Benedict XVI

Hi, glad to see your name appearing again on some of the pages on my watchlist. I had been wondering recently where you were, as the Christianity article has recently got very biased: persecution by Christians at one stage became much longer than persecution against Christians, and the two were balanced against each other as if modern examples of nasty remarks made by ministers could compete with examples of martyrs having their limbs chopped off. (I know there's the inquisition, etc. but the article was expanded to include every conceivable example of harrassment, discrimination, intolerant remarks, and vigilante attacks, as if they were the equivalent of state-ordered imprisonment, torture, and execution.)

Just wondering about your recent change to Pope Benedict XVI. I'm not sure how many popes have visited synagogues, but if it's just two (St Peter and Pope Benedict), then Pope Benedict is the first (not the second) after St Peter (or perhaps since St Peter) to visit one. Was there another pope who visited a synagogue?

Do stay around. We need you here, and I'm sometimes too busy to do much editing! Regards Musical Linguist ^(talk) 11:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ann, thanks for your post.

I'm glad that you missed me. Well, where have I been? I visited a certain city in the Rhineland - me and one million other people including Benedict XVI.

As for the Synagoge visits: it was always said that JPII was the first pope to visit a synagoge since St. Peter. Which would make Benedict the third after Peter and JP. I don't know if the claim that JP's visit was the first is actually (verifiably) true but it his visit certainly has been the first in a very long time. If the wording I posted seems ambigious to you (since I'm only a German, so non-native speaker), please correct it accordingly.

Don't worry I will stay though I also am quite busy right now. But I will stay.

Str1977 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is terribly written and edited. It's barely comprehensible as English as well. A candidate for merge into the main article on Pope Benedict, I'm afraid. I'd support a Vote for Deletion as redundant and it's transparent that the some of the editors are merely seeking to avoid the scrutiny of the editors of the main PB16 page. patsw 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977, please see my edit Talk:Pope Benedict XVI about the absurdity of claiming St Peter ever made an official visit to a synagogue in his capacity as Pope. He did not. He would have visited synagogues privately, but never as pope for the simple reason that the office of Pope was unknown in his times. The concept of papacy is a more recent creation, that we have restrospectively extended back to include Peter. In other words, even Peter himself did not know he was the pope, and certainly nobody else knew either, so it is ridiculous to say he made an official visit to a synagogue or did anything else AT ALL in his official capacity as pope. In any event, we have specific dates and places for JP2 and Benedict 16, but there is NO EVIDENCE for Peter. Please revert your recent edit. JackofOz 07:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, there is a problem with the word "official", but that Peter visited synagogues is a fact, even if we don't have the dates (as we don't have dates for a lot of things). But read Acts and you will find some occasions. Furthermore your statement on my talk page, that "the office of Pope was unknown in his times", that the "concept of papacy is a more recent creation" and that "Peter himself did not know he was the pope, and certainly nobody else knew either" is just plainly POV (notwithstanding development in form and name of that position).

However, I want to suggest a compromise: what about saying B16 was the second pope (after JP2) to visit a synagogue since St. Peter (this is how it is usually reported). Str1977 07:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia takes up too much time!

Hi, thanks for your message, and sorry for ignoring it. I was finishing a University project, and then had to fill in some important forms that had a deadline. Then, a big war broke out at Terri Schiavo, which is now locked! I had a look at the persecution section, and I agreed with your edits. But then, I normally do – my very favourite edit (with edit summary) since I joined Wikipedia is this one!

A recent problem with the Christianity article has been the eagerness of some to fill it up with examples of Christians making bigoted remarks or discriminating against atheists in employment offers, and to use these examples to balance the tortures endured by martyrs in the Roman persecutions. However, the article changes so fast that I can hardly keep up with it! I click on the button to compare different versions with each other, and since whole paragraphs have been either rewritten or moved – and I'm not necessarily referring to your edits – it becomes more difficult to see everything that has "slipped in", especially when I'm short of time. (And patsw wants me to have a look at the Pius XII talk page as well, which I'd like to do.)

Thanks for your reply to my last query. I had forgotten (stupidly) about Pope John Paul's visit to a synagogue!

Regards, Musical Linguist ^(talk) 20:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Ober! Der Tee ist kalt!

Hi Str1977. I hope I'm not violating Wikipedia policy by wasting server space on something not related to how to improve an article. I'm wondering about the politeness/rudeness of calling out "Herr Ober" to a waiter. It's typically found in textbooks for people learning German – in fact, the quotation is from Lesson One of Assimil: German with Ease, which my mother is doing in preparation for a holiday in Munich next Easter. I don't doubt that "Herr Ober!" is a proper translation of "Waiter", and it's quite likely that people learning English might have textbooks that have "Waiter!" in them. However, in practice, I think it would be extremely rare to call out "Waiter". It would seem quite rude and peremptory. If I wanted to attract a waiter's attention, I'd probably call, "Excuse me, could I have some more coffee, please?" So, in a sense, "Excuse me" might be a better translation for "Herr Ober", even though it wouldn't be what you'd find in the dictionary! Also, I'd never say, "That was a lovely meal, waiter." I'd simply say, "That was a lovely meal". Is it rude in German to call out "Herr Ober", when trying to attract a waiter's attention?

By the way, since we keep running into each other in the pages we edit, your interests are as obvious to me as mine must be to you! But have you ever considered having a look at the German article? I think the "writing system" section needs to be updated to reflect recent changes, but I wouldn't feel confident enough to mess around with it. I did German at school, and after school I did a bit of Assimil and Linguaphone and other methods, which were all produced in the early 1990s or before. If I'm not mistaken, modern methods don't use the ß, and that's not clear in the article. (But maybe I am mistaken.) Musical Linguist ^(talk) 11:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page I'd like you to look at, if you have time

Hi, I'm awfully busy preparing for exams, but I'm not happy with recent changes to Ordination of women. If you get a chance, could you take a look at it? I promise to join in later in the week. Regards. Musical Linguist ^(talk) 18:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. I'm trying to look up information on this woman. It's incorrectly spelled in the article; her real name is Ludmila Javorova, and, as you can see, there's a Wikipedia article on her, which says, incredibly, that her ordination was officially accepted by the Vatican in 1995! (That would have been a year after the issue of Ordinatio sacerdotalis.)

Obviously, I want to be as accurate as possible. Bishop Davidek died in 1988, and it was after his death that Javorova came forward. I remember reading around the time that the news originally broke that someone from the Vatican had said something to the effect of "if these ordinations really happened, they are of course invalid". I think I may have been incorrect in my recent edit to put that five or six women "claimed" to have been ordained. I know Wikipedia policy isn't very keen on the word "claimed" or "allegedly", though sometimes it's hard to find a better word. However, my research tonight leads me to feel that "it is claimed that five or six women were ordained" would be more accurate, though I accept that Wikipedia doesn't like "it is claimed", either. What I really mean is that Javorova is the only one to have come forward; the other women, if indeed they exist, have remained anonymous.

I'm trying to find a way to change the article so that it doesn't state as a fact that these "ordinations" really happened. Alhough I recognize that it's possible that some liberal bishop would go against constant Church teaching, I still feel that her coming forward after his death means that it's unverified, unless, of course, there are other records – but they haven't been mentioned in the article.

I'll see if I can find any more information.

Thanks again. Musical Linguist ^(talk) 00:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Ann's page: I clarified the issue on the ordination of women page [1] [2] [3] by adding quotes that claim both papel opposition and papel support for the issue -plue I cited my sources. Cheers.--GordonWatts 06:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eucharist

Hi, thanks for your message. I quite agree that bit was problematic. I looked up "symbol" at Merriam-Webster and got (as Meaning Number 2) something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible <the lion is a symbol of courage>.

I saw the problem the day before, when I was trying to get rid of the excessive use of the word "Bread", but it looked too complicated to fix immediately. I'm not even particularly delighted with my reworking of it. You might like to take another look. I think there is a sense where it's not heretical to use the word "symbol" – even though one drop from the Chalice, or one fragment of the Host would contain the whole Christ, yet, the use of bread is a better representation of the body than the use of wine would be, and the use of wine is a better representation of the blood than the use of bread would be. So it would be wrong to say, for example, "the bread is a symbol of his Body". But it would be okay to say that the choice of bread is a better symbol than the choice of some other food would have been. (And they say that receiving under both kinds is a "fuller sign", even though they don't say it's a fuller reception of Christ.) It's complicated. But it becomes very problematic when "symbolize" is used to suggest that the Host only represents Christ's body; and the Merriam-Webster definition would seem to support that interpretation. Regards, Musical Linguist ^(talk) 09:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church teaches that in this sacrament the bread is no longer bread in substance, but retains the appearance of bread. It is not symbolically the Body of Christ, but is in reality the Body of Christ patsw 13:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "form" v. "appearance". The Latin "forma" is not a cognate for the English "form". The sacrament of Holy Eucharist as all sacraments do, has a matter and form.

The matter of the Holy Eucharist is the bread and wine.

The form of the Holy Eucharist are the words of consecration spoken by the priest or bishop in Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. [4]

So to speak of the form of bread is unnecessarily ambiguous and the word "appearance" is word typically used in explanatory texts on the sacrament, and in the context of Terri Schiavo more accurate. In Catholic terminology a "form" is more like a "spoken formula". patsw 14:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In some of the recent comments in Talk:Terri Schiavo you can now see the ambiguity that I wrote of above. "Form" is taken by Marskell, etal. to be identical to reality, substance, etc. and they strongly believe that "form" and "appearance" have a signficantly different meaning. They find "appearance" to be unacceptable. In Catholic doctrine only the appearances remain, the substance (i.e. the reality, the physical "form", etc.) is no longer bread but the Body of Christ. patsw 19:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language matters

Hi, Str1977! I was very glad of your appearance at Terri Schiavo. On a completely unrelated matter, I recently started an article on ergative verbs. Well, to be more accurate, I didn't start it: there had been an article there suggesting inaccurately that these verbs were the same as unaccusative verbs (which I know nothing about, but the definition of them didn't match the meaning of ergative verbs); and then someone just created a "redirect". So I wrote a new article and undid the redirect. Someone then suggested on the talk page that examples from other languages would be nice, as it looks at the moment as if these verbs are a special feature of English. I have asked a Dutch Wikipedian to have a look at the article, and, if appropriate, to add one or two examples in Dutch. If you have time, I'd like to make the same request of you, for German, if these verbs exist in German. (I'm sure they do, since English is so close to German.) No need to feel embarrassed if you've never heard of "ergative verbs". I hadn't heard of them myself until earlier this year, when I was doing a university course in linguistics! In any case, if I've written the article well(!), it should make it very clear what the y are. If you don't have time, that's fine. Sometimes some of the editing on Wikipedia is urgent, to correct major inaccuracies, whereas this is just a question of adding something that would be helpful, but not necessary.

By the way, I can't understand why you have en-3 on your Babel template instead of en-4. Obviously, I don't know what your accent is like, but that's irrelevant on Wikipedia. From the point of view of your contributions here (for example, phrases like "in the end it boils down to Terri's choice") your English is definitely native-like. I can't find anything that makes me think, "oh, he's foreign." Musical Linguist ^(talk) 11:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Host desecration

Hi, Str1977, if you have time, could you have a look at the first sentence in Host desecration? The article seems to imply that the whole concept is an anti-semitic one, but surely the issue is much broader than that? Thanks. Musical Linguist ^(talk) 10:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Many thanks for your help at host desecration. I can tell you put a lot of work into it. I promise I'll have a look at those other articles as soon as I get a chance – maybe tonight. Vielen Dank! Musical Linguist ^(talk) 11:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trying out the four languages from your Babel templates!

Très cher Str1977. Je vois les choses ennuyeuses qui t'arrivent ici, qui te coûtent, sans doute, beaucoup de temps, et qui t'empêchent probablement de pouvoir contribuer ici comme tu aimerais. Es tut mir sehr leid. Si je peux t'aider, n'hésite pas à me le dire!

Let me assure you that none of my messages to Shauri ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) ever implied any criticism of you, either consciously or unconsciously. It's true that I spoke to her about how important it is for Wikipedians to treat each other with respect (and she certainly shows that ability), but what I was really criticizing was the tendency in some Wikipedians to kick someone when he's down, to pile on extra (and unnecessary) oppose votes when it's already obvious a candidate is going to fail, to make fun of someone who has just been blocked, or to ridicule an editor who was trying to argue a point that nobody on that talk page agreed with.

It's a different matter altogether when someone is trying to argue for a particular edit that he believes in, finds himself in the minority on that talk page, gets frustrated by other people's remarks, and then, very occasionally, expresses himself clumsily. That's not trying to take away the dignity of an opponent. Everybody on Wikipedia from l'ami qui m'a aidé le plus (c'est toi) to la personne qui s'oppose à mes arguments le plus souvent (tu peux deviner de qui je parle) believes that he's arguing in favour of the truth. Since you and I both edit controversial pages, it's bound to happen that we'll sometimes get flustered and express ourselves badly. In fact, I think that was beginning to happen with me a few weeks ago, when you appeared on Terri Schiavo, and helped to calm things down, eventually leading to what now seems to be a consensus.

For what it's worth, I regard cold-blooded cruel jokes against other editors as a lack of kindness. (I've never seen anything like that from you.) I regard an occasional clumsiness in choice of words when things are getting heated on a talk page as a lack of skill. It happens to me too!

J'espère vraiment que le problème que tu as maintenant (dont je vois beaucoup d'évidence sur cette page-ci) ne va pas trop gâcher ton plaisir ici à Wikipédia.

Anyway, I'm very grateful for your support, and no, I don't mean your support in a relatively unimportant RfA. I just mean — your support! Vielen Dank, cher ami, and oremus pro invicem! Musical Linguist ^(talk) 21:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Str! The sentence beginning with the words "To say" doesn't make sense. Was there meant to be a second half that you forgot to fill in? (Also, less importantly, "right" should be "right place".) I wouldn't bother you with something so insignificant if it were just an ordinary talk page. I don't normally go back to correct my own typos, unless I'm adding something at the same time. But I think that particular page is a little more formal. Cheers. Musical Linguist ^(talk) 18:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a request for help, but . . .

I tried to clarify some issues at Martin Luther, (see [10] and [11]). My edits were either reverted or modified (see [12]). I tried again at [13]. I wasn't comfortable with a wording that suggested that forgiveness could be bought. Discussions can be found here.

Please note, however, that this is not a request for help. I've asked too much from you recently, and I'm not being bullied or abused at the talk page! I know you have your own particular interests to work on here. Just . . . if you're interested, and if you feel you could explain it better than I did. (I'm sure you know a lot more about Luther than I do, anyway.)

BTW, j'ai dit "tu" parce que nous sommes enfants du même père. Ce n'est pas un manque de respect! Musical Linguist ^(talk) 13:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herrera Puga (whoever he was)

Hello again, Str. If your study of history gives you any expertise in the Spanish Inquisition, you might like to compare the words under a particular image in Homosexuality and Christianity (near the top, very first picture) with the words under the same image in Spanish Inquisition (scroll down to Operation of the Inquisition). The words I'm wondering about are in the Homosexuality and Christianity article — According to Herrera Puga the authorities: "placed no limits on the means; in this way they used the rack, the lash, fire, etc. In some cases... they applied padlocked irons to the flesh which even led to the amputation of a hand..."

I haven't fully read either article, but I see that the image and caption were discussed on the talk page of Spanish Inquisition in March this year (first section, heading "Image of homosexual man" etc.). There seems to have been slight edit war about it ([14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]) The two editors who were debating it have now left Wikipedia.

I don't know enough about the Spanish Inquisition to know how appropriate the Herrera Puga reference is, so I don't want to jump straight in to the Homosexuality and Christianity article. Maybe you know something about it?

(And I hope to be properly back tonight or tomorrow, though I'm still at the computer a lot, so I look in from time to time!)

AnnH ^(talk) 12:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Un chausson aux pommes pour toi

Un de mes chaussons aux pommes pour un ami *très* gentil qui m'a toujours aidée quand j'avais besoin d'aide, et (ce qui est plus important) qui essaye de défendre la vérité *sans blesser la dignité de ses adversaires*.

Et encore une fois – bonjour. Thanks for your message about Terri Schiavo. Yes, I saw the edits from the anonymous IP. In fact, I was just about to revert, but you got there first. Although it's obviously the same person, it's three different IP addresses, so it presumably changes each time the user goes on line. Therefore, there's no point in leaving a warning message on his talk page. I'll keep an eye on the article.

I'm sorry that you've already seen the turnover, because I uploaded it with you in mind, since you had put on your user page that you liked Apfelstrudel – which is something I don't make. I also intend to add it to the article on puff pastry, which is one article I intend to rework without asking your help! I didn't send it to you when I uploaded it, because I didn't have time to write a message. Anyway, if ever you come to Ireland, I promise I'll make some for you! I haven't eaten any since Easter, because I was getting bad earaches and was diagnosed with a temporary intolerance to wheat and dairy products. I'm now back on wheat, but have enrolled with a very strict nutritionist who doesn't allow any white flour or sugar at all, and I have to stick to that until the summer. So they went straight into the freezer after I had photographed them, as my mother is with the same nutritionist and my father is away. I wish I could send you a real one!

I must admit I felt slightly ashamed when I saw your first "favourite quotation" appearing. Of course, I should have had one from the Bible. It would be Isaiah 52:13–53:12, which is read out in the Liturgy on Good Friday. But it's really too long to go on my user page. I'm a little puzzled by "Thou art a beasterly man!" Is "beasterly" an obsolete word, or was it a typo for "beastly" and was "thou" the obsolete word you meant? I can't find "beasterly" in the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives all sorts of archaic words as well as modern ones.

I bought Lord of the Rings a few years ago, and never got round to reading it, although I very much wanted to. With Wikipedia being so addictive, it's unlikely that I'll manage it in the next few months, either. I did enjoy The Hobbit, though. And I'm a huge fan of Tolkien's friend, C. S. Lewis.

I know that Germans say Auf Wiederhören rather than Auf Wiedersehen, when they're on the phone. I don't suppose you use Auf Wiederschreiben or Auf Wiederlesen for internet contact? If not, maybe you should. So, Auf Wiederschreiben, and hope you enjoy the apple turnover! AnnH ^(talk) 17:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the turnover and I am even more delighted since you didn't put icing on the top of it, as most bakeries in the town I currently live in do. I am a bit of a "sweet thooth", but that's too much. It's the same with strawberrries - I like them best with nothing but strawberry (in fact I should include them into my "likes" section too). That's my purist side - the Apfelstrudel is my Moravian side.

You don't have to be ashamed since if it hadn't been for you I wouldn't have come up with these sections. And, to be honest, I couldn't think of quotes before I put up the biblical ones. Now I will add one after another. (I mean, they have to be English - or translated, which makes it a bit difficult). Do you think the two biblical ones are too long (I was wondering myself) - should I keep them as they are or reduced them to the bold parts (the core for me).

I hope your nutritionist will soon give you a "All clear!" sound. I imagine it to be terrible - no dairy products. I would have to change my breakfast completely.

As for the "obsolete" question: Is obsolete actually the right word or would archaic be better? I don't know whether "beasterly" is in the OED (though it should be) - I have come across it only once, during my stay in England. I was reading the play "Tis pity she's a whore". In that play, which you might know anyway, a young man falls in love with his sister, and tries to convince her to ..., you know. He succeeds in the end, but her first reaction is to shout out: "Thou art a beasterly man!" As I was reading this, an English female friend (and one of the really greatest people I have ever met) asked me about my book and I gave it to her and she by chance read exactly that line, which resulted in ROFL. Soon after, I had read Milton (political stuff) and I termed him a "beasterly man" as well.

Au relire! Str1977 17:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi, did you intend to change "death" to "expulsion before viability"? I seem to remember that you were originally in favour of the word death. I did a rather hasty partial revert earlier today, explaining in the edit summary that I didn't necessarily endorse what I had left. I hadn't had time to examine it in detail. Also I haven't spent a lot of time at the talk page recently, so there may have been some new discussion that I missed. Hope you didn't mind my modification to your user page. I notice that a lot of user pages have images with links to the user who gave the particular image. However, do feel free to change it back. I won't be offended. (And as I write, I see that Kyd has just changed "expulsion . . . before viability" back to "death".) Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 15:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic and obsolete, etc.

Hi, Str! Your user page is beginning to look very nice, although there's a typo — "British varities" should be "British varieties". Regarding "archaic" and "obsolete", it's sometimes hard to draw a distinction between them, but if a word is easily recognizable, and sounds a bit quaint, then it's probably archaic. Archaic words could still be used in modern poetry, or just to be funny. Examples would be "thou", "hither", "ere", and "yonder". There's a list of archaic English words and their modern equivalents here on Wikipedia, and I'm planning to edit it over the Christmas holidays. An obsolete word would be one that isn't recognized. So I would say that "beasterly" is obsolete. I suppose it's also possible that it was just coined by Ford, and was never prevalent at any stage. The OED has lots of archaic words, but I don't think it lists words that really don't exist any more.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Ford's plays, or indeed those of any playwrights from that period with one very important exception. Most Irish and British children don't learn any literature from before the nineteenth century, apart from a few poems and maybe two Shakespeare plays. So unless they actually study literature at university, they'd be unlikely to come across Ford. I do intend to read Webster's The Duchess of Malfi some day.

I hope you don't mind that I stole the idea of adding archaic words to the list on my page. I don't think you can afford to object, anyway, because, well, um, is it possible that you stole the "faithful to Pope Benedict" template from me?! (If you did, you're extremely welcome, of course.) I actually stole that myself. I found it on Essjay's page, though not with those words! I don't really know what the coding means for these boxes, but I just steal things and then fiddle with them until they look okay on my page. I want to add background colour to my page, when I figure out how to do it. If you already know how to, and are feeling bored some evening, you might try changing it to pale yellow for me!

I think your Bible verses are a little too long, based on the format of your page as it is at the moment. If you could put the quotations into boxes, or separate them with lines, or something, they might look better. But even if you can't you might think that the beauty of a particular verse is more important than the appearance of the page. My verses will be too long, too, when I add them!

My Wikipedia contributions may be less frequent in the coming week. I'm quite busy with pre-Christmas preparations, and am going to Paris for a few days at the end of next week, so have to get a lot done before that. Shopping in Paris always cheers me up, even when (as now) I don't need to be cheered up. I didn't go on holidays this summer, because I was afraid I might accidentally eat something forbidden.

Bonne nuit! AnnH ^(talk) 23:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonne nuit!

Dear Ann, Thanks for your kind message and your constructive criticism regarding my user page. I have cut down the bible verses, though it was hard with the Isaiah one and it is still pretty longish. But I didn't want to leave gaps in between, and the dark-light part, the Midian part )(which always brings tears to my eyes) and the child I wanted to include.

Anway, yes, I plead guilty to haven stolen the B16-Babel-template from you. But Francis Ford Coppola was taught by his father: "Steal from the best!" And were are two of a kind when it comes to formatting and stuff - we go by trial and error. It took some to create the coats-of-arms table (a little for thinking and a lot for experimenting). I hope you like it, though now everyone who knows me can tell who "Str1977" is. But the likes/dislikes already gave many pieces for the mosaic. As for stealing formats - you can steal from me anytime.

I like your new poems, especially the "Burning Babe". It contains another phenomenon I like. At the end you have two lines ending good and blood, respectively. When reading such lines I always try rhyme them (that in pronunciation not just in the spelling) - so I read gud and blud (I haven't figured out the phonetic diacritics on WP yet, so bear with these substitutes). This sound refreshingly archaic. I know, the English usually don't do that, singing church hymns without rhymes (word and Lord etc). In Germany, we do it differently. Old church hymns sometimes even change words to make them rhyme (e.g. in this advent song [19] - the change is from "spät" to "spat".)

I think I will go to bed. The mice can come out to play.

Aurelie! Str1977 00:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milton and Southwell

Hello, Str. Thanks for your clarification about Milton. I admit I was being deliberately provocative with that edit summary: I felt sure you'd see it! I loved Paradise Lost Book One, which I studied for my Leaving Certificate.

I'm glad you liked the Southwell poem. When I first came across it, I had no idea that he was a canonized saint. By the way, don't ever make the ghastly, humiliating mistake that I did and pronounce his name as a combination of the two words "south" and "well". The south part is pronounced as at the beginning of "southern", and the "well" part is very unstressed and has a silent "w". I found out when I went into a very posh, snobby antiquarian bookshop near Bond Street and asked for a particular book on Southwell using the wrong pronunciation! (In fact, I even used to pray to that saint with the wrong pronunciation!) If I'm allowed to make POV statements on talk pages, I'll say that I think he (along with Edmund Campion and Nicholas Owen) was one of the greatest heroes that England ever produced. (I intend to start an article on Saint Nicholas Owen when I get a little more leisure. He wasn't a priest; he was a carpenter who built secret hiding places for priests at a time of persecution, and he died on the rack.)

Anyway, I love that poem, especially the last line, which I find so suddenly sweet as to have a very startling effect. I feel the same way when I listen to a composer like Bartok or John Rutter or Hugo Distler, and hear a simple major chord coming unexpectedly after a few dissonant ones.

I hesitated a little bit over how to spell the past tense verbs ending with "ed". Some editions of poerty for that period use "èd" when it's pronounced as an extra syllable, and "ed" when (as nowadays) it isn't. Other editions use "ed" for the extra syllable, and apostrophe d for the modern pronunciation. So, the third last line of Romeo and Juliet could be:

Some shall be pardoned and some punishèd.

or

Some shall be pardon'd and some punished.

I think in the original spelling, there was no apostrophe and no è, just verbs ending with "d" or "ed".

I also hesitated a bit about the word "shrank". Many editions give "shrunk", though some give "shrank". "Shrank", of course, is correct in modern English; "shrunk" would be the past participle. I looked it up in a very archaic edition (which you'd love) and I think it was actually "shroncke". (It also had "shiueringe" for "shivering", "sodayne" for "sudden", "vp" for "up", etc.) I couldn't bring myself to put "shrunk", because it's simply wrong in modern English, but since "shroncke" doesn't exist in modern English, I could have opted for that. It would have looked very quaint, but might have made the poem a bit unreadable.

I see you've been adding to this; it's on my watchlist, even though I'm not involved. I sympathize, especially since I'm involved with this and am not enjoying it. It's time consuming, and unpleasant.

Going to bed in a moment, after writing a Christmas card to somebody very special. And, by the way, I do like the recent changes to your user page!

Bonne nuit, and Aurelie! AnnH ^(talk) 01:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. With regard to the pronunciation of "good" and "blood", I'm pretty sure they did rhyme in Southwell's day. After all, they're both descended from Anglo Saxon, and you have "gut" and "Blut" rhyming in German, and also "goed" and "bloed" in Dutch. That can become a problem when reading poetry that was written a few hundred years ago. See, for example, note on pronunciation at the end of the Molly Malone article, regarding the pronunciation of "She died of a fever, And no one could save her":

Before the Great Vowel Shift, /i:/ was pronounced as /eɪ/ This pronunciation lingered in Ireland after it had virtually disappeared from England. The word "fever" would have been pronounced as "favour", rhyming with "save her" in the next line. That pronunciation is still sometimes used in this song, particularly in Ireland.

I always wince when I hear a Sasanach singing that song with the modern pronunciation! AnnH ^(talk) 09:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Puer natus in Bethlehem, Alleluia!

Hi, Str. Your name just appeared on two of my watchlist pages when I refreshed, so I see you're still using the computer over Christmas. I'm about to go on a wiki-break. Thanks for your nice message to me when I got back from Paris, and for referring me to those pictures, which are much nicer than the picture of my pudding which I'm adding to this message — a pudding which unfortunately I'm not allowed to eat this year. I'm still avoiding sugar, white flour, etc. Anyway, I had a lovely Christmas, even without sugar, but I'm very much looking forward to the summer, when I can eat normally.

I got the Holy Father's televised blessing yesterday. It was the first time I had heard him speaking English, as I was unfortunately at work when he was elected. It sounded lovely, but he has a slight problem with his "th" words, and comes out with "zis". Some time you must tell me if you find the "th" sound difficult to produce! (You certainly don't seem to find it difficult to produce high-quality written English.) I'm very proud of my "u" and my "r" in French, but I can't manage to produce nasal vowels (un bon vin blanc) that sound like those produced by a native speaker.

I've just taken the liberty of editing your user page because I don't like the arrow that comes after links that are not direct Wikipedia links of [[this type]]. But of course, it's your user page, so do change it right back if you prefer it as it was. I won't feel snubbed! Someone told me how to get rid of the arrow some time ago, as I had originally stolen the "please click here to send me a message" box on my user page from Mel Etitis, who still has that annoying arrow. I saw that someone else edited your user page recently, changing the art link to Indo-European copula. I didn't know that article existed, but the linguist in me found it very interesting. If you preferred, you could link it to the word be on Wiktionary instead, like this:

[[wiktionary:be|art]].

By the way, I had a look for 'Tis Pity She's a Whore in a large Dublin bookstore on Friday, but they didn't have it. (I might order it through Amazon.) I bought Spenser's The Faerie Queen instead, to dip into over the Christmas holidays. And my mother refuses to accept "beasterly" when we're playing Scrabble over Christmas. I'm famous for trying to make words like ere and forsooth and sith (which apparently has a modern meaning as well, but I didn't know that)!

I liked your change from Babel to Pentecost, but I'm not going to steal it because I have a lot of boxes that have nothing to do with languages.

This will almost certainly be my last longish post on Wikipedia until about the middle of January, so I hope you enjoy the rest of this Christmas season. And it's lovely to know that I don't have to use a phrase like "Happy Holidays" or "Enjoy the mid-winter festivities." Merry Christmas! Puer natus est nobis! AnnH ^(talk) 13:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion

Hello, Str! This has been put up for deletion. I don't have strong views on it, but I thought you might want to know, since you created it. In fact, I think it should be compulsory for people who put articles etc. up for deletion to inform the creator, assuming that he's still active on Wikipedia.

If this article isn't on your watchlist, would you mind adding it, at least temporarily? I'm not happy with the section on Christian views and intend to make some changes later today.

And Happy New Year from your friend who's supposed to be on a wiki-break but can't quite tear herself away! AnnH ^(talk) 12:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antipope stubs and other matters

Hi, Str. My mother is a little better, I've submitted a second assignment (out of three), and I'm "half" back on Wikipedia. I'm looking for advice about the problem of labelling a stub concerning an antipope. The antipope stub template was deleted, even though I wouldn't exactly say that there was consensus to delete. (See here for the last evidence of comments before that subject was removed from WP:SFD.)

Chooserr, who created the antipope stub template, has very strong opinions, and is a bit inclined to get himself into trouble as a result. He has been blocked a few times for edit warring over AD and CE: he has a strong preference for AD.

As far as I know, the general {{stub}} template is really for inexperienced Wikipedians who don't know how to find an appropriate template. If possible, other users should check the pages in the general stub category, and relabel the stubs as being connected with linguistics, Ancient Rome, Spanish Literature or whatever. Then experts in a particular field can can easily find stubs that belong to their field of expertise, if they feel inclined to help expanding these articles.

Anyway, Chooserr began to revert lots of antipope articles that had the {{pope-stub}} on them.[20] Since the antipope stub has been deleted, he just changed them back to the general stub templates. He has been asked, very nicely, to stop. I can understand how he feels — after all, it would be a bit crazy to write a short article about Lambert Simnel and put at the end, "This article about a British monarch is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

I think reverting back to {{stub}} is a no-no, as that category is meant to be kept as empty as possible, and there are some do-gooders (that word is often used in sarcasm, but I don't mean it that way) who spend time going through these general stubs, and relabelling them to something more appropriate. There are also {{reli-bio-stub}} and {{RC-stub}}, of course, and I think it's okay to have two stub templates at the bottom of a stub article, but I don't think there should be more.

I've been wondering about editing the {{pope-stub}} so that it could be used for antipopes without making any kind of POV statement. I thought of:

This article about the papacy is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
This papacy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
This article about a pope or a claimant to the papacy is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
This article about a pope or a claimant to the papal throne is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

What do you think? I'm not sure that an article about an antipope is really about the papacy, although in a broad, loose sense, I suppose it is. The wording "papacy-related" sounds a little awkward, but not too bad, and is probably more accurate.. If you have any ideas, please let me know.

The second thing is that I want to draw you attention to this. I know that other related pages would be on your watchlist, but you might have missed that one.

The third thing concerns these articles about "pesher", which you certainly know far more about than I do. The Wikipedia:External links page makes it clear (no. 8 of "What should not be linked to") that it is not permitted to add links to your own website. This user page shows that that policy has been violated. I was wondering what you actually thought of those links. I know you disagree with various changes that user has made to articles, but I don't recall whether or not you objected to the links.

Hope I'm not taking up too much of your time. I'm going to ask a few others about rewording the pope stub template. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 13:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Jtdirl undeleted the antipope stub template. He left a message for me on my talk page. See also here. BTW, on an unrelated matter, you need to get rid of a stray square bracket on your user page — where you say that your username "has nothing to do with stars]"

Bonne nuit, although I'm sure you're already in bed by now. AnnH ^(talk) 03:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Str. Sorry to keep bothering you! If you get a minute, could you have a look at a message on my talk page from GTBacchus (in the section "Stub template for anti-pope") and make a comment either there or on his talk page. Although I voted to keep the anti-pope template, I wouldn't have any objection to using the Pope one, if the wording is changed. If we had something like "or a claimant to the papacy", it wouldn't bother me that the actual template had the title {{pope-stub}}. There's also a message on Pat's talk page which you might take a look at. It's in the section "Stub template for antipopes", and is from TheParanoidOne.

I'd like to get some agreement on this as soon as possible, as I don't want people tagging with the wrong template, and having to retag later when the template is deleted. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 11:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity article and Therese Neumann

Hi, Str. Glad you edited the {{POV-section}} template to give it a border. I didn't like it as it was – I don't think a warning template should appear as just part of the text in the article – and had thought once or twice of changing it, but was too lazy! I don't actually know how to make borders, but could have copied the coding from some other template. I shouldn't have put {{tl|NPOV}} in my edit summary; it was partly an experiment for me, to see if it would turn out as a clickable link in the edit history. It didn't!

Regarding Therese Neumann, I wonder if you, as a German, have any knowledge or her? I stumbled across that article last night, and edited it,[21] but I have two questions. One concerns the two-week period in which she was supervised and apparently consumed nothing except one Host. My instinct tells me that it was one Host per day, not one Host for the entire two weeks. Elsewhere I have read that she used to get weak and faint after one day if she didn't receive Holy Communion. The other question is about the level of Church approval she has. Has a cause for canonization started? I ask because she has been put in the Category:Saints, and I'm not sure that she really belongs there. I know the Church is very cautious about approving these kind of cases, so if you know anything about the lady in question, you might add to (or subtract from) the article.

On the other hand, what you're doing on Christianity is probably taking up more than enough of your time, and people are more likely to read that article.

I looked at the language chosen in the French Revolution bit in Christianity, and I couldn't see any problem with it. À demain! AnnH ^(talk) 02:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typing too many tildes - shaky hand?!

Hello again. Just to let you know that I think you've been accidentally typing a fifth tilde ([22] and [23]). When you do that, you get the date, but not your name. I fixed it on the Christianity talk page, when I was adding my own post, but the Hitler talk page has been archived.

By the way, I think you're making very good arguments on the Christianity talk page. I have Hitler on my watch list, but I generally don't read everything there. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 10:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on antipopes and Therese Neumann

Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid I have no idea about fixing tables, or where to find out about it. The discussion on the antipope stub template has now moved to here. (If you're interested, scroll down to "What happened with the anti-pope stubs? What happens now?")

Thanks also for contributing to Therese Neumann, and for teaching a new word to a native speaker with several English-language qualifications! I learn something new on Wikipedia nearly every day!

Christianity seems to be fine at the moment. I didn't like "In its early years, there was not one Christianity", and I'm glad you reverted it.

Going to bed shortly. Bonne nuit. AnnH ^(talk) 00:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where you're most needed

Well, of course, you're needed everywhere — the best people always are. But my guess is that one of the articles in most danger of being filled with fringe scholarship at the moment is the Early Christianity article, precisely because the "origins" section is still only a stub. I read a fair amount of Church history some years ago, before I got interested in linguistics, but I've forgotten most of it now. By the way, I'll be busy tonight, though I'll still be at the computer. I might show up occasionally, but certainly won't be posting long messages to talk pages. Should have more time tomorrow. Aurelie! AnnH ^(talk) 12:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK concerning software "glitch"

Dear Ann, thanks for your post over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK. I can confirm your memory quotes. I posted Ben that I neither ask for nor expect an apology. I am content if he believe mes that I didn't mean to delete the tags. I added an explanation of the "glitch" that caused this:

Formerly, when you were looking at a diff between two edits and clicked on "edit this page" the current version was opened for editing. But recently this appearently was changed - now the page that opens is the version in the right column (the after-version of the diff). If you now edit the opened page and save it all the following edits are reverted. That is what happened in my case. Str1977 19:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantium pusher

Dear Ann, I am afraid that semi-protection might be needed at Early Christianity, because of an Anon IP constantly pushing his Byzantium POV (namely that it is POV to call the Empire of Theodosius the "Roman Empire"). Aurelie! Str1977 23:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Str. I can't protect a page I'm involved in, unless it's a case of pure vandalism. POV-pushing doesn't count, I'm afraid. Also, semi-protection can't be used for edit wars — only for vandalism. (After all, we both know that registered users can have serious problems with NPOV, so it's not fair to lock out anons exept, as I say, in a case of real vandalism.) By the way, you've been "eating" a lot of posts recently. ;-) I'm using the "Show changes" button a lot at the moment, as that seems to be the only way to avoid it. It seems to happen regardless of how I enter the edit box — whether through the "edit this section" or the "edit this page", or the little + sign at the top. And I'm not completely sure that it makes any difference whether I enter edit through the diff or through the normal page. Cheers and Aurelie! AnnH ^(talk) 00:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just to prove my point, I started this post through going directly to your talk page (where it had appeared on my watchlist beside an article you had edited), and I pressed the + button at the top of the page and wrote the bit above. I pressed "Show changes", and saw that my message was about to wipe out one from Shtove, which wasn't there when I started. So I selected and copied it, and then pressed the + button again and pasted it in. This time, when I pressed "Show changes", Shtove's message was left intact. AnnH ^(talk) 00:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ...

... read Str1977's thoughts and they are yo... mine. Thanks for correcting my blunder. Str1977 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software bug again?

Hi, Str, I'm not sure, but I wonder did you do a bigger edit than you intended here? I don't know whether Christo or Christus is correct, but in any case, in the bit lower down, I can't work out what the sentence is that you restored. (I admit I haven't studied recent edits in detail. Some of the changes are so big and so frequent that I lose track if I'm engaged elsewhere.) Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 11:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That software bug is really catching you out today. If you're not careful, I might report you at WP:AIV. ;-) Actually, I'm thinking of posting a message to administrators about that problem. Some poor innocent person is going to be blocked for 3RR if this continues, because he'll accidentally undo someone else's edit when making a contribution of his own. AnnH ^(talk) 18:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Thanks for the warning, Ann. ;-o

Another thing: is an indulgences in AD/CE edit warring considered vandalism? Over at Historicity of Jesus there are two guys (now joing forces) constantly reverting it and getting their opponent into trouble in regard to 3RR. I have argued that reverting vandalism does not fall under the 3RR. Am I right? Str1977 18:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to call it a content dispute, especially since Wikipedia allows both versions. So I wouldn't revert any more. Others might differ, but I tend to play safe. I keep the word "vandalism" for things like changing the Pope Benedict image to the Palpatine one, blanking pages, or inserting obscenities or nonsense into articles. If the result of the edit is something that could be presented in the article, then I wouldn't call it vandalism. Even ROHA with his Hitler picture isn't a vandal, although I never hesitate to use rollback to revert him. AnnH ^(talk) 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get particularly upset about AD/CE, and as far as I know, you don't either. Poor Chooserr does, on the other hand, and has been blocked for edit warring a few times. But the battle as to when the Gospels were written and as to whether Jesus really existed is being fought at Jesus as well as at Historicity of Jesus, with one of the same editors leading the battle. I only came across the dispute quite recently, although the article was on my watchlist as a vandalism target. This editor insists on writing "jesus" (quotation marks, and lower case) all over the talk page, to make the point that Jesus wasn't a real person, and for a while he was adding a paragraph saying that there was no evidence that he had ever existed. I do recall reading that there was an agreement on Wikipedia that if articles already had CE, they shouldn't be changed to AD, and if they had AD, they shouldn't be changed to CE. I haven't found the relevant page. I think the dating of the Gospels is more important. I have Robinson, Tresmontant, and Carmignac in the house, but have only skimmed through them. They, as you know, argue for an early date. I can never work out how reliable Brown is supposed to be. Father Peter Stravinskas, whom I trust, seems to think highly of him; Father William Most, whom I also trusted (he's dead now) considered him very unreliable. My instinct, having read a few Brown quotations, is to agree with Fr. Most. Going down to dinner now. Aurelie! AnnH ^(talk) 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not my sockpuppet

Hi, Str. Sometimes we agree with each other so much that I start wondering are you my sockpuppet (or am I yours). However, last night, I checked to see if you were online, and I saw what you were editing. You're definitely not my sockpuppet after all! Ugh! I didn't even read the article: the picture was more than enough for me! I'd have thought better of your taste if she had looked like this. Oh well, never mind! I forgive you because of the wonderful contributions you make to Wikipedia on other articles! Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 10:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I saw it when you added it to your "likes", and clicked on it then. I just didn't get round to commenting. But I'm afraid, dear Str, that you have other likes that I don't approve of! But you can console yourself by reflecting on how highly I must think of your excellent qualities to be able to overlook such terrible flaws in your character. ;-) You'd better tell me — are there any other shocks in store for me? AnnH ^(talk) 17:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various

Cher ami, assuming that your recent edit summary on this page was referring to me, thanks for the compliment! I see that you had a busy day here on Wikipedia yesterday! One thing I should tell you is that {{subst:test3}} is now preferred to {{test3}}. It expands into exactly the same message, but if the template is vandalized, the original message remains on the person's talk page. Also, and perhaps more importantly, it reduces load on the server. For further information, have a look at Wikipedia:Template substitution. Some templates are not suitable for "subst"ing, but most of the warning templates are (and the userboxes as well).

By the way, I don't have any problem in accepting that EffK's multiple user names were, as he said, connected with cookie loss. When I registered, I gave Wikipedia my e-mail address, and I chose a password. I normally use the same computer, and the password is saved on it, but occasionally — every few months — it asks me to enter the password again. Now, if I had lost it, I could get Wikipedia to e-mail it to the e-mail address that I had already registered. But if I hadn't registered an e-mail address, I'd have to create a new account. So I think it's not so much cookie loss as cookie loss combined with password loss, combined with unwillingness to give Wikipedia the only means of helping someone who had lost his password. The night that he signed for most of his aliases, he couldn't sign as Fiamekeeper, and didn't try to sign as PureSoupS.

I'm sorry that yesterday's drama happened, because I think it will sour things still further. But of course he couldn't be left free to mess up all the archives, and he had ample opportunity to avoid that block, if he had wanted to. I do admire the patience you've shown for several months, which (while not quite reaching that of Saint Francis de Sales) certainly far exceeds that of the average Wikipedian, in my view. I suspect that EffK won't particularly mind being banned: he may look on it as a necessary consequence of his mission. I hope it can be done as nicely as possible (if it's ever "nice" to ban someone!), and that they'll reach a decision soon. It has been drawn out for too long. It may even have been delayed by my comment that it was inconsistent to ban him from Catholic articles but not from Hitler articles. You'd be in a better position than I to comment on this, as you edit both, but my impression is that he spends most of his time (and therefore causes most of his disruption) on talk pages related to nazis, or the Second World War. I've never come across him at pages like Immaculate Conception or Eucharist or Rosary.

By the way, I'm not completely happy with my linguist userbox. I generally steal my userboxes from elsewhere, and then delete the words that are there and add my own words. I couldn't think of a suitable image to have in the part on the left, so I thought I'd write the first syllable, "ling" in phonetic script:

'''['{{IPA|l}}{{IPA|ɪ}}{{IPA|ŋ}}]'''

which comes out as: ['lɪŋ] (which is what I want).

I tried putting that into the userbox, and checked it with preview, and it messed up the boxes completely. So now I've gone back to using a standard "i" in the userbox, in between "l" and "ŋ". Any ideas?

Aurelie! AnnH ^(talk) 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chere amie, yes, it was you I was referring to.

Yes, it was quite busy but it got me my first barnstar as well. Still, apple turnover is more delicous. Thanks for the "test3" advice. Actually I don't have a problem with EffL's explanation for his name change as well, but I don't think that cookie loss explains all of them, especially not those switching to completely different names. I guess he lost Flamekeeper through Cookie loss, and then signed up as "Fiamekeeper", which he might have lost through Cookie loss as well (as your observations indicate). Then he signed up as "Corecticus", but after a few days didn't like the name and switched to "Famekeeper". He didn't lose the cookie for that but found out across this link, which caused him to adopt the name "PureSoupS". And then he left for Wikiinfo and as he came back chose "EffK", maybe becaue during his hiatus he indeed lost the Soup cookie.

I agree with you on his editing habits - he is only interested in political and social issues in regard to the Church and certainly not Theology or Devotions. I always thought he had a rather legalistic approach to Christianity, constantly (mis)quoting canon law etc.

Re your user box problem: it is funny that I can read the ['lɪŋ] in the first instance on my talk page in , but not in the second (I only get a square ). In your userbox I only get a square too. I tried what to described and yes, it messed up. I also noticed that the two brackets are of different sizes. I don't know what to do (since I am no less a "thief" than you are), but if you can see the velar nasal I would keep it as it is. Or maybe, look for a fitting symbol.

Can you take a look at Terri Schiavo. I don't know whether Pinktulip can be trusted. Have a look and tell me what you think about the "bitch" issue.

Speaking of bitch, I wanted to send you a mail to clarify a few things (I think you know whom I am talking about), but I can't get my head round to it (But I will in time). And I promise: no more surprises (I think).

I also wanted to send you a sheet of music and I will do so shortly. What instrument do you play? I unfortunately play no instrument, as my hands will not move in concord as they should.

Aurelie! Str1977 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked User:Musical Linguist whether User:Pinktulip could be trusted. I have no reason to think that she is dishonest or untrustworthy. I do think that she has a very high opinion of her own abilities and is impatient and sometimes rude. Robert McClenon 21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

You're welcome of course. As I was a sad witness to the many really nasty personal attacks made against people who made long, off-topic posts at Terri Schiavo before I got to know you, it cheered me considerably to see your patience and kindness, and regular attempts at reconciliation. By the way, I hope you don't regard cucumbers with the same distaste as green beans (another of our minor differences)? AnnH ^(talk) 10:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, still online

Hi, Str! Yes, I'm still online, and have just deleted Ernest Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse, so that the other page can be moved to it. I was about to do the move, which can in any case be done by a lesser mortal ;-) now that the place it's to be moved to is empty, but the second "you've got new messages" bar flashed at me. Are you happy now? I'll still be online for a little longer if you need me. Glad you like cucumbers. Your dislike for green beans puzzles me. I find them quite inoffensive. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 01:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back! Hope you missed me!

Hi, Str! Did you miss me? After my weekend, I've got my head completely full of things like ontology, epistemology, phenomenology, etc. I long for a few nice Anglo Saxon words. Anyway, it's going well, but there's an awful lot of compulsory reading.

By the way, with regard to something at Wikipedia that has possibly been causing you annoyance for the last few weeks, I have found out something very interesting. I'm not sure if you're good at maths. I'll be impertinent and guess not, as you're so good at history and languages, which use a different part of the brain. But what I discovered on Wikipedia at the end of my study weekend was that 1 + 1 = 1.

Does that tantalize you, or do you get it? I'm going to be very cruel and not explain until tomorrow!

Would it bother you if I gave FK just one more chance and unprotected his talk page after explaining that if he launches into another long accusation, he gets no more chances? I won't even consider doing it if you object, as you've been the victim of so many attacks from him; but I thought he might occasionally have some genuine question, and might feel frustrated at not being able to communicate. It's entirely up to you, and you have every right to object, so please don't think there's any pressure. AnnH ^(talk) 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo my dear Linguist, yes I did miss you.

I even have a task for you, regarding this edit [24] - I deemed it necessary to consistently apply either plural and singular and I opted for the singular as the sentence started with "each". Am I right in this conclusion or should it be the plural?

1 + 1 = 1 ? Well, this is either a theological equation (I only say Chalcedon) or it is a personal matter. I say no more. But since you are referring to my mathematical abilities, I begin to wonder where I have blundered. Maybe it is the issue I have raised just befóre, involving two brazen women?

I am more than willing to give EffK another chance by unprotecting his talk page. I never wanted to cut off communications. It's just that he was repeating his accusations all over again, as if he suddenly had substituted Ludwig Kaas and Pius XII for me. Go ahead, unprotect him and reprimand him of your conditions.

Cheers and Aurelie, Str1977 00:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Okay, I'll be more explicit, using wikilinks. I was referring to the number of people voting on CE/AD, and the number of people behind six reverts per day at Christianity and related articles.

1 + 1 = 1

Très intéressant, n'est-ce pas?

See here, here, and here.

By the way, MikaM acknowledge here that the IP address 69.107.7.138 was his/hers. 69.106.243.31 is probably the same person, as it's a very similar address and an edit which MikaM wanted, according to discussion on the talk page. So it's interesting to see the appearance of 69.107.21.3 to support MikaM:

This shows a strong connection between the three IP addresses.

Will have a look at the article you mentioned shortly. And thanks for being so nice about EffK. I'll unprotect his talk page later, and hope he agrees to be reasonable. AnnH ^(talk) 10:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting night, isn't it? I'm sorry about SOPHIA, though, as she hasn't done anything wrong, and has somehow got caught up in this. By the way, I see now that my sums were wrong. It should have been 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

My doubts as to your mathematical ability were actually meant as a compliment, since it would be utterly unfair if someone so knowledgeable about history and theology, so well read, and with such a perfect command of a second language were also able to multiply things by the square root of minus one. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 01:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought

You know, it occurred to me yesterday, it's lucky that we either edit articles in which we share the same views or edit different articles in which the other has little interest. Since we're both such uncivil, hostile, aggressive POV pushers, it would be disastrous if we both tried to edit something like, say green beans. We'd probably quarrel so furiously that we'd never speak to each other again ;-)

By the way, have you seen this? Does that extremely idiosyncratic use of lower-case, single-word "hehe" (put in after the punctuation closing a sentence) remind you of anyone? I'd better try not to slip up and use your favourite word — otherwise they'll all realize that I'm you!

Regarding Merkel, you were quite right to choose singular with "each", and also to make it consistent. Plural would have been fine with "both". However, I didn't like having no verb in the "each a female politician" bit. Since "Maggie" is no longer in government I couldn't use a present tense copula. As you've probably seen, I tried to get round it by beginning with "As a female politician".

Cheers, AnnH ^(talk) 12:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the first time, your "foreign-ness" betrays you!

Hi, Str. I'm positive you didn't actually mean "deplorable"; it has pejorative connotations.[25] It comes across as a criticism of the person, rather than as something that we all regret. Mind you, I do disagree with her reaction, which is to blame us rather than the person whose duplicity led to the necessity for a check, but considering the kind messages you sent her, and your comments elsewhere about how an innocent person got hurt as a result of someone else's bad behaviour, I'm sure that you actually meant something like "unfortunate", "regrettable", "to be regretted", or (more strongly) "lamentable". She seemed unable to accept that we were all sympathetic, and that nobody thought she had done anything wrong. I removed the sockpuppet allegation from the history of her husband's page by deleting the entire page and restoring only the last version, but there has been no sign that she found that in any way helpful. A pity. I'd like to e-mail her, but she doesn't have e-mail enabled. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 12:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That dark side of yours

Yes, I've been worried about that dark side ever since I discovered your interest in Luna Vachon and Vampire fiction. I'm not sure I'd feel safe if I were ever to meet you. ;-) By the way, thank you for archiving that talk page. It needed it badly. Also, I've been meaning to ask you have you ever considered linking your signature to your talk page. You could paste any of the following:

[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]

[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|<sup>Talk</sup>]]

[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] // [[User talk:Str1977|Talk]]

[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|(Talk)]]

(or something similar) into your nickname (instead of what's already there) in "My preferences", and tick the box underneath for "Raw signature".

Or maybe you're happy with just a link to your userpage?

Cheers, AnnH ^(talk) 19:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great now. :-) AnnH ^(talk) 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just changed my signature. Hope you like the new one. AnnH ♫ 20:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very strange. It's supposed to be two notes. I was leaving a message on Woohookitty's talk page a few minutes ago, and I saw a signature two messages above mine, modified it, and copied it into my signature in "my preferences". That's disappointing. Woohookitty was able to see it properly. Maybe I should change it back, though. Are you able to see the other musical signature on Woohookitty's talk page? And does mine link properly to my talk page? AnnH ♫ 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More "one plus one plus one equals one"

I see that you are, or recently were, online, dear friend. Have you seen this and this?

See here and here for double votes.

I'd better reread my favourite quotation from my user page (the one beginning, "Shame, Corin").

Aurelie. AnnH ♫ 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German speaker needed

Hi, Str, is this edit correct? As I've mentioned before, my understanding of German is much better than my ability to produce it. I read something in German, and almost every word is similar to a Dutch word, but Dutch is not an inflected language, and doesn't have any of those complicated endings for nominative, accusative, dative, and genitive.

By the way, if you still want to be able to receive e-mails from other users who don't have your e-mail address, you'll need to enable it, as all e-mail features were disabled recently for security reasons. See a message I've just sent to DonaNobisPacem.

Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring sockpuppet

I'm going to report him. I'd suggest not reverting any more. You're not in violation at the moment, but you could be soon, and I don't want you to be blocked as well. We can leave it for a few hours anywway. (But it does seem unfair that people who ignore the rules can have seven reverts, and the law-abiding people have to stop after three.) AnnH ♫ 18:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, but be warned: Enter at your own risk.

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>.

Questions and comments

Mediation Request

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/Vicarius Filii Dei, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Jobs still to be done (or are they?)

Please place questions or comments here

Did I offend you by any chance? Why "no need to segregate", reverts, no response? Is this a new style of collaboration here at WP? Please take a look at definition of anti-Semitism and explain why this doesn't apply. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misusing an admin's good name

My edit clearly and precisely stated that I was quoting Jtdirl on the subject of homosexuality. Your previous repeated complete deletions of my edits on Eva Braun based on absurd reasoning without discussion certainly casts doubt on your credibility especially when suddenly you "allow" it after I point out what a respected Wikipedia:Administrator said on several occasions. You have done the same massive deletion on the National Socialist German Workers Party on 22:25, 27 February 2006 and did so by insulting me with a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy by calling my contributions "pet issue pushing. I'm not sure of the reasonoing behind your repeated reversal of edits on homosexuality but I note you have cooperated with Wyss who is banned from making such edits. Your games won't work, particularly with someone like Jtdirl. (cc Jtdirl) Karl Schalike 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Alexander of Lorraine's pancakes

Dear Ann, again I have to ask for your assistance. Could you please move Prince Charles of Lorraine to the more descriptive Charles Alexander of Lorraine, which currently is a redirect to the disambig page Charles of Lorraine. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me finish my pancakes first! :-) AnnH ♫ 10:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh! To misquote the Emperor Diocletian: "Would but you could see the pancakes I made with my hands at ..., you would then never think of urging such an attempt." I can only say: "Bon appetit!" and "Kowalski!" Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished now, and have done the page move. You might want to check here to see if there are any links that should be updated. By the way, in case you're shocked at my late breakfast, I'm at my parents' house, and have been helping my mother to do a pulse test for spelt. We had both been off gluten grains for several months (as had a few other relatives) following a blood test for food intolerances. She has a little machine for testing her pulse, so I made a special non-yeast bread using spelt flour, and then, when it was out of the oven, she sat still for five minutes, took her pulse, ate some bread, and then took her pulse again after ten, thirty, and sixty minutes. No change. She's absolutely thrilled. I unfortunately did change by eight beats when I tested myself recently, which means that I shouldn't take it more often than once every three days. (Ten or higher would mean I should avoid it altogether.) I'm okay with wheat again (though I'm not allowed white flour until mid summer), and hope to test for milk products quite soon. The pancakes were made with unsweetened rice milk, which I wouldn't dream of drinking, but which is quite tolerable when used in cooking.

I'll have a proper look at Malachi Martin soon. I see you did a much-needed cleanup. I don't know very much about him, but I think he was right wing in a rather sensational way (conspiracies in the Vatican to protestantize the Mass, etc.). I do actually have a great deal of sympathy for people who were upset when their Latin Mass was taken away from them, and I do not at all hold Paul VI in the same high regard as, for example, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I was quite shocked a few years ago when I read something from Paul VI where he was criticizing (quite severely), not the people who went into schism over the changes, but the people who obediently accepted the changes but still preferred the Old Mass. (A bit like scolding a child for not enjoying his spinach, or even his green beans ;-), when he's obediently eating it up without complaint!) I've never seen anything that made me think that Paul VI had the kindness and sensitivity of his two great successors (I know very little about John Paul I). So when I see people promoting Fr Martin's stuff, I don't join them, but I do feel a certain sympathy for them.

Cheers, AnnH ♫ 11:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't think you'll be très heureux about new attempts to remove the words la mort from a certain definition. (Sigh.) AnnH ♫ 19:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's warning ;-)=

Hi, Str. You have been reported to me for 3RR violation. Of course, I could block you immediately, but some of the nicer administrators sometimes offer the criminal a chance to undo his revert in order to avoid punishment. So, I'm offering you the choice — either I block you or you undo your revert of christians are smelly people, christians are smelly, and Athlete rubbed in oil, etc. If you're prepared to insert back into the article the four edits which you so improperly removed, that would bring you back down to three reverts, and I'd be happy to overlook your disgraceful behaviour this time. AnnH ♫ 20:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the intrusion, I thought reverting vandalism isn't counted in the 3RR violation. Dr. Dan 13:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Reverting vandalism is not restricted by 3RR. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I had a wink in the heading of the section! AnnH ♫ 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software bug

Can you urgently check this ? AnnH ♫ 23:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was already checking it, when my screen turned orange. But thanks for pointing out. It is funny to be reverting back to a version one knows to be utterly wrong, but hey! c'est la vie! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That silly joke I made

I shouldn't have made that silly joke about your "3RR violations" last week :-( . First of all, I ended up inserting obscenities about God, as I hadn't checked the meaning of the word, and then I caused extra things to be reported at WP:AN/3RR. It really didn't occur to me that anyone would think that my offer of letting you re-insert "Christians are smelly" was anything other than a joke. I'll keep my sense of humour to myself next time. ;-) Your friend, who won't block you or her enemies ♫ 00:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, keep your sense of humour by all means! ;-) And don't take it to hard. I don't think your joke caused any of this current malaise. He who has ears will listen, but he who will block his ears and/or hum his own tune loud enough will only hear what he wants to hear. Aurelie, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

Did you miss my edit before you tagged? And by the way, regarding KV's edit summary "reverting Str's grammatically incorrect change....... heresy is the subject, and thus you do not change subject in the middle of a sentence", there was no grammatical error in "Church authorities condemned some theologians as heretics, the most notable being Christian Gnostics, and defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy." The "subject" was "Church authorities", and the subject didn't change in the middle, since it was the "Church authorities" who defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy. As long as the meaning isn't changed, putting "orthodoxy" or "heresy" at the beginning of the final clause is a question of style, not of grammatical correctness. Aurelie! AnnH ♫ 09:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine

Hi, Str. I have Constantine on my watchlist, so I know that you edit it. I generally just revert vandalism. Regarding this, and this, if you know more than I do on the topic — and that wouldn't be hard — you might like to weigh in. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Glad to see your name appearing again when I refresh my watchlist. AnnH ♫ 22:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Glad you're back

I missed you. (Yes, I admit, I snooped at your contribs to see if you were around today!) If you had stayed away much longer, I'd have almost started thinking I was polytheistic — I was getting so much opposition. Saint Patrick's demonstration of the Trinity with the shamrock (if he really made it — there is doubt about that) is a pretty poor one, but Frank Sheed's explanation in Theology for Beginners or Theology and Sanity is first class. (I've just seen from "preview" that that's a red link. Maybe I should start the article!) AnnH ♫ 15:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann, don't be bashful about witnessing! I think Str1977 deserves to know about your recent conversion to classic Greek polytheism, under my blessed guidance. Of course, after you saw how polytheistic Catholicism really is, it was only a small step for you to accept the worship of the entire Greek pantheon!

Anyhow, I know you're eager to bring the spaghetti sauce to our upcoming sacrifice of a pristine white bullock in the name of Zeus almighty, but perhaps brother Str1977 would be willing to join us and take up that role. There are plenty of other items on the sign-up sheet and it'll be lots of fun!

We're going to start with a Minoan bull-baiting that puts those Christian matadors to shame, and we'll end up with the consumption of raw beef and copious quantities of wine, so as to put ourselves in touch with Zeus. I hear the maenades might make an appearance, and they're always so much more interesting than the usual Vestal virgins.

It doesn't take the wisdom of Athena-Pallas to recognize that, as those Christian atheists say, the more the merrier, so I look forward to seeing one or both of you at the worship event! For more information, click here.

Yours in Zeus...

Al 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Sophia has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Frown!

AnnH ♫ has frowned at you! Frowns promote WikiHate and hopefully this one has made your day worse. Spread the WikiHate by frowning to someone else, whether it be someone you have had agreements with in the past or a bad enemy. Frown to others by adding {{subst:frown}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Sorry, dear Str. Knowing how much you like parrots, I couldn't resist it! I have actually voted to delete that template, but I wanted you to see it first. And, since I know that you probably won't be editing until Thursday, I guess that by the time you get a chance to report me here, it will be too late for anyone to block me for my WP:NPA violation. (Blocks two days after the offence are very rare.) I have to admit — maybe I have a dark side too? — that I smiled more when I first saw this template than when I saw the {{smile}} one. Clever, but inappropriate! Actually, they're both a bit too chain letter-ish for my liking. And by the way, it should really be "frown at", rather than "frown to", but since I predict that the template is going to be deleted very soon, it's hardly worth correcting it at this stage.

Impatiently awaiting your return (whether you smile or frown), I remain

Your self-styled monotheistic friend ♫ 20:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33 has frowned at you! Frowns promote WikiHate and hopefully this one has made your day worse. Spread the WikiHate by frowning to someone else, whether it be someone you have had agreements with in the past or a bad enemy. Frown to others by adding {{subst:frown}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Can I have a cracker, now? Giovanni33 10:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I have given him a cracker.[26] By the way, the person who created the {{frown}} template was obviously just trying to make a WP:POINT, as he was the one who nominated {{smile}} for deletion, calling it "a bloody chain letter". AnnH ♫ 13:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, Str, I've noticed the tagging and untagging of user pages of Giovanni's puppets. One of them, Deuteronomy2000, created the account specially to make a 3RR report of FeloniousMonk. As the account was created specially for that purpose, it seemed to be on the same level as an anonymous letter. It was also nearly twelve hours old. I deleted it. Giovanni, rather foolishly (since he's being watched at the moment), reverted me, saying that it seemed valid. It seems significant that FeloniousMonk had blocked him shortly before that, and that I was the one who had rejected the report. (I've never edited with FeloniousMonk, and a brief look at that dispute suggested that I might be on the other side.) Anyway, I looked at it in detail, and the fourth revert was not a revert. However, FeloniousMonk thought that Giovanni, with his history of puppetry, had created the account for that purpose, and said so. Others agreed that it was possible, though his next block was not for puppetry. Then Timothy tagged the account. Then Giovanni, when unblocked, started to edit war at the user pages.

My personal opinion is that Deuteronomy2000 is probably not Giovanni. Giovanni is more likely to create an account so that he can get three extra reverts saying that Hitler received the sacraments devoutly, or that Christianity is a self-professed monotheistic religion centered on stories, or whatever. It's logical to assume that if he had wanted to hide his identity, while taking revenge on FeloniousMonk, he would have reverted me as Deuteronomy2000, not as Giovanni. So while of course the BelindaGong account should be tagged, I'd like you to leave the Deuteronomy one alone. I'm going to make the same request of Timothy. Of course, neither Giovanni nor Deuteronomy has any right to be frightfully indignant. Deuteronomy is obviously a puppet, so can't bristle with indignation at being called one; and Giovanni is a proven puppeteer, so equally shouldn't bristle with indignation when obvious behaviour leads to obvious conclusions. If a little boy steals apples from his neighbour's garden, and then his mother, not knowing that, punishes him for stealing biscuits from the pantry, when it was his sister who took the biscuits, he has still deserved the punishment, and puppeteers deserve suspicion even when a particular account is not one of theirs!

Anyway, come and visit my talk page. I've improved the appearance. I had to take the archives off, though, because they didn't fit nicely. If I can't find a way around that in the next few days, I might create a special subpage for them. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I hope you like frogs! AnnH ♫ 00:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ann, for your post. I agree with your reasoning that speak against Deuteronomy being Gio. (For a connection however speak the quick involvement of Gio in the subsequent 3RR complaint, Gio's including Deuteronomy in his aggressive reverting scheme, and Gio's proneness to puppeteering. However, in dubio pro reo.) Though the former is undoubtedly a puppet, we don't know whose. I had spared it initially when I reverted Gio's/Mika's reverting but somehow it got implicated later. It's hard to keep track of the mass of reverts by Gio.

Normally I like frogs (though not for eating!), but this a bit to human for my liking. I prefer these: [27], [28], [29].

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the cookie, and for the badly-needed job in fixing the format of my awards page, which I wasn't able to do. As my (non-feminist) mother says whenever she sees a man effortlessly reversing a large lorry round the corner into a narrow road, "I always knew men were superior!" You won't hear her say that in any other context, though! AnnH ♫ 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was in fact not so effortlessly, moving back and forth various times. As for superiority, eveyone has his/her qualities and some man are superior to some women in some regards, while some women are superior to some man in some regards. So it's best to cooperate. "My final note: There's nothing a good man cannot do except for being a mother. There's nothing a good woman cannot do, except for being King of the Franks and a priest of the Lord Sabaoth. You decide which of the three post is most important." Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi, Str. If you're online at the moment, as you seem to be (oh dear, that dreadful dark side!) could you have a look at Special:Contributions/210.84.20.27 and see what you think? Cheers. AnnH ♫ 11:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My best edit ever!

One would think, looking at the first three contributions of 139.48.180.232, that I was justified in doing this after his/her fourth, but apparently I wasn't! Just as well I checked after I had done it! It should be a lesson that even vandals can repent! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 09:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My very last post is for you

Hello, Str. Even though I don't adhere to this doctrine, I'm convinced that with my flawed human nature, the only way I can expect to be able to finish writing my assignments is to make it impossible to see new messages, or to see Wikipedia discusssion threads that look to be of interest. I need to keep Wikipedia in my browser favourites, though, in case I have to look up things about phenomenology or epistemology, so as soon as I've posted this to you, I'm going to log off, so that I won't see any "new messages" and my watchlist won't function. Please keep an eye on my user page and talk page, and remove anything that you think I would want removed. I trust your judgment, and will, in any case, check the page histories when I get back. Keep up the good work without me. Keep in touch, if you have anything to tell or ask me. And, please God, the name Musical Linguist will suddenly appear when you refresh your watchlist in September. See you then! AnnH ♫ 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

Hi, Str. I got my two papers finished, and I'm exhausted. Going to bed in a moment. I just have some revision to do for a German (undergraduate) certificate course,[30] which finishes at the end of the month, but it's not as important as the doctorate — I'd survive the humiliation if I failed! Feeling a bit wobbly at the moment, because I'm short of sleep, and my body is full of illicit substances. I was virtuous for nearly a year, but felt that relaxing the strictness while in the final stages of writing my papers would help. (And it did!) By the way, did a line get swallowed up in a recent edit? "Ilsa and collapses" doesn't make sense. Anyway, even though I did look in from time to time, although I had promised myself that I wouldn't, it's nice to be "officially" back, even if I'm still going to be contributing less than before until the end of the month. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Person and Divine Person - Oh No!

Hi, I was fixing some silly vandalism to Christ and I wasn't comfortable with what was already there. It said that Gnostics did not believe in a Jesus who was both a Divine Person and a human person, which seemed to imply that mainstream Christians do believe that He was two persons (rather than One Person with two natures). So, while removing the vandalism bit about golf, I also modified the non vandalism bit about being a human person. If you're online, could you have a look and check that that section is okay, since I don't know much about what gnostics believed. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nero and me

See this page, and scroll down to 666. I'll have to start doing more (or less) editing!

Will e-mail you later today about a book that arrived in the post this morning! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been updated, so I'm no longer the Beast! I've just finished another study weekend, so not am not completely up to date on Wikipedia, but am wondering if your "rm tag" edit is partly a product of the software bug or intentional? I'm talking about Category:July Monarchy and Category:Contemporary French history, neither of which means anything to me! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 09:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John his book

Hi, Str, there's a very interesting article (to me, at least, though perhaps less so to you!) here. Basically, it's about a period in the history of the English language when people thought that "John's book" was a contraction for "John his book", and began to say "John his book", as a sort of hypercorrection, in an effort to be really correct — a bit like saying "between you and I". While I can't stand "between you and I", I remember teaching a piece by William Byrd ~~from the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book~~ called The Earl of Salisbury his Pavan, and thinking that the title was delightfully quaint and archaic.

I recall from the days that I lived in Holland, that "van" (of) was the most common way of forming a possessive — the brother OF Marc, for example. However, some of the students did casually say "Marc zijn broer". Anyway, if you have anything interesting to add (you may not have) you might like to comment on the talk page about "Jan sein Buch", etc. — how acceptable or unacceptable, widespread or rare it is. See here, for example. What about feminine or neuter? Maria's book? The house's chimney?

What says the "German history horse"?

AnnH ♫ 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's quite a good section on other languages now, so no need for your input. Also, I've discovered that The Earl of Salisbury his Pavan is not in the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book at all, so I've crossed out my error. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 11:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German user box

Hi, Str. I'm thinking of promoting myself from {{User de-1}} to {{User de-2}}. It's certainly true for reading, though I'm less sure about speaking and writing! The problem is that the Level 2 user box has too many words: it takes up three lines. Now, in English, if a user box took up too many lines, I could change the wording slightly. For example, "speaks English at an intermediate level" is shorter than "is able to contribute at an intermediate level of English". I'd like to get it into two lines, not necessarily on the template for everyone, but at least on my own page. It's possible that there's nothing shorter in elegant German, but if you have any ideas for shortening "Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse", I'd be glad to hear them. Also, should it be Diese Benutzerin? There's a female version for native speakers {{User de-f}}. Obviously, I don't aspire to that! As an English speaker, I have a dislike of words like "chairperson", and of people making unauthorized feminist changes (e.g. "brothers" to "brothers and sisters") at Mass. I find such politically-motivated changes to be awkward, inelegant, and irritating. But if it's natural to use the female version in German, I'd use it — even though it makes the line longer! If you can't think of a natural-sounding shorter version, I might try a smaller font. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard the expression "brothers in skirts" addressing the female section of the congregation. Try "Benutzerin mit fortgeschrittenen Deutschkenntnissen" Agathoclea 14:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just started my user page. I'm using your Catholic box, but I could use some help. If you have a couple minutes to spare it'd be great if you could show me how to get the thing going. Thanks, KittyHawker 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I need to fix the boxes and I don't know how! I hoped you'd be willing to edit my user page a little. KittyHawker 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll keep working on it. To change the subject, the more I read about the Septuagint the more I think the Church should use it. Also did you hear if the Ecumenical Patriarch communicated the pope or not? We didn't get that in our coverage over here. KittyHawker 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Linguist

I saw your note on her talk page, is sympathy in order? ML is so very kind to everyone, I would hate to think she was going through something without support from the WP community, but of course I don't want to pry so if something was told you in confidence please just let me know and I will let it drop - thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Ann

Despite what you see on my user page, you should feel free to e-mail me. Just, well, please don't feel surprised or offended if you don't get a quick reply. I'm sorry about messages bouncing back. I have been doing some fiddling with e-mail filters, and I seem to have had some e-mails lost or deleted that I would actually have wanted to receive. I'd like to reply to all the kind people who posted on my talk page, but I can't right now. I know I can rely on your prayers, and I promise I will be back. God bless you. AnnH ♫ 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Dr. Dan

Best Wishes to You and Yours for the Christmas Holidays and in the New Year. Dr. Dan 15:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Please convey the same heartfelt greeting to Musical Linguist, as well as my condolences, as I felt it inappropriate to leave a message on her talk page.[reply]

ML

Please, for Musical, tell her "I am sorry for her trouble and to have courage, and that time heals some of it" Ciau , from IPdom, for her.

I will. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not back, but still taking a peep most days

Hello, Str. I'm not back, but I am a little bit around — looking to see what's happening here. It's tempting, when I see my watchlist, to start editing again. But I'm preoccupied with a lot of family and other matters. My father is hoping to buy a smaller house before the summer. Actually, he's spending a lot of time with me at the moment. Obviously, I want to help as much as I can, but I imagine it will be a stressful time. (It will also be a bit sad to think of the house I spent so many happy moments in being sold.) I've got an extension in submission date from the university, but I don't want to have to ask for another one. I'm back at work, and I'm fine, except for a slight limp from an old knee injury, which always seems to come back at times of stress. Keep well, and expect me back in the not too distant future. AnnH ♫ 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 L inguist 10:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 L inguist 00:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]