Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:24, 16 November 2005

If you find this page on any other site than Misplaced Pages, then you are viewing this from a outdated mirror. Please direct yourself to the real thing at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Chris_73

Note:
If a conversation is spread across the talk pages of multiple users, I take
the liberty to copy related snippets to this talk page. Some comments were not
directly written on this page, but are always shown in the correct context.
Formatting may be adjusted for consistency. Vandalism will be
deleted anytime.

Comments are welcome in either English or German. Archived talk pages can be found through the menu on the right.

Thanks

For reverting my friend's User-page so fast back in July 2005. Really means a lot to him. 194.109.22.149 15:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Pixelquelle

Hi. I'm afraid pixelquelle.de images aren't PD. They are under a custom license which is noncommercial, and other restrictions that makes them unusable.

Image:GreenTrousers.jpg has been listed for deletion

Secretlondon 17:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:ArmorSchlossHomburg.jpg has been listed for deletion

Secretlondon 17:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:LaundryLine.jpg has been listed for deletion

Thanks for dropping me the notice. I uploaded the images a long time ago when it still was an acceptable license. Now I completely support their deletion. Good work cleaning up Misplaced Pages. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 18:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mescaline1.jpg

I don't think this is pd. The source German wikipedia had no longer has the photos available but nothing on that site looks pd - its a US university - not the work of the US federal government as far as I can see. Secretlondon 19:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I copied the image from the german wiki, but since they now state that it is no longer PD, the image should be deleted here, too. Please go ahead and delete it. Happy editing. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I changed PD to non PD on German wiki as I can't find any evidence that it is - so my altering their page doesn't count as evidence! I wanted to draw their attention to it (my German is strictly de-1). Secretlondon 20:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I also cannot verify now if the image is PD or not, since the source page is gone. To delete or not to delete... either way is fine by me. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Super Smash Brothers. Revolution

Just wanted to let you know that I had already put this article up for AFD when you deleted it with no explanation. I was thinking about speedying it myself but it doesn't fall under any of the CSD criteria so I hope you don't mind that i took the liberty of undeleting the article so that it can finish it's run on AFD. Jtkiefer ----- 23:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Cereal

Hi. A few months ago there was a vote to delete an individual cereal article. Since i think your latest contributions (Weetabix Minis, Fruit 'n Fibre) are nice, but the topic is not encyclopedic, i have listed them on WP:AFD. Feel free to comment on the Voting pages. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. It is difficult to decide what stays and what goes, and I am myself often not sure. In any case, the articles were well written and linked, and it was good work, even though at least the Weetabix one is vanity. I hope this does not dampen your enthusiasm, since your contributions in general are good and wanted at Misplaced Pages. Best wishes and Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed a 'Ready Brek' article I'd written, and been in the middle of correcting when I noticed your original message and got distracted. It was there (and wrong) anyway, so I figured I may as well correct it. Feel free to decide if it's worth keeping. Just out of curiosity, what do you think of TV/VCR_combo and VCR/DVD_combo? I'd tidied the first one up a few days back, but my gut reaction was that I'm not sure they should have been there in the first place; they had some mildly useful info (once cleaned up), but should they be separate articles? Would you put this on 'articles for deletion'? I'm not that experienced, so I erred on the side of caution. However..... And I'm not going to get started on the quality of the photo; it illustrates the point, but it's very poor otherwise; the person didn't even clean/edit the green 'snot' from the front of the thing :-O Fourohfour 00:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. It seems the current tendency of the vote is to keep the articles. In this case my first guess was too conservative, sorry for causing trouble. If the vote survives, feel free to create more cereal articles, and I will be perfectly fine with it. Even for long time Wikipedians it is sometimes difficult to estimate what stays and what goes. As for the TV/VCR/DVD combos, these are a group of products, not just a single brand, and my feeling is that they should stay. I wish you all the best and happy editing! -- Chris 73 Talk 09:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. BTW, since we're discussing AfDs, and you have more experience than me, what's the etiquette on 'drastic' consolidation/redirection of articles? (i.e. where a number of articles which *someone* feels should be combined get merged into a single one, and the others are redirected to this). Should it be voted upon?

Fourohfour 22:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to check the talk page. If there is a significant discussion going on, you may want to bring up the topic there first. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages:Be bold in updating pages and just change it. Pretty much everything can be made undone if necessary. The only two things to take care of: (1) Try to keep most of the information, i.e. no missing subsections in the final combination. (2) If you move an article, use the "Page Move" function, rather than a cut/copy operation. By using "Page Move" you also move the edit history. If teh page move is not yet available to you (a safety feature for very new users to prevent page move vandalism, which puts a high load on the servers), list it on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, and it will be moved in time. Otherwise go ahead and move/merge. If others disagree, it can always be discussed on the various talk pages. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 14:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Chris!

Thank you for your good wishes, my dear Chris! The reason why I didn't tell you about my RfA is that I intentionally did no campaigning for myself, which I find distasteful. Thus I didn't notify any of my friends about it; it would have been very easy to let you do the voting for me, but I wanted community to decide, and I feel glad that I was considered worthy. Thank you!

I've detached myself from German-Polish issues on purpose too, because I felt that nothing was being gained in the matter, and my Wikistress rose like a rocket. Could you update me on the matter? I feel I'm in better position now to help if needed. I hope you're doing creat, Chris, and I'm here whenever you need me. Hugs! Shauri smile! 22:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The "new" Emperor

You might want to take a look at the recent edits of User:86.140.64.32, User:86.137.198.78, and User:86.131.15.13. Each one has been adding links to various articles connected with Germany and European nobility. The links are run by someone in England claiming to be the next Holy Roman Emperor. I am unsure if any of the information should be kept or not; while the lists on the pages could be useful, the crackpot delusions of the site owner cast doubt on the entire page. Olessi 16:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Kosavo Edits

I was just looking for odd anon edits, thanks for the reverts! Ronabop 15:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget...

... to Smile! for me today, my dear Chris! :) Hugs! Shauri smile! 23:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Article names

Hello Chris! I have initiated discussions at Talk:Bishopric of Warmia, Talk:Ştefan cel Mare, and Talk:Ţara Bârsei about changing their article names. Take a look if you are interested. Olessi 20:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Image source/licensing for Image:Berners-Lee.jpg

This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Misplaced Pages talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 12:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo

Hey Chris. You know (I hope) that I tend to stay out of the entire Gdansk vote dispute, but I've noticed it is a second time you have blocked User:Molobo, citing this vote as the reason, when in fact he has not broken the 3RR rule. I don't recall that this vote allows anybody to block a person who goes agaisnt it (if he in fact has done so)? It allows those who act according with the vote result to ingnore the 3RR, but does not give them the blanket 'block warrant' for everybody. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Btw, support for this block by anon of such estimeed contributions does not vouch good for your decisions. Anyway, I would like to ask you for your definition of the 'shared history' in the Gdansk vote. I can imagine people arguing that the all cities in Poland are affected by it, since they were a part of Germany from 1939/1941 to 1944. What do you think about that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Chris has not requested support from the anon, so that does not have any relevance. I agree that Molobo should not have been blocked, as I do not see that he broke the 3RR either. I am strongly in favor of further discussion of the Vote so that "shared history" can be clarified to avert the all-too-frequent arguments over it. Olessi 02:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. I did not block Molobo for a 3RR, but for disrupting Misplaced Pages. (This is a valid reason to block according to Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy ). A block of Witkacy for the same reason was spontaneously confirmed by another admin whom I did not know before. About the vote: The vote is not perfect, but I still think it is good. A very strong majority voted for double naming, yet a few editors go into the face of the 70%+ majority. Molobo would even remove the birthplace of a bio-article from the middle ages just so that there is no mentioning of Danzig . He did remove double naming repeatedly and over long periods. He also has the annoying habit of calling edits he does not like either vandalism or personal attacks, and he is in a POV dispute with dozends of editors and a few admins. Hence I finally blocked him for disrupting Misplaced Pages and going against community consensus by again despite multiple warnings removing double naming. On one point I agree with you, maybe the wording of the vote should be renamed to something like "other names still in use in English in relation to the article". On the other hand, every voting result can be misinterpreted and stretched beyond reason if someone really wants to. One editor even wanted to rename New York since it has a relation to Polish-German history. If you have a solution for this conflict I am all ears. I DO have a high opinion of you, and value your contributions. I just don't want to go back to ignore the vote and restart hundreds of edit wars. Other than that I have little interest in articles about Polish or German history. Best wishes and happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 12:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I do not know this anon, and I have not requested support from anybody. I also dislike German POV edits. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Disruption, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be well defined and are definetly controversial. Besides, I don't see that Molobo has been warned before the block, which is a requirement. All things consider, I'd advice you not to block him unless he breaks a rule like 3RR. Or you may want to go for dispute resolution, like RfC or RfA. I am reminded of a lenghty disupute with user:Zvinbudas, but even through he was much more aggressive then Molobo, I (and other involved admins) never blocked him for 'disruption', only for 3RR and personal attacks - they are much safer and nobody objected to them. Eventually we were able to get an aribration ruling to ban him from Wiki. I don't think, however, that Molobo behaviour breaches the line enough to warrant such an action, but if you feel it does, you have non-controversial, legal means to deal with it. As for Gdańsk vote, perhaps we could have an additional vote on the clarification of the 'shared history'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"I also dislike German POV edits." Chris comment : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:24.7.179.169&diff=9421756&oldid=9421733 "A very strong majority voted for double naming" Actually a very strong majority voted for Gdansk to be named Gdans from 1466 to 1793 yet was ignored. "and he is in a POV dispute with dozends of editors" You yourself are in POV disputes, and Wiki policy forbids admins in POV disputes with the user to block the user.You violated that policy. " Other than that I have little interest in articles about Polish or German history. Best wishes and happy editing " Doesn't seem so in this comment where you supported an antipolish vandal and presented him "fine example of polish culture" as you called : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:24.7.179.169&diff=9421756&oldid=9421733 --Molobo 13:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to support Chris on the vote removal - majority of the removed votes were sockpuppets or new users who created accounts just for the vote and then dissapeared. I do understand your argument 'on what basis were they removed'? Common sense, unfortunately, easily leads to disputes and is not very NPOVed. I have proposed a change in voting procedures but unfortunately it didn't generate much support (although, now that I think of it, it didn't generate any opposition, so maybe we should go ahead and apply those changes to Survey guidelines?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your update on Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes. Also, i have definitely warned Molobo, SpaceCadet, and other user numerous times. I do not block without warning (unless the username includes on wheels), and in the Gdansk issue I have warned repeatedly and frequently. I had no contact with the user Zvinbudas, but if he got banned by the arbcom then I am sure he deserved it. In the Gdansk issue, we have the advantage of a vote with a clear outcome (double naming), and I plan to support it until we have something better. If necessary I will block users. This support comes with common sense, so I don't agree with the recent renaming of Braunschweig. If you see me reverting an edit you think was good let me know. I make mistakes, too, and I do value your comments. Thanks! -- Chris 73 Talk 05:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"we have the advantage of a vote with a clear outcome" Which was ignored.Also your comments about what is a high Polish culture and who are Polish editors show that you have a certain bias towards Poland.As an an admin perhaps you should refrain from topics towards which you have a certain prejudices as shown above ?--Molobo 14:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

H'lo Monsieur Molobo, you don't seem to have read (or at least not understood) the NPOV policy, because it clearly states that "people are inherently biased" and I'd laugh straight into your face if you'd tell me you aren't or any less biased than anyone else. Oh, and please try to avoid hypocritical advises. As if anyone would consider taking it. As if it was reasonable to just leave Misplaced Pages to the anarchic POV-pushing of nationalistic mentalities only because one certain individual complains about perceived bias.

Chris, I really have to thank you for maintaining the task of thwarting those people. As well as continuous work and those peoples' blizzards of libel and hate, the task is only thankless. So Ireally have to express my great respect for your work. As those anti-vote people become organized and try to wage revert wars with every revert warrior having three reverts until the next comes, why not block the stubborn warrior if violation against the community consensus allows it. It's more productive than having to protect every affected page or play endless revert wars. The way of revert wars should be clearly discouraged if it violates a decision based on majority voting.NightBeAsT 20:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Strong support for Molobo-Blocking

The reason you gave is not the only reason to block Molobo. He is also removing comments of other people who do not have the same opinion as he. You have my strong support! Thanks!

I just want to add that Molobo has been banned twice from the Axis History Forums (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=7219&start=105) for constantly violating the rule that no serious national or religious insults are allowed. After realizing that he had no other chance to spread his personal German hate, he has come to wikipedia to do it all over again. I strongly suggest that he gets warned and after it banned, because his "contributions" to Misplaced Pages are far more serious. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and many people who come to this page take Molobos nationalistic view on history for granted. He can do MUCH harm if you let him get away with his "hidden agenda". I have only registered to Misplaced Pages for informing you about Molobos own history. In general, the idea of Misplaced Pages is great, because all people can give their knowledge about certain topics. But it is very open for people with a hidden agenda (eg Molobo). Thanks for taking my points into account.

Sorry if you have reasnoble arguments take them into articles.If you find any incorrect information be my guess to correct it.After nothing stops you from adding information you find correct. " for constantly violating the rule that no serious national or religious insults are allowed." Please don't lie, no such thing happened,my account was banned only once and as to reason for banning Axis it is governed by different rules then Wiki and frankly my often offtopic discussions had more to do with it. I certainly don't use any insults.Particulary religious ones since I am an atheist and see value in all religions.Of course since you lie about I urge you to give example of my supposed "religious and national" insults.Be my guest. --Molobo 19:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Chris, follow the provided link. There you can read why the Administrator banned Molobo and his former alias Obserwator. The reasons were given by him and not what Molobo wants you to believe. Molobo is just deceiving and evading. Axis History is a serious page with people from all over the world. People are not banned for just having a different opinion. It takes some serious actions for being banned. I just want to inform you about Molobos past and why his "focus" went to Misplaced Pages.

Hi Quak. Looking at Molobos edits on Misplaced Pages I am willing to believe you. Unfortunately, without a login on axishistory.com I cannot see the information you mentioned on your site. In any case, on Misplaced Pages he is judged by what he does on Misplaced Pages only. But nevertheless than you for the info. Best wishes. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"There you can read why the Administrator banned Molobo " Why there is nothing about my banning is there ? And if you are so sure why don't you post it ? Simple-I made no national or religious insults.

"Unfortunately, without a login on axishistory.com I cannot see the information you mentioned on your site" You don't need login on axis to search for my posts, or posts about me. In fact I urge to do so to see that this lies are nothing more then lies. "Looking at Molobos edits on Misplaced Pages I am willing to believe you" Please point me to any insult I made. --Molobo 23:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes

The debate has restarted, your input would be much appreciated, as the discussed propoasal is the one incorporating your previous suggestions and comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Moves

Hello Chris! Would you be able to move Bishopric of Warmia to Archbishopric of Warmia? I can't change it myself, since the redirect already exists. You also might want to add your thoughts on Talk:Weissenburg in Bayern about a move to Weißenburg in Bayern. Olessi 17:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

moved. Thanks for the info on weissenburg -- Chris 73 Talk 17:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:CellMembraneDrawing.jpg

Hi Chris, I'm interesting to use the 'CellMembraneDrawing.jpg' to ilustrate one of the my chapters in my PhD Thesis. How do I know if I can or not use it? (user:200.130.12.28)

Check the image page Image:CellMembraneDrawing.jpg, where you can find its copyright. This particular image is public domain, and can be used freely. For a good PhD thesis i would still sugest to give a citation to the source. Good luck -- Chris 73 Talk 17:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk article

You seems to have been an active participant in the Gdansk talk page. I just wanted to notice you that the page is under heavy attacks by Polish chauvinists who make propaganda edits. The situation is quite unbearable when the article is filled with propaganda for much of the time. Perhaps you could watch after the article. Miroslawa 04:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk

Please include an english document that mentions German name of Motława river and reason why you consider its current name shares Polish-German history.If it does I open to giving its a German version of the name.All according to to rules in the vote mind you.Currently however the river doesn't involve any joint Polish-German history as far as I know and thus the German version of the Polish name doesn't fall into the vote. --Molobo 18:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A very brief search revealed at least two english language books , , and a whole bunch of websites that use only Mottlau, including some in the polish domain . As for the shared history, correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe the river flowed through Gdansk when it was part of Germany, too. Hope this satisfies your curiosity -- Chris 73 Talk 19:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto dozends of books for Thorn, Kulmerland, Marienburg, Elbing, Ermeland, Allenstein. Gdansk/Danzig needs no separate proof, i believe. Best regards, -- Chris 73 Talk 19:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes you provided many books with Germanised names but please provide ones that use German names in relation to period and event we are speaking about. Please don't use personal sites and blogs as they don't count under Wiki policies. --Molobo 19:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The vote requires a shared history.Please provide a shared history confirmation for Motława in regards to historical period it is described in the article.If you would be talking about period when the region was occupied by Germany then the Germanised named could be used, however the article speaks about present day and no major shared history is given.As to argument: I do believe the river flowed through Gdansk when it was part of Germany, too. Its a poor argument of "shared history". Warsaw was part of German territory too during WW2.Do you intend to name it Warschau ? Furthermore the article speaks about present day not about period of German occupation. The site http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8158 doesn't posses Germanised name of Motława. -- Molobo 19:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.bruno-groening.org/english/brunogroening/ichlebe_buch.htm The site is incorrect historicly and thus unreliable. --Molobo 19:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's a history book about the river . Herethe river was used as a border line. BTW, the Gdansk article includes the Gdansk history, hence the name is appropriate, unless you can prove me that the river flows through Gdansk only since 1945. -- Chris 73 Talk 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry but the book is unaccesable to me.From a distorted fragment i only see a german name without the context-it seems it does speak about WW2 not modern period as it is used in the article though. Gdansk article includes the Gdansk history, hence the name is appropriate, Again I am sorry but the Germanised version of the Polish name is used in relation to current geographic and economic setup of Poland and doesn't fulfill the requirment of shared history.Again if it would be about period of German occupation we could add the Germanised name if its important for history of Germany. Please provide an English reference document that uses the Germanised name in relation to current geographic and economic setup of Poland as it is used in the article.Please aslo provide reason why do you believe the river enjoys shared history with Germany in relation to the period the article mentions it.I am waiting for your responce. --Molobo 20:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, about the Gutemberg site: You would have to click on one of the links. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo

I request that User Molobo be blocked in view of his incessant reverts of the Gdansk/Danzig article with a version stating that Danzig was "liberated" in 1945 -- an indefensible distortion of events. See my discussion on the Gdansk/Danzig talk page.

Thank you.

Sca 19:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC) an indefensible distortion of events Gdansk was invaded by German Reich on 1st September 1939 and occupied by its forces till 1945.Whats the problem ? --Molobo 19:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing Pokoj Torunski until the naming dispute is over

This is not well for our discussion.Please provided Germanised names of the regions in English Reference Document that speaks about the time and event that is disputed.Thank you.I hope you will agree to my proposal not to temper with the article untill such sources are provided. --Molobo 20:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC) DO not remove valid information from articles I removed the information from the article because currently we don't know if its correct.Until you provide a English Reference Document that uses Germanised names of these locations in relation to period and event it would be best to not use names that are disputed. --Molobo 20:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the shared history, the article is largely about history, including a lot of german history. The river is mentioned outsided history section, in regards to current geography and economy of Poland.Thus it doesn't fulfill the requirment of shared history.

If you have an article that does not touch history before 1945, I can live with single naming (e.g. soccer clubs etc) The name is used in relation to situation post 1945. --Molobo 20:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As the mentioning of the Motława in the article is not in a historical context, I agree with Molobo that there is no need for double-naming. I would expect it in a historical context, however, ala "grain was shipped to the city along the Motława (Mottlau) river". Olessi 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

German noticeboard?

Is there one? I wanted to post a request for an article on German nobility but I cannot find any place other then Misplaced Pages:Requested articles for it. There is a Category:German nobility, a proposed stub template - but no article on such an important subject? Can you check German wiki if there is a corresponding article and perhaps create a stub? Tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. I created a stub German nobility for you, based on de:Adel, which was the closest I could find on the German Wiki. It has a large section on German nobility, some parts of which i translated. Please check the stub, since my nobility-related vocabulary is not so good. Also, I think there is no German Noticeboard on the En Wiki. Strange. Anyway, happy editing! -- Chris 73 Talk 12:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Tnx! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a good start for the German nobility article. Ernst, Graf von Mansfield needs to have his last name changed from Mansfield to Mansfeld; however, should the article be at Ernst, Graf von Mansfeld, Ernst, Count of Mansfeld, Count Ernst of Mansfeld, or Ernst von Mansfeld (which the German wiki uses)? There doesn't seem to be a set naming system at Category:German nobility. Olessi 17:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. A quick google count for english language sites: Ernst von Mansfeld: 1910 hits, Ernst Graf von Mansfeld 629 hits, Ernst Count of Mansfeld 11 hits, Count Ernst of Mansfeld 7 hits. Hence i would go with Ernst von Mansfeld, but mention all the other variants in the article. But otherwise any version is fine by me. -- Chris 73 Talk 19:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article. Would you be able to move it to Ernst von Mansfeld, or does it have to go through Misplaced Pages:Requested moves and a discussion first? Olessi 02:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved the whole thing to Ernst von Mansfeld, and created redirects. Misplaced Pages:Requested moves is needed only if you cannot move the page yourself, or if it is a controversial move, which I think (hope) this one wasn't. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 06:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your assistance! Olessi 07:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Admins above the law?

I think we may have a problem requiring some attention. You know I try to avoid the nationality discussions, but I think that admins should not block users if they haven't broken any rule. I'd appreciate your comment on this. It also seems that Kulturkampf page has become the site of a new, nasty revert war, with admins (German admins?) exclusively on one side, and some Polish editors on the other. This can get nasty pretty quick, so I would be happy to see some more reasonable people intervene and stop the hotheads before it spins out of controll. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)