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 Wikipedia

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

God

The reason I wrote religious extremists rather than Muslim (or Islamic) is because the 9/11 attack is seen by these authors (and many others) as an extreme example of the harm that general belief in God can cause, and is not necessarily particular (in their view) to one religion. --Serge 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion article

There's some discussion here about the accuracy of the first paragraph of the abortion article, and you're invited to participate.Ferrylodge 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteenth-century German

Hi, Str1977, I don't know if you have an account at Commons or not, but if you have, you might be interested in the discussion here. ElinorD (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you

Just here to notify you that I have reported you. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian rulers

I only reverted, your edit b/c you deleted too much of the article in one go (1100 chars). If you are still intrested in the article please take smaller steps, or explain your changes. Hobartimus 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kingdom of Germany

The claim is again being made that the Kingdom of Germany did not exist. Thought you might be interested. john k 03:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.brepolis.net/login/overview.cfm

Ebionites RGG

Ebioniten, seit Irenäus (adv. haer. 1, 26, 2) in den christlichen Häresiologien gebrauchte Bezeichnung für das aus der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde erwachsene Judenchristentum, das sich nach dem Auszug von 66/67 n. Chr. abseits von der Großkirche im Ostjordanland zur Sekte zurückbildete. Die Ableitung dieses Namens von einem Ketzervater Ebion (Tertullian, Epiphanius) beruht auf einer Fiktion; wahrscheinlich geht er auf den Ehrentitel der Jerusalemer Gemeinde zurück (die Armen = ptôchoi, 'æbjônîm; vgl. Röm 15, 26; Gal 2, 10), der seinerseits an die Selbstbezeichnung frommer jüdischer Kreise (außer Ps 25, 9; 68, 11 bes. PsSal 10, 6; 15, 1; 1 QpHab XII, 3.6.10) und an die Makarismen Jesu (Mt 5, 3; Lk 6, 20) anknüpfen konnte ( Armut: I, 2). Der eigentliche Anwendungsbereich der Bezeichnung E. bleibt freilich unklar, da die widerspruchsvollen Nachrichten der Kirchenväter (in erster Linie Epiphanius, Panar. 30) keine genaue Abgrenzung gegen andere Ketzernamen (z. B. Nazoräer, Elkesaiten) erlauben. Auch sonst bleibt die Geschichte der E. in vielem dunkel. Sie haben mit ihrer Theologie die Entwicklung des Christentums nicht mehr beeinflußt, wohl aber auf den Islam eingewirkt. Zum ebionitischen Schrifttum rechnet man neben Fragmenten des Ebionitenevangeliums vor allem gewisse Partien der [Ebioniten. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, S. 7434 (vgl. RGG Bd. 2, S. 297) (c) J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/band12.htm ]

Pseudo-Clementinen ( Petruskerygma), außerdem das Werk des Symmachus (Schoeps). Die Kirchenväter werfen den E. christologische Irrlehre (Ablehnung der Jungfrauengeburt; Christologie: II, 1b) und häretischen Legalismus vor. Weitere Kennzeichen sind: Ablehnung des gesamten Opfer- und Priesterwesens, Polemik gegen die Samaritaner, gegen Johannes den Täufer und bes. gegen Paulus, ferner eine tendenziöse Textkritik: die E. benutzten einen von »falschen Perikopen« gereinigten Pentateuch sowie ein umgearbeitetes MtEv ( Ebionitenevangelium). Sie kennen rituelle Taufbäder ( Taufe: II), Gemeinschaftsmähler (mit Brot und Salz – vielleicht eine alte Sitte der Urgemeinde) und strenge Arkandisziplin. Der Prozeß der Rückbildung zur häretischen Sekte hängt damit zusammen, daß sich das transjordanische Judenchristentum allen möglichen gnostisch-synkretistischen und jüdischen Einflüssen öffnete. Man wird die E. sicher mit der verbreiteten gnostischen Taufbewegung in Syrien und Palästina in Zusammenhang bringen müssen; die starke Berührung ihres Gedankenguts mit dem der essenischen Sekte von Qumran ist offenkundig. Möglicherweise sind Reste der Qumransekte nach der Katastrophe von 70 n. Chr. in den ebionitischen Gruppen des Ostjordanlandes aufgegangen.

H. J. SCHOEPS, Theol. u. Gesch. des Judenchristentums, 1949 (Lit.) – S. G. F. BRANDON, The [Ebioniten. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, S. 7435 (vgl. RGG Bd. 2, S. 297-298) (c) J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/band12.htm ]

Ebionitenevangelium. Daß die Ebioniten ein Sonderevangelium benutzt haben, berichtet Epiphanius, Panar. 30, 13 ff. Aus den dort mitgeteilten Einzelheiten ergibt sich nach Ansicht der meisten Forscher, daß dieses identisch ist mit dem bei Hieronymus (Mt-Komm., MPL 26, 16; ebenso Ambrosius, Theophylakt) wohl im Anschluß an Origenes, Hom. in Lc 1, I, erwähnten »Evangelium der Zwölf (Apostel)«, jedoch nicht verwechselt werden darf mit dem Hebräerevangelium (nach Epiphanius lief allerdings das E. unter dem Titel kata Hebraious). Aus den zwölf Aposteln, die zu Beginn des E.s gesamthaft als Erzähler der Geschichte Jesu erscheinen, ragt als eigentlicher Gewährsmann Matthäus hervor. Dazu stimmt, daß z. T. in der Väterliteratur das bei den Ebioniten gebrauchte Evangelium als MtEv gilt (Irenäus, adv. haer. 1, 26, 2; 3, 11, 7; Euseb, h. e. 6, 17, weiß von einer polemischen Schrift des Ebioniten Symmachus über das MtEv, Epiphanius von einem »verstümmelten und gefälschten« MtEv der Ebioniten). Ob dem E. die zahlreichen Evangelienzitate des pseudoclementinischen Petruskerygma zuzuweisen sind (Waitz), bleibt unsicher, auch wenn diese Quelle ebionitisch ist. Die bei Epiphanius erhaltenen Bruchstücke lassen unschwer erkennen, daß das E. wohl synoptisches Gut (Mt?) verwendet, aber dieses im [Ebionitenevangelium. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, S. 7437 (vgl. RGG Bd. 2, S. 298) (c) J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/band12.htm ]

Sinne ebionitischer Anschauungen korrigiert: die Jugendgeschichte Jesu fehlt; erst durch die Taufe wird Jesus zum Gottessohn (Ablehnung der Jungfrauengeburt); Johannes der Täufer verzehrt keine Heuschrecken, und Jesus lehnt auf die Jüngerfrage Mt 26, 17 den Fleischgenuß beim Passamahl ab (Vegetarismus); in dem Wort Mt 5, 17 bezeichnet Jesus sich als den, der gekommen ist, die Opfer aufzulösen (Verwerfung des Opferdienstes).

Die Fragmente bei KLOSTERMANN (KlT 8, 19293, 12-15) u. PREUSCHEN, Antilegomena, 1901, 9-11. – Dazu HENNECKE2 (WAITZ), 3 (VIELHAUER) – HENNECKE, Hdb. 42 ff. (A. MEYER) – H. WAITZ, ZNW 36, 1937, 60-81 – ALTANER 49. O. Cullmann [Ebionitenevangelium. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, S. 7438 (vgl. RGG Bd. 2, S. 298) (c) J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/band12.htm ]

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/ebionites.php

Ebionites

Hello Str1977, I've worked hard editing the Ebionites article in order for it become a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article featured on the main page of Wikipedia. I'm happy to leave this article in the hands of someone that will ensure that it remains neutral in face of editors interested in giving the views of fringe scholars undue weight. --Loremaster 15:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your trust but I cannot do this alone. Please keep your eyes on it as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try my best. --Loremaster 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I see Musical Linguist has not posted for a while, and her email seems not to be working. Have you heard from her if anything is wrong? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

You're very knowledgeable in general about Christianity and I was wondering if you'd like to help out at early Christianity. It needs a good chunk more of cleanup (paring down, removing original research, etc) and the accompanying referenced expansion. It'd be great to have you over there. Thanks! Vassyana 01:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essenism section in the Ebionites article

It would be very much appreciated if you could improve the Essenism section in the Ebionites article by adding a critique of these theories implying that John the Baptist, James the Just and the Jerusalem church were Essenes. --Loremaster 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishopric of Havelberg

there seems to be a walled garden with articles around Bishopric of Havelberg. Could you take a look and see if that is for real? No interwikis to de-wiki which is kind of worrying. Agathoclea 11:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance please

Hello STR, would you mind adding some direction to the Christianity article. You will recall our past conversations on monotheism. As I recall you had some excellent counter points to the silliness of the statement that Christians claim to be monotheistic. That comment has been raised again on the discussion page and I would appreciate hearing from you again when you have the time. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bahtory LexMA

Báthory, Hungarian noble family

weitverzweigte ung. Adelsfamilie aus dem Geschlecht Gutkeled, die vom 14. Jh. an zahlreiche kirchl. und weltl. Würdenträger stellte.

Andreas B., 1329-45 Bf. v. Großwardein, begann den got. Neubau der Kathedrale.

Stefan I., B. v. Ecsed († vor dem 3. Juni 1493), war 1471-93 Landesrichter, seit 1479 auch Wojwode v. Transilvanien. Analphabet, aber tüchtiger Feldherr, schlug er mit Paul Kinizsi am 13. Okt. 1479 die nach Siebenbürgen eingefallenen Türken auf dem Kenyérmezö, am 4. Juli 1490 besiegte er → Johannes Corvinus bei Csonthegy. Als Wojwode versuchte er, die freien →Székler zu unterjochen, wurde aber Anfang 1493 v. Erzkanzler →Bakócz zum Rücktritt gezwungen.

Sein Bruder Nikolaus B. (* um 1440, † nach dem 24. Febr. 1506), Bf. v. Vác, war bedeutender Humanist und Mäzen, befreundet mit Marsilio →Ficino.

Th.v. Bogyay

Source: Lexikon des Mittelalters, Verlag J.B. Metzler, Vol. 1, Col. 1550 (To cite this page)

Bathory Numerals

Anittas, I found a book with much information on that family. It uses numerals for the various members of the family, going across the border of the two branches. This would enable us to clearly identify the various Stephens, Georges and Andrews. I will implement this on the Bathory page. Would you agree to use it in article titles as well? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking the same, but didn't want to get involved. I think it's a good idea that you should implement. --Thus Spake Anittas 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boldizsar_B%C3%A1thory

http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02113/html/92.html

http://susi.e-technik.uni-ulm.de:8080/Meyers2/seite/werk/brockhaus/band/51/seite/0489/brockhaus_b51_s0489.html

Bäthory, ungar. Geschlecht, dessen ununter- brochene Genealogie mit Andreas de Rakomaz (Ende des 13. Jahrh.) beginnt. Dessen Sohn Bric- cius erbielt von König Ladislaus IV. (1272 - 90) die Ortschaften Abram, Batur und Kis-Bata; von Vatur (magyar. Imwi- ˆ kühn, tapfer) nabm Briccius seinen Geschlechtsnamen. Um die Mitte des 14. Iabrb. zerfiel das Geschlecht in zwei Zweige, den zu Ecsed und den zu Somlyö.

Stepban B.sgest. 1493), aus der Ecseder Linie, ist vorzüglich bekannt durch den Sieg, den er als Woiwode von Siebenbürgen 1479 bei Kenye'rmezö über die Türken erfocht.

Stcpban V. von Somlyö war unter Johann Zäpolva Vaida oder Woiwode von Siebenbürgen. Sein Sohn Stephan V., geb. 1522, erst am Hose Ferdinands I., dann im Dienste der Königin Isabella (Zapolya), wurde 1571 zum Fürsten von Sieben- bürgen gewählt; 1576 bestieg er den poln. Königs- thron und wurde in Krakau gekrönt. Er regierte in Polen bis 1586. Dessen jüngerer Bruder, Christoph A. von Somlyö, war 1576-81 Fürst von Sicbeu- bürgcli. Er rief die Jesuiten ins Land und ließ seinen SohuSigismund durch dieselben erziehen. Sigis- mund B. vermählte sich 1595 mit einer Tochter des Erzherzogs Karl von Steiermark, des Oheims von Rudolf II., vernachlässigte aber alsbald seine Ge- mahlin und übergab Siebenbürgen dein Kaiser Ru- dolf (1598). Er selber zog nach Oppeln, um in den geistlichen Stand zu treten, bereute aber bald wieder die Abtretung seines Fürstentums. Während die kaiserl. Kommissare noch in der Übernahme des Lan- des begriffen waren, erschien er verkleidet in Klausen- burg, nahm jene gefangen und schickte Bocskay (s. d.) nach Prag zur Beschwichtigung des Kaisers. Plötzlich übertrug er die Regierung seinem Vetter, dem Kar- dinal Andreas V., der sich aber gegen den Verbün- deten des Kaisers, den ehrgeizigen walach. Woi- wodcn Michael, nicht halten konnte und 1599 ums Le- ben kam. Sigismund nabin 1601 selbst den Fürsten- thron wieder ein, mußte jedoch, von allen verlassen, 1602 abdanken. Er starb 27. März 1613 in Prag.

Der letzte V. war Gabriel (Gabor), ein Sohn Stephans, Königs von Polen, der als Fürst von Siebenbürgen 1608 -13 regierte. Wegen seiner Grausamkeit empörten sich viele Großen wie die siebenbürg. Sachsen, so daß es zum Kriege kam, in dem Gabriel unterlag. Er entwich nach Groftwardein, wo er 11. Okt. 1613 ermordet wurde.

ElisabethV. (aus dem Ecseder Zweige), die be- rüchtigte Gemahlin des Grafen Franz Nädasdy, glaubte die Entdeckung gemacht zu baben, daß das Blut junger Mädchen die .haut verschöne. Sie be- wog deshalb mehrere ihrer Dienstboten, ihr fort und fort solche Opfer zu vcrschaffeu, denen man zu den Bädern der Gräfin das Blut abzapfte. Nach- dem Elisabeth 1604 Witwe geworden, setzte sie die- sen Frevel auf dem Schlosse Csejte im Neutraer Komitat fort. Die Verbrechen wurden erst ruchbar, nachdem mehr als 80 Mädchen ermordet worden waren. Der Palatin Georg Thurzö überraschte die Mörder auf frischer That. Während man Elisabeth zu ewiger Gefangenschaft verurteilte, wurden ihre Helfershelfer 7.Jan. 1611 lebendig verbrannt. Elisa- beth V. starb 21. Aug. 1614, wahrscheinlich an Gift. - Vql. von Elsberg, Die Blutgräfin, Elisabeth B. (Bresl. 1894). ' ˆLitteratur.

Polish history

There's lots of silliness like that in Polish history subjects, and I fully agree with you. I assume that those articles have some prickly guardians, and that it'll be impossible to actually get rid of them, but I'll back you up if you try to go ahead with it. john k 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent chnages to the Ebionites article

Hello Loremaster, please have a look at my recent changes on the Ebionites. I have read the above and understand but I want to ask you whether you can at least keep half an eye on the situation. The article is not yet in the shape it should be. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Str1977, due to ideologically-driven edits of some editors, the Ebionites article has become a source of fustration rather than pleasure. Therefore I won't be (counter-)editing or keeping any half on it anymore except to ensure that the Jesus sub-section as well as the caption under the Sermon on the Mount image stay the same. --Loremaster 03:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Str1977. I have now gone through all your changes and left comments on the talk page. I made further additions of my own where I felt it was needed. A copy of my recent version is also on Ebionites/wip. I have wrapped up my time on the Ebionites article, for many of the same reasons as Loremaster. It's been nice working with you. :0) Ovadyah 00:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Str1977. I posted the following notice to Loremaster's talk page:

I left some comments on Meta's talk page if you care to add to them or correct anything I may have mistated. Ovadyah 15:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Meta indicated on his talk page that he is currently very busy off-Wiki, I left the same comments with Jayjg. Ovadyah 15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metamagician3000 and Jayjg are admins. I extend the same invitation to you to add to my comments or correct anything I may have mistated (Michael didn't hesitate, although I didn't ask him). I see that you are being drawn into the same type of edit-warring that Loremaster and I endured for months. It got so bad in January that Metamagician locked the article. The agreed upon solution was for everyone except Michael to withdraw from the article for the month of February. Michael had the entire month to make whatever changes he wanted, and he did almost nothing. When we returned to the article in March, the constant edit-warring resumed. I am most likely leaving the article after this as well, but I didn't want to leave it without any oversight. Ovadyah 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you should know that Michael tried to trap you in a 3RR so it doesn't come as a complete surprise. So much for collaborative editing. Ovadyah 03:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No Violation. Glad I could help. :) Ovadyah 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael the Brave

Hi, I have given several arguments supporting both the de facto and the de jure title. Note however that de jure in Transylvania during the Long War is a vague notion. Michael conquered the country (fact), the nobles subsequently swore fealty (probably out of fear), then the Diet met end the Estates swore fealty to the Emperror, to Michael and to Michael's son. O course Rudolf proposed governorship but Michael refused and continued negotiations both with Rudolf but also with other powers such as the Ottomans and Polad. the Sultan did recognize Michael as Prince and awarded him the isgnia of power. Rudolf did end up by recognizing Michael as Prince in a letter he send on Sept. 2 1600. Michael never got it, he had already bean beaten at Miraslau.

Note that if you lounch a purely "leagal" issue over Michael's title, than the second and third reigns of Sigismund Bathory, the reign of Moses Szekely, that of Emeric Thököly and those of a certain number of "Princes" are also an issue. Further more calling Michael a governor does not correspond to the actual political situation and would confuse the reader, Michael never openly oposed Hapsburg policy but he governed as any Prince before him and not as Basta or 18th century governors. Plinul cel tanar 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Michael as Basarab... now that IS controversial. Petre Panaitescu even questioned him being the son of Patrascu the Good. Even if he were the son of Patrascu, his only solid link to the Basarabs is, if I am not mistaken, a female branch (Lady Chiajna). Unlike his successor Radu Serban he never used the name Basarab, remember he was trying to establish a dinasty of his own. Of course, I suppose that on the other hand in the light of the Byzantine inspried traditions of Wallachia you could call him a Basarab without being too far off... it's as you feel best. Plinul cel tanar 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will consult with other wikipedians whether it is apropriate or not to call Michael a Basarab. In the mean time I saw you were working on Bathory related articles. You may want to check this out http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/Europe_Orientale/Transylvanie.htm , I don't know if you knew the site or not. I still have a lot of work on the Michael the Brave article, afterwards I may give you a hand. The Sigismund Bathory article in particular needs further details. Cheers. Plinul cel tanar 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus myth hypothesis

Please see new developments at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#A_technical_problem, which IMO are in danger of running in circles again with the title. ... Kenosis 15:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Replaceable_fair_use_to_be_decided_after_16_August_2007

Pretender

Why did you remove the pretender section from the List of German monarchs page? Those people would have ruled Germany were it not for WWI. The Hohenzollerns claimed 2 titles. German Emperor (ruler of the entire country) and King of Prussia (ruler of one of the states). Emperor001 01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan of Hungro-Wallachia

Hi. Please don't delink the redlinks to that: it is bound to become an article at some point. It is the official title of a division of the Orthodox Church, and it would be absurd to delink and then hunt down the links in about 1,000 articles. Dahn 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then add the full title to both, but please keep the links. Dahn 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is wrong. Please let's not turn this into a tiresome discussion about how and why, and let's not squabble over details. The point is that the article should be created eventually. Dahn 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites FAR

Ebionites has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Avi 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince and Prince

For the love of me, I don't understand why you remove the link to the country from the articles. For starters, it is common for synonyms to be told apart by redirects, and it is common sense to have a link to the country where "the action is taking place". There is absolutely no problem in linking a simple title to a more complex list than the title would suggest - since the person wanting to click it is most likely interested in "who the princes were", and since anyone is likely to be interested in "what the country is" (you are effectively moving the link to that country more clicks away). Please don't do it anymore, I find it disruptive (and I also believe it to be in breach of conventions). All your other edits are fine, btw. Dahn 09:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand your concerns, and I do not understand why it is "no good" - just that you believe it is "no good". First of all, the links are not necessarily to explain terms, but are always used to explain terms in context. This is, for example, why users are asked to disambiguate - the expectation is that there is a direct link between a concept an a certain article. Nobody is fooling the reader into assuming that he will find the explanation for the term "prince", and, if that is what he or she is looking for, it is available one other click away (as opposed to the proper term, which is available where it should be available). I really see no need to "copyedit" what doesn't need to be copyedited, especially when we lose links or move them from their logical place in the text. Furthermore, nobody seems to care that the links in, say, here are "hidden". Please, let's be reasonable. Dahn 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it messed up to indicate both title and country, without having to merge the two into the link? Especially when this is done in numerous other contexts (one is indicated above). The issue I take is with preserving a format that gives as much relevant links to the reader, instead of assuming that he or she already knows what the article is about. That is why I consider the alternative unreasonable, and that is why I cannot tell what was "messed up" about the previous version. Furthermore, if you didn't object to the links because they hid their destination under a generic name, then, really, what was your objection? Dahn 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was not clear: I do commend the copyedits in the articles, I just do not approve of the linking. I hope the current situation on Cantemir is a compromise. About Callimachi: it may be a residual error, I'll have to look it up (I haven't checked the Moldavian list of rulers in a while, because some issues there were pissing me off). Dahn 22:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Qurayza

I invite you to join the talk page.Bless sins 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites content and source cleanup

I left an invitation on Michael's talk page to work consensually with the other editors to clean up the problems that have been tagged for some time now. Would you be willing to help? I would like to head off having the article delisted as a Featured Article during FAR if possible. Ovadyah 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to accept formal mediation? Ovadyah 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a formal request for mediation. I hope you can participate. Ovadyah 23:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished with my cleanup edits to the body of the article. I replaced the over-developed second paragraph of the Essenes section with the FA version. That eliminated the synthesis problems in that section and the need for a disputed tag. Please look over the article and make whatever additional changes you think are necessary. Then we can work together on polishing the lead. I would like to make the case to the FAR Committee that we have made a good faith effort to fix the neutrality and factual accuracy problems. Ovadyah 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finished my edits to the lead and the article. I think (hope really) we are very close to finished. Mediation will likely still be required when a certain someone finally shows up. Ovadyah 19:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation - Ebionites

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Anti-Sacrilege

Astounded as you may be, deleting apparently source text that you dislike is certainly not the way to go. I agree that the text needs to be sourced with citations, but if you have something to question about the nature of the information, add sources that say otherwise, and don't delete sources that disagree with you (unless you can prove they are unreliable). Wikipedia is about citing sources, and I don't recall you citing any. Dahn 13:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that the article cannot get "too big" (I guess at some point it could, but that is the least of anybody's concerns at the moment). I think the entire article should be cited with footnotes, including the added quote (which should be translated), so I do not endorse Taz deleting the tags (as far as I'm concerned, you may tag almost every sentence, because a more cited article is closer to desired status). Once again, I have to suggest this: the more reliable sources are amply and aptly cited, the better; if you are worried that a reliable source gets overexposure, don't erase its conclusions - cite another reliable source that contradicts it (the more amply and aptly you cite that source, the better). Not only is this the most constructive way and in perfect line with what this project requires, but I'm pretty certain that Taz would never disapprove of contrasting opinions being sourced and all featured into one article. I consider that a proper article should include not just the basic "plot", but also background, contrasting narratives, and contrasting assessments (provided these actually exist). Dahn 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you misunderstood me: I never said that you thought the text was too big, but stressed that the thing to do is to add to it (since, in any case, the text'll never get "too big"); I encourage both you and Taz to cite with footnotes, and, if you think it is needed, you may tag it all for citations (I for one would not object, since, in any case, citations are next to mandatory nowadays); I said that you may doubt the factual accuracy of the text, and that the thing to do is to add sourced text saying the opposite of opinion/comparison/conclusion x (instead of deleting that opinion/comparison/conclusion). Dahn 11:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The mediator is asking for your preference Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ebionites. Ovadyah 18:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

The Christianity article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites post-mediation

Since Michael Price has rejected formal mediation, I expect that there will be an attempt to add misleading material back into the article. I could use your help reverting these changes while we discuss what to do next. Ovadyah 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal now to pursue community enforcable mediation on the Ebionites article. Please indicate whether such would be agreeable to you. Thank you. John Carter 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Ebionites#How to proceed. Thank you. John Carter 15:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation

I think this is what you were asking about. Hope it helps. John Carter 14:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

No problem. I replied on my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites

Please note that a request for Arbitration from the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee regarding the above article has been filed here, in which you are named as a party. John Carter 16:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977, if you want to make an initial statement, this is the time to do it. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Ebionites Ovadyah 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977, please make your statement soon, if you intend to make one. All other interested parties have made their initial statements, and the case for arbitration has been accepted. I don't want to move forward without hearing from you. Ovadyah 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mistated the status of the case. The arbitrators are still voting on acceptance (one acceptance so far), so you still have time. Sorry about the confusion on my part. Ovadyah 15:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know when is AnnH coming back? I miss her too. I hope she is doing well.Giovanni33 02:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

Greetings!

Please refer to the above page for a suggestion on getting this article back on track.

Cordially, Drieux 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your image uploads

Hi, I recently deleted Image:Scholder review 1285 (head).PNG and I've noticed that a couple of your other uploads had the wrong tag and some have been deleted. If you check Derivative works, you'll see that if a work is copyrighted, and you take a photo of it, the copyright doesn't transfer to you, so you don't have the right to release your photo under a free licence. Please be a bit more careful about your tags. If you're in any doubt, it might be a good idea to ask a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, before uploading the image. You may also find Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, and Wikipedia:Non-free content helpful. ElinorD (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor, I found the posting above on my talk page and I am a bit puzzled. I only uploaded a handful of pictures and have already discussed this with another admin, User:Quadell. He already overstated my uploading after looking through my log - but only after I asked him something. I don't know why you go through my logs. Maybe you are a bit too preoccupied with removing images and copyright questions. I tend to focus on content and hence have not much time for such issues. I also must admit that I find WP's image policy confusing, to say the least. But anyway, I don't see why you had to lectured me like that, especially since I already sorted things out with Quadell. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hallo Str

I guess you know hallo means 'I hear' in hungarian. Well, it was the earliest apparent Str unsigned edits which I dug up recently that persuaded me as to why you did not care to answer my question as to whether you were paid to promulgate your views here, and why I may have been close to the mark in considering you a professioanl faith editor...I don't expect I need to say more than 'ancient uni'...Now, old chum, I am glad to see you are wide awake, and perhaps I should have come here first thing I did to congratulate you on your survival etc ( perhaps on the successful conversion of me into a known wiki-criminal?).. as you remember my first concern is always verifiability, so let's see....you have spent the last year of my block in avoiding answering the issue that User:Bengalski raised... poor Mr B- like everyone else, he was foxed by the dire intricacies of Weimar regarding the 'coalition'..however yes..you left it that you would return to Scholder and check that which Mr B had verified, and which had exceeded and confirmed all that had been classed as my Original Research...however you did not do what you wrote you would do, and Mr B got bored...or is far away... I somewhere- I think in Italian, studied the review of Scholder that you had claimed represented counter-weight to him, and must dig it out of some hard disk soon...of course the review is not counterweight under any conceivable historiography as you call it and rather the reverse...User:Savidan curiously allowed the verifications of Scholder to disappear entirely from Pius XII, in such manner as to reinforce attention....of course such Scholder accusations do not figure either in the Hitler nor Ludwig Kaas nor Centre Party articles, and where they do in Weimar they are emasculated...they are emasculated because the essential Bruning demand is either ignored or obfuscated, contrary to my verifications, thus sparing the world today the requisite of understanding that Bruning represented the last hurdle in the empowerment of Hitler...of course you wish to neutralise old Bruning as unreliable and were it not for the Wheeler-Bennett Hindenburg:The Wooden Titan, might have succeeded....we know what what you wish to neutralise, which is Bruning's own accusation against Kaas, and his witness of Pacelli's 1931 Hitler empowerment wishes...with regard to the latter, as I point out, perhaps solely for your benefit as the rest of WP appears semi literate, I have benefited from this furlough you achieved by expanding my understanding of history...the later German situation as regards papal/Pacelli interference lies within the continuum of the Holy Roman Empire beyond its apparent demise, such that Wheeler-Bennett references to secret paperless Holy See intrigue towards a restoration of the 'monarchy' (Emperor) have become more understandable...and naturally the 1933 trickery between Hitler and Kaas and Pacelli, howsoever proveable or not, for which Bruning's August 1931 meeting with Pacelli is sufficient to link the names Hitler and Pacelli, whatever about the Kaas admission referred to by Scholder regarding 24-31 march, or the Hitler cabinet meeting of 15 march, or the von Papen reference Bengalski dug up regarding mention of the Reichskonkordat at 31 January, thus justifying the inclusion of Kaas within this axis in at least an NPOV report of the accusation....all these things remain to be dealt with honestly and within WP guidelines...all these join together to add to the simple reasoning that outweighs your own claim that Scholder represents a ' minority view ' ( the reason being that since the Church seem to have both arranged and published results of a formal seminar between specifically Repgen on the one hand, and Scholder's professorial descendant on the other, thus demonstrating clearly to us both that Scholder represents one side of a two sided dispute, and therefore not a minority but a direct balance in the dispute...the central obfuscation at present however lies in the Hitler article, where 'deecisive' is later follwed by 'oral guarantees', which were I beleive in fact written under the 'Working Committee, and the Bruning required written 'Constitutional Guarantee, and Kaas' avoidance ore failure to obtain it.... therefore having expressed to you my continuing alertness to the actual WP and historical realities I shall here state that I do not wish to have you banned for your anti-verification actions, despite these being immense, but wish in a spirit of friendliness and reconciliation to convert you to a behaviour that would benefit the project, and society today...saying this I hope to interact with you under what I call the flag of truthfulness and what you might consider christian principles. I have written the above in briefest manner, knowing that you will understand and accept the brevity for what otherwise could have entailed far greater expansion. I believe it is better that we deal directly, under verifiability than involve parties who will not in 12 months even begin to follow the nuances. However this must be done under verifiability, and denial of that can only lead to study as to why denial is made. as\you well know I formulated an an article resolution template, which could allow us to assist the entire project by the example of its use. However I have to imagine that you would find difficulty in presenting criticism of 'the Church' in public....yrs EffK 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this through and see that I make no attack here. I mention that you removed verified info, which is digitally recorded elsewhere. I repeat that if we hold to the guidelines henceforth, it will benefit the project and society. You seem however to not wish to do so, and unless you signal a willingness I shall not bother you directly again, thus a silence will be taken as such a request. Then I shall work alone thru to other editors, or not. I remind you that I -if not Arbcom- base myself always on verifiability in everything. EffK 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]