stops, it will help. Musical Linguist 00:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Str1977, we still have a dispute to resolve. Please re-join the talk page on Banu Qurayza.Bless sins 05:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz recently added this to the Criticism of Muhammad page: "John Esposito states that the incident should be understood in its context: It occured in a world in which the traitors were executed." Is that true? Arrow740 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Ubayy

Sorry to have upset you. As you say, it seemed to me a trivial matter. I shall consider it a bit more.Proabivouac 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"The name is informal and unencyclopedic"

It's not a big deal... just, it doesn't belong on Talk:Muhammad. I have no reason to believe that you had anything but the best intentions... but, I just wanted to end the discussion so it went on in the right place. gren グレン 09:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation at Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661)

Mediation was requested a while ago, and Ive responded. None involved in mediation has responded however. I am requesting your presence at the article to resolve any disputes. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Which image

I'm not sure why your prefer one over the other but I prefer the last miniature image primarily because it is somewhat easier to actually distinguish the image of Muhammad. For me it is a minor point though and I was only reverting to Alecmconroy per his editorial comment. (→Netscott) 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/Czech_National_Socialist_Party

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

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

Sudeten German Party

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

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

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

Austrian National Socialism

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

German help

Hello, Str1977, I've come across you at some Christianity-related articles, and I see from your "about me" page that you're German, or at least that German is your native language. I studied German at school, but I don't have a great deal of confidence with it. Today I was adding an image of my ice cream maker to French Misplaced Pages, and I decided to be very brave and register an account with German Misplaced Pages. I added the image, but I just put "Eismaschine" as the caption, as I wasn't sure what adjective to use. I'd like to add a picture of my popcorn maker to de:Popcorn and my yoghurt maker to de:Joghurt. I'd be grateful if you could suggest a caption for the pictures. In particular, I'd appreciate some help with the yoghurt maker. As you can see here, when I added it to the article, I said "A yoghurt-making kit, with container, thermosflask, and thermometer." No hurry at all. The articles aren't crying out in desperation for some images! Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Amorrow

Thanks for your detailed response. As far as it being an internet cafe; has anyone considered sending an abuse report to the internet cafe proprietor? --Random832 15:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jude of James

I seem to recall that you spent some time looking over sources on the apostles recently. I wonder if you could look over the latest revision of this article (and also James, son of Alphaeus), I have tried to keep to the identifications that were laid out last month, while making the various conflations of identity clear -- Pastordavid 16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles II, Duke of Parma

It says in his mother's article: "Maria Louisa became Duchess in her own right and was granted the rank and privileges of a Queen. Only upon her death , her son, Charles Luis would succeed her, meanwhile he was known as the Prince of Lucca". So, was she regent, or was she indeed Duchess? I went with the latter, but if you find out otherwise, for certain, then revert it.SamEV 02:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Luxemb(o)urg

I just added the corrected link to that guideline to the article's talkpage. Here is another direct link to the guideline, but lets discuss the issue over at the Counts... of Luxembourg talk page if needed.--Caranorn 13:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

First, you should make sure that your edit summaries are civil, and avoid personal attacks; this is treated more seriously in edit summaries than in other contexts. Secondly, reverting an incorrect change (with an explanation) is hardly "stonewalling"; it's doing what an editor should do. Thirdly, I don't understand the insistence on explaining exactly what Christ Church is; that's what the link is for. You don't feel the need to explain the Oxford collegiate system, etc. (and nor should you) — what's the difference? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page (but you might not have read it yet, as I was still typing) I reject your characterisation of my edit as incorrect. Badly worded maybe, but not incorrect. I consider this incivil too. If you don't understand the need that's your loss. I don't care. But why do you have to hinder other editors from providing information? Str1977 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my Talk page.

You're right that the failure to use edit summaries is widespread; if you check my contributions, you'll see many reverts of unexplained and unsourced edits — I'm not picking you out for special treatment.

Explaining in the edit summary is a start, but sources need to be given to back up the explanation. If someone changed the article on, say, Socrates, to say that he was an Egyptian pharaoah, we shouldn't accept it just because they explained what they'd done in the edit summary — we'd ask for sources...

When a change is made to an article, editors expect a source to be given. It's not possible to take responsibility for everything that was there before (sources may have been given at the Talk page, indicated in edit summaries, etc.), only what's new.

Making sure that one reverts only the problem part of an edit takes more time, but that's not a reason not to do it (I've recently spent quite a lot of time doing just that in a number of cases). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to the point about Christ Church at the article's Talk page. Your edits to other articles included changing "annexed by" to "integrated into" (or something like that; I'm quoting from memory) — that's the sort of thing that needs a source.

On the whole, where you've reverted with an edit summary I've been happy to leave things as they are; it's only when your revert involves reverting a lot of my own careful copy-editing, or where it includes changes that need sources, that I've intervened. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that messages at article Talk pages shouldn't be blanked; they're a record of what's been said. If the page fills up, it wuill be archived. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. And act. Str1977 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack removed

Aw, thanks Str! Not that it bothered me too much; I do have a funny name, to those of limited understanding. It is my greatest hope that users are forced to scour Latin and Greek dictionaries in search of the relevant roots. I'm pro- "for" a- "not" bi- "two"...then what? Therein lies challenge.

Anyhow, that IP among a number of others is most likely an anonpuppet of Bless sins. I'm surprised and disappointed, as I'd no reason to think Bless sins inclined to engage in personal attacks, vandalism, vote-stacking or disruption, but that is what I have been reluctantly forced to conclude.Proabivouac 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)