From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Welcome to the Wikipedia 2 Questions and comments 2.1 Archives 2.2 New Messages 2.3 Banu Qurayza 2.4 Saint Methodius 2.5 Your e-mail 2.6 Axiomatic 2.7 Words and music 2.8 Thanks for your help 2.9 about the Blood Pack (Blade II) article 2.10 A favour requested 2.11 Banu Qurayza 2.12 Ibn Ubayy 2.13 "The name is informal and unencyclopedic" 2.14 Mediation at Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661) 2.15 Which image 2.16 Notes 2.17 Sudeten German Party 2.18 Austrian National Socialism 2.19 German help 2.20 Amorrow 2.21 Jude of James 2.22 Charles II, Duke of Parma 2.23 Luxemb(o)urg 2.24 Edit summary 2.25 Personal attack removed 2.26 "Read the naming conventions" 2.27 Elisabeth in Bavaria 2.28 Istanbul and Constantinople 2.29 A Discussion I think you might know how to handle best... 2.30 Thanks for your kindness 2.31 Banu Qurayza 2.32 Christianity 2.33 Mayors of the palaces 2.34 German edit summary 2.35 Hello

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Notes:

• The link to the POV-section template is {{POV-section}}.
• {{subst:test3}} is preferred.
• Errors that need correction should be treated like <strike>this</strike>.
• http://dict.leo.org/?lang=de&lp=ende

[edit] Questions and comments

[edit] Archives

Talk Page Archives

FK A 1 2 3 4 5

[edit] New Messages

[edit] Banu Qurayza

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

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

[edit] Saint Methodius

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

[edit] Your e-mail

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

[edit] Axiomatic

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

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

[edit] Words and music

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

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

[edit] Thanks for your help

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

[edit] about the Blood Pack (Blade II) article

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

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

[edit] A favour requested

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

[edit] Banu Qurayza

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

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

Thank you for your attention to that article, I'll examine it more closely tomorrow. Arrow740 10:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibn Ubayy

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

[edit] "The name is informal and unencyclopedic"

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

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

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

[edit] Which image

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

[edit] Notes

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_National_Socialist_Party

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

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

[edit] Sudeten German Party

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

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

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

[edit] Austrian National Socialism

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

[edit] German help

Hello, Str1977, I've come across you at some Christianity-related articles, and I see from your "about me" page that you're German, or at least that German is your native language. I studied German at school, but I don't have a great deal of confidence with it. Today I was adding an image of my ice cream maker to French Wikipedia,[1] and I decided to be very brave and register an account with German Wikipedia. I added the image, but I just put "Eismaschine" as the caption, as I wasn't sure what adjective to use. I'd like to add a picture of my popcorn maker to de:Popcorn and my yoghurt maker to de:Joghurt. I'd be grateful if you could suggest a caption for the pictures. In particular, I'd appreciate some help with the yoghurt maker. As you can see here, when I added it to the article, I said "A yoghurt-making kit, with container, thermosflask, and thermometer." No hurry at all. The articles aren't crying out in desperation for some images! Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amorrow

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

[edit] Jude of James

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

[edit] Charles II, Duke of Parma

It says in his mother's article: "Maria Louisa became Duchess [of Lucca] in her own right and was granted the rank and privileges of a Queen. Only upon her death [1824], her son, Charles Luis would succeed her, meanwhile he was known as the Prince of Lucca". So, was she regent, or was she indeed Duchess? I went with the latter, but if you find out otherwise, for certain, then revert it.SamEV 02:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luxemb(o)urg

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

[edit] Edit summary

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

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

Thanks for your message on my Talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hear you. And act. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack removed

Aw, thanks Str![2] Not that it bothered me too much; I do have a funny name, to those of limited understanding. It is my greatest hope that users are forced to scour Latin and Greek dictionaries in search of the relevant roots. I'm pro- "for" a- "not" bi- "two"...then what? Therein lies challenge.

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

The IP in question traces to Montreal, Canada[3]. Beit Or 15:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Honi soit qui mal y pense ;-) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"for not two" vou- Visus Oculi Utriusque (Latin: Vision - Both Eyes)

ac = "and" please help! Must give clue! Help me unlock the mystery of "Proabivouac" !  :-) --ProtectWomen 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Read the naming conventions"

Hi, Str1977. I don't quite understand what the problem was with that post. Perhaps the same words in German would be a bit peremptory? I don't know. But in English, unless it's said in a very peremptory manner, I see no reason to assume that it's anything more than a suggestion, in the sense of "Read the naming conventions and you'll see what I mean", which would be the same as "If you read the naming conventions, you'll see what I mean." Of course, there may be some prior history here that I'm unaware of, but in the absence of that, I don't see any incivility.

Anyway, I really don't want to be patronising, because I know you're a very experienced editor, and I greatly admire the work you do here, but since I seem to have got involved in this against my will (I never thought that my question about dates and titles would lead to that), I'll just make the observation that if someone says something that's uncivil, but not seriously uncivil, it's probably best to ignore the incivility. Not only does that remove the risk of reacting unfairly to words that you may have misunderstood because of the absence of clues from tone and facial expression, but it also prevents something small from turning into something big. I've seen a few examples here on Wikipedia in the last few days, where everyone ended up more annoyed than they had started, because telling the other party he was rude made the other party more annoyed, and didn't make the aggrieved party less annoyed.

Anyway, I know I have no right to lecture you, and I admit that I don't always follow that advice myself. But I feel a bit involved in this because it seems to have come from my innocent question about dates in titles. Feel free to remove this message if you want! ElinorD (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elisabeth in Bavaria

I don't post incorrect information like that. In fact, I initially wanted the page called Elisabeth in Bavaria but was told that the most common maiden name form for Elisabeth is Elisabeth of Bavaria. Sorry, but that is the way it is. It is not my choice either. Charles 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the requested moves is that the guidelines need to be discussed rather than the individual pages. As such, I felt it necessary to restore the comments as they stood at WP:RM. My personal belief always has been that consorts should be given their maiden names without the title preceding their forename. For most women, this leaves them at Name of Place. Elisabeth is, however, Name in Place. My argument for this was that it was factually her name and that in was used for a very specific reason. Of course, it was shot down, and sadly it probably will be again. Elisabeth of Bavaria, however, is a very common form of her name, even if it is not fully accurate. Appending the title to the end of her name won't fly because it denotes sovereign status or status as head of a house. Such is an established convention on Wikipedia and elsewhere. So the proper place to address this is at the Naming Conventions. Don't get me wrong, I am not against you. I have always tried to go for the accurate names (Elisabeth in Bavaria, Zita of Parma/Zita of Bourbon of Parma, etc). Charles 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I just got your new comment. The titles you suggest only fits if Elisabeth was covered under monarchial titles, section 5. Charles 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to including the ducal title as you noted. However, the title Elisabeth of Bavaria is not incorrect even if it was not her primary title. Elisabeth was a duchess in and of Bavaria, because all members of the House of Wittelsbach were titled duke or duchess of Bavaria in the same way that all Saxon royals and princes were dukes in Saxony. Charles 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All members of the house of Wittelsbach were dukes and duchesses of Bavaria. At the time the Kingdom of Bavaria was born, there were two extant lines of the House of Wittelsbach. Collectively, they were all dukes and duchesses of Bavaria, but one line became royal and since there was only one other line extant it was seen to that they be raised to a certain status. The title that they still shared (Duke of Bavaria, a title of the Holy Roman Empire) at best carried the style of Serene Highness. A loftier title illustrating a special status as the only other line of the Bavarian house was created for this purpose. It must be stated that prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Bavaria, these respective lines used comital palatine titles with different territorial designations, as opposed to their ducal titles with the same designation (essentially, that of their "house"). The naming, of course, is another issue. Personally, I will vote for Elisabeth in Bavaria if it does come up, although the others will duly note that Elisabeth of Bavaria is very common. Charles 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a very tricky situation since they cannot be compared as such directly. Compare Austria and Spain at the point where the Habsburgs, as Archdukes of Austria, were also Kings of Spain. Royal being greater than archducal, one would assume all members of Spanish line to be of Spain, but several are known as of Austria because that is their house. The use of Duke in Bavaria over Duke of Bavaria is only definitive for the head of the Ducal House in Bavaria, as he was the Duke in, but only a duke of, Bavaria and thus has his title appended at the end of his name. Charles 13:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Istanbul and Constantinople

thanks for your edits on the "Gospel of Baranabas" page - but I am not sure it is correct to change the name to "Constantinople" for a document of the 1590s. All references I know written in the city already term it "Instanbul" - as of course the Spanish GoB does. TomHennell 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote the song "Istanbul was Constantinople" and in fact was so until the 20th century. Also, since the references were to Greek libraries, I think it is more appropriate a name. Str1977 (smile back) 21:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A neat point - but not in fact correct. "Istanbul" is how the city is termed in the Gospel of Barnabas manuscript; it is also the term used by both Jacob Paleologus and Adam Neuser in their writings of the later 16th century - when referring to the contemporary city rather than to its historic tradition. In addition, the two names are not quite co-extensive, Istanbul includes Pera (where Neueser and Paleologus both lodged), whereas Constantinople did no. TomHennell 16:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Discussion I think you might know how to handle best...

On Criticism of Christianity, one of the latest topics of argument is Hitler's religion, a subject I am not really very familiar with. However, I think you're one of the people who actually was involved in that subject awhile ago I think for real, so I thought you might want to know about it, so far, the best i've come up with is that Positive Christianity is positive alright...positively insane, and I don't think that'll solve the discussion on its own :/ . Homestarmy 20:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your kindness

Hi, Str1977, I'm afraid I've been a bit rude in not thanking you for the barnstar, or for the note you left for me. I meant to, and then somehow it got archived. Anyway, I appreciated your kind words, and I'm proudly displaying the barnstar on my user page. Keep up the great work you're doing here, and if someone annoys you, before you respond, think "Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio." I notice that both you and Musical Linguist link from your user pages to your favourite quotations. If I ever do that, I'll have that quotation there. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Qurayza

Hello,

I'm waiting for your response on Banu Qurayza.Bless sins 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Str, your assumption would be incorrect. We may have had our heated discussions, but that has been many months in the past. The last several times this issue has come up you have been a model of wisdom. That is not to say that we think alike on this issue, but that for Wikipedia you understand the need for balance. I have no problem with stating that there is controversy among Christians as to which groups are "Christian", as long as the definition is then qualified as belonging to the traditional Christianity or supporting the doctrines approved in the great Councils.

What is so frustrating is the number of what I believe to be Protestants that have done nothing to prepare, but have only the words of their pastor, and are now ready to accuse those who believe differently then they do. I believe that this has been a curse of religion and Christianity in particular.

One of the things that has helped me is to put a different context on how I view other churches...in a battle against darkness or evil who will stand for the light and truth. I understand that this may be too liberal a position for many to take, but given that I believe all light and truth comes from God it allows me to simply acknowledge that which is good in others rather than focus on that which separates us. What I try to do is remove negative judgement from my thoughts in the hope that if I fail to be a source of peace at least I am not a source of contention here. I believe that you also have become that type of person. Peace. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are kind; thank you. There is so much more that I believe unites us than what separates us! As a LDS I seek first to serve our Father in Heaven, adn second my wife and family. However, after that I seek to serve my fellow man. It may be a weakness, though I hope not, but I do appreciate simply being recognized as a disciple of Christ. I think pride is too much bound up in that, but I have to admit it is true. One may easily reject my church affiliation, but it is my fervent prayer they do not reject my abiding love of our Savior.

I think I may have been too blunt above on our differences; they have been in the past. There is no rancor between us, rather I find that we complement each other's work well and I enjoy cooperating together. Further, I respect your counsel, correction, and guidance. My desire would be to one day recognized as your brother in Christ Jesus. Continued Peace be unto you. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayors of the palaces

Hello. I have a slight problem with your move of the page List of Mayors of the Palaces to List of Mayors of the Palace. I understand why you did so and I'm not even considering moving it back because I doubt that anybody else sees the error in the new title. The error is this: the mayors listed were mayors of multiple palaces! Hence the original plural. Each "palace" (that is, royal household, of which there were three) had its own mayors. I think the current title would only be appropriate for a list of mayors of the palace of Neustria, for example. But the article has three lists for the three different "palaces." Srnec 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But I think you may have misunderstood me, or perhaps I wasn't clear. Indeed the title of these individuals each was major domus, where domus means household (I did say royal household above) and has been translated "palace" for various reasons. The office of mayor of the palace is only really apparent in the late sixth century, though it probably existed earlier as a minor palatial posting. I am not suggesting that there was any individual with the title "mayor of the palaces," only that these individuals were the mayors of the palaces: that is, they were the mayors of the various households (royal courts).

To make an analogy, the head of the government of Ontario is called the Premier of Ontario. That is his title. Collectively, all the premiers of Ontario (throughout her history) are called just that: premiers (plural) of Ontario (singular). However, all the premiers in all the provinces of Canada would be called the premiers (plural: there are more than one) of the provinces (there are ten). Similarly, when talking only of Austrasia (throughout her history), we have the mayors (there were many) of the palace [of Austrasia]. When talking of all the mayors in all the kingdoms of the Franks, we have the mayors (there were many) of the palaces (of all the kingdoms: there were three). Srnec 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But "prime" is an adjective, which is not pluralised in English. Thus, "prime ministers" is not analagous. "The premiers of the provinces of Canada" is analagous to "the mayors of the palaces of the Franks." There were many mayors of Neustria alone thus: "mayors of the palace of Neustria." But how do you distinguish between the mayors of Neustria and those of all the kingdoms collectively? By pluralising "palaces" because that corresponds to the kingdoms, which are now more than one. 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you say "Danny Williams and Jean Charest are the premier of the province of Québec and Newfoundland"? Or would you say "Danny Williams and Jean Charest are the premiers of the provinces of Québec and Newfoundland"? This is just pluralisation. It doesn't change the fact that neither Williams nor Charest has a plural title. Let's clarify: I don't think "mayors of the palace of Austrasia and Neustria" to refer to Pepin of Heristal and Berthar is correct. Do you? Srnec 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German edit summary

Hi, Str1977. I think I mentioned to you before that I have an account at German Wikipedia. I don't use it much, as my German is rusty. But I've been following a discussion at one of the admin noticeboards, and also at meta. Apparently there are some problems with certain links, and some admins want them blacklisted. Jkelly has already removed them from French Wikipedia. I'd remove them from German Wikipedia if I felt confident of being able to explain myself. If I just go in and remove dozens of links without edit summary, I'll certainly be reverted, and I'll probably be blocked. Could you please translate this sentence for me, so that I can put it in my edit summary:

"Problems with this link are being discussed at English Wikipedia and also at Meta."

Many thanks. ElinorD (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Str1977 for your helpful response. I'm afraid, though that the German Wikipedians don't like me! :) ElinorD (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Saber girl08 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)