This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RegentsPark (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 20 November 2008 (→Pyjamas: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:58, 20 November 2008 by RegentsPark (talk | contribs) (→Pyjamas: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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:

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

New Messages

Gospel of John

You deleted: "The Gospel of John places Jesus at a wedding in Cana three days after baptism (1:29,35,43; 2:1), whereas the other Gospels indicate a period of 40 days in the wilderness immediately after baptism."

Please explain how this difference is merely an interpretation rather than a plain reading of the verses in question, aside from POV arguments comprised of, "They both must be true because they're in the bible."--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro, the text does not say "three days after" at all. It does not even say "on the third day after baptism" - it merely says "on the third day". That might mean "on the third day after what was just related (which wasn't baptism but Jesus leading two disciples of John - traditionally believed to be Andrew and John - to his home. But it might also mean on "the third day of the week", i.e. on Tuesday. It is very common for Jewish weddings to be held on Tuesday (due to a certain exegesis of Genesis 1). So you see, your contradiction isn't that simple. Your plain reading is not even the correct text. Str1977 (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I will concede that there is some room for a very weak alternative interpretation of it meaning something other than the plain day-by-day narrative continuing from chapter 1 as indicated by the verses stated. Your contention that it wasn't following baptism but rather, the calling of Andrew and John, is more in support of my position than your defense, as 1:35 of the narrative indicates the calling of Andrew and Peter to be the day after baptism, unless you also contend some different meaning of the word "next".--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Habsburg spelling

Oh dear! Then you would have been very upset by many historical (especially Spanish) members of the family, who used Hapsburg, also Hasburg. It was once the correct spelling in English, reflecting English pronunciation. Some dictionaries still make this disctinction. I suspect you are unaware of this. Although it should be changed to Habsburg to reflect modern academic usage, it is not a spelling mistake as such in English. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not unaware of rationalisations for misspellings. What spellings were used centuries ago is beside the point as at the time there was no fixed orthography and everyone wrote as he pleased. Str1977 14:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a misspelling in German no doubt, but in English an old spelling, now falling into disuse, like Cologne, also once the correct English spelling. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So what is the correct English spelling for Cologne. Cologne simply is a different name in another language, such as Monaco or Munich for München. But Hapsburg (wash my hands) is simply a misspelling. Str1977 15:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So was Hapsburg - the natural spelling in English. Now most people use Habsburg they have to be told to pronounce it "Hapsburg". Are you saying the English dictionaries that still give it are just wrong? Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Was what? The ugly spelling is not a different name but simply an ugly spelling of it. Though you didn't answer my questiosn, I say this much: English dictionaries can't bring themselves to call a spade a spade. The p-spelling is ugly, ignorant and wrong. Str1977 19:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugly is entirely subjective, and unlikely to stike English and German people in the same way (most English would say Germans have a nerve talking about ugliness of language, but there we go). I repeat that in English it is actually the most natural spelling. It has become increasingly outdated but is neither ignorant, nor can it yet be said to be wrong. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is ignorant because it doesn't care how the word is actually spelled. I see no reason to give that misspelling anyway. And please don't try to use reported insults as an argument. Str1977 08:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get that until quite recently that was how the word was spelled in English. There's no law that says English spelling has to follow German, although modern best practice is to do so. Unusually, the family is sufficiently prominent to have acquired its own "Munich"-type spelling in English. Your irritation is misplaced. Johnbod (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me when I should be irritated or what I don't get. I get all you say I just don't agree with it. I see no merit in discussing this further. Str1977 06:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Van Dyck

I have reverted your unexplained, and rather inexplicable, edit here. English is not I think your native language, and you should be more careful making edits concerning English usage. Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Christianity

I appreciate your comments - it wasn't my intention to split hairs or go into unreasonable detail about a side issue of the article - only to respond to the anonymous editor, who I think was splitting hairs! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I made a proposal at WP:NOR, perhaps you would have a comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

New Consensus sought on lead sentence

Please come give us your opinion by voting here , Thanks! NancyHeise 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, I am supporting Karanacs version, she was the one who proposed it to eliminate the endless dispute and I think it is a very good proposal. The fact that Soidi likes it too is beside the fact. If more people like the first sentence, I will not stand in the way of using it. I just conducted the vote to see what everyone wants, not to upset anyone. I certainly don't want to upset you, you have been very helpful and I appreciate your help very very much. Please don't be angry. NancyHeise 19:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise 03:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Shimmelpfenig sentence.

Hi. I note you deleted the sentence I put in to accommodate vassyana's concerns on Featured Article Candidate review. I think it is important to have something like this in to accommodate Misplaced Pages policy that all significant viewpoints are represented in the article. Since this is a significant or minority viewpoint, we need to mention it as a point of view to gain Featured Article status. I had assumed that what went before the new sentence amounted to the standard or contrary view, but if this is not clear, perhaps you could suggest something else (short) that can be referenced, that could be added? I will replace the sentence while you respond since I have written on the FAC page that I have inserted the statement. We can alter after you respond if you are still opposed to this. Xandar 15:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One last vote please

Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: . Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise 15:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Str, you eliminated text that said the Coluseum is a short distance from the Vatican. This is an undisputed fact. I have been there. NancyHeise 18:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For all your help to improve Roman Catholic Church. Your edits were very well done and I enjoyed working with you very much. We failed FAC but will be going through peer review again in a few weeks. I hope I can count on your help then. Thanks again for your great insights and edits. NancyHeise 00:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert it

Sorry, sorry. Let's forget about it. There have been a few misunderstandings.

I thought your comment looked like vandalism. I apologise.
I didn't revert it. Spittlespat did. He didn't understand that you found it offensive and I didn't know he reverted it. Otherwise, hand on heart, I would have deleted it. Go through your history if you don't believe me.
I didn't realise you were an experienced editor. My sincerest apologies. Please forgive me. TopGearFreak 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry too, I just thought you were a vandal, but one question I want to ask you are you a rollbacker?--Spittlespat 18:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. one more thing, you said you would report me if I talked on your talk page, so can I or not? OH wait you meant I shouldn't insult you... ok I got it! :D :D (these are how I do my smiley faces) :D :D --Spittlespat 21:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You are doing pretty well for your edits, but have you ever reverted edits of a vandalizer before? Also try giving them a warning first, before reporting them you can ask me if you don't know how to give out warnings. :D cheers! :P :P --Spittlespat 21:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

also are you christian?--Spittlespat 21:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

But are you christian?--Spittlespat 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm christian too! :D But I'm mormon are you mormon?--Spittlespat 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyjamas

Apologies. I see you're reorganizing, not deleting. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

User talk:Str1977