Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:The same. Now I am going to go enjoy some cheese from the cheese castle (yes, there is indeed a place called that in southern Wisconsin). <font size="1" face="Verdana">] -- ]</font> 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:The same. Now I am going to go enjoy some cheese from the cheese castle (yes, there is indeed a place called that in southern Wisconsin). <font size="1" face="Verdana">] -- ]</font> 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
== You reverted 4 times within 24 hours. ==
The paragraph that had been in the article at 2006-09-29 01:18 and removed at 1:08, was by you a first time at 2006-09-30 01:23 reinserted, a second time at 17:07, at 17:26 you removed 2 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tags that had been inserted and thus reverted ''that sentence'' for a third time, and now at 2006-09-30 21:42 you committed a fourth revert.
I strongly advise you to read ']' and quickly react accordingly.
:{{3RR}}
Please note that ']' had already been followed, which gives you all the less reason for your reverts.<br>— ] <span style="font-size:.87em;">]] 21:02 (UTC)</span>
Revision as of 21:02, 30 September 2006
Rawr
User pages
Vandalization
"Stop vandalizing historical German articles with modern Polish names, before I start adding a German touch to the Polish wiki. Stay on your own Wiki. Antman20:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)"
I don't care. You are purposely adding a Polish-bias to articles, and I am going to stop it one way or another. Consider yourself warned by the template. Antman22:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
How aren't you? You have consistantly reverted usages of the word Danzig to the current Polish (not English, in the United States, as you should know, it is still colloqually known as Danzig) term Gdańsk, in articles which are based post-1308 and pre-1945. How are you not violating policy? Antman23:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me educate you on this: It used to be known as "Danzig" during the Cold War. But for over 15 years it's "Gdańsk". Do me a favor: go and sign up for a library card, grab Britannica and try to find "Danzig" even for the short historical period when the city actually belonged to Germany. Get back to me with the results. In the meantime try to do something constructive rather than vandalize articles about Polish provinces or cities. Space Cadet23:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
"The usages of Danzig in these articles is referring to a time when it was known as DANZIG and was owned by Germany (or a German state). And a short historical period? I suppose 700 years isn't long enough to matter, considering Poland has only (re)existed for less than 100 years. Stop editing historical articles in an attempt to bias them -- you can't change history. Antman23:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)"
Well, Space Cadet, the city was officialy protected by the Polish Crown between 1466 - 1792 but most of Danzig`s inhabitants were German and that was the reason why Danzig received far reaching privileges of self-administration in the "2cd freedom of Thorn". Furthermore, one coold hardly allege that Prussia of 1792 was a Polish province! Therefore, Antman is right when he says that Danzig was a German city for almost than 700 years (1308 - 1945).
Yeah, but you're talking about "Germans" who haven't seen Germany for centuries, because they lived in Poland for generations! Space Cadet17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that "culture". AFAIK they enjoyed the Polish privileges, they would never find neither in Germany nor in Ducal Prussia, and enthusiastically adopted Polish culture. Space Cadet09:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What do privileges have to do with culture? I am fairly confident that most were not Catholic (which IS a construct of culture). Ameise -- chat22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Prey tell, how? If you are 'enforcing' the policy, then it must mean it has been violated somewhere - please tell me where this has happen, and quote the relavant part of the policy so I can understand it quicker.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus04:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the same cr@p as what is happening in Spain, where town names such as La Coruña (Corunna, in English), Lérida or Gerona have been lost and forcely replaced by their regional variations in Galician and Catalan. It is so stupid. Why should a Spanish speaker have to call these cities A Coruña, Lleida or Girona? Their Spanish name should be used, in the same way that London is not called London in Spanish, but Londres. Cheers, 86.30.18.4221:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As for name, I fully agree. I was aginst this name but I was in minority.
As for German history context. I agree, but I don't know what Greater Poland Uprising has to Free City of Gdańsk or Hitler's won in elections. I know (I also have German roots, and part of my family still live in Germany so I know German POV, as good as You) that much painfull was lost of Western part of ex-Empire to France, than lost of survived by Polish majority, with instant tension, relativly poor province on east...
You, as native speaker, better know English so try to Correct it. Timeline is good think to describe conflicts (compare with WWII, war in Iraq and so on.)
My Polish antecessors were from Grater Poland, and I still live here ;)
My German antecesors were from Franconia (see Bambrzy), but they polonized them selfsduring Kulturkampf. Others were (and still are, because my familly stil live there) are from Hannover.
As for German-Polish relation during revolution... it depends on part of Germany. Three of my greatgrandpas took part in WWI. One of them was sailor on SMS Westfalen. During revolution he left Wilhelmshaven without any problems from his German collegues. Other one was injured durin Battle of Verdun, and was in hospital in Bavaria. He escapedfrom hospital on January because he afrid of other German soliders... so You can't be to sure in generalization of Polish-German relations during revolution. Ah... third one returned to home in Ostrów Wielkopolski before revolution because he fought in Middle-East (in German altilery that was supporting Turkish forces in fight against British and Arab troops) and was infected by tapeworm sohe returned for short treatment at home...
Yeah, that's why I said two reverts. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up. I started a discussion on the talk page for consensus. — Deckiller02:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd keep this on the debate page but it's already cluttered enough. First of all, please read my entire comments:
They're being weighted less because (for most users) your edits have been only opinions related to this article.
Second of all, stop throwing around accusations of vandalism. It's impolite, uncivil and won't get you anywhere. There's a difference between disagreement and vandalism. If you keep calling everyone a vandal and a "Wikizealot" then it could be interpretted as a personal attack. I'd rather not see someone get blocked over that. Besides, it's not even productive in a discussion. --Wafulz21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, apparently in that discussion, making productive discussion is also unproductive, as it seems to be ignored in favor of zealous delete comments that don't even make any sense. Ameise -- chat21:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments on the Star Wars DRV
Okay. I'm not endorsing either side of this discussion, but I am asking you to please remain civil. It would be great if you could calmly state your arguments instead of making attacks and threats. Again, I'm not endorsing either side, but I am endorsing the civility of both sides. Thanks. --Mr. LeftyTalk to me!03:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
They read it, they just didn't agree with it. They have their opinion and being civil or uncivil won't change their minds; it'll just tick them off more if you're incivil. Hbdragon8806:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Strange, they made absolutely no indication that they had actually read it; no one ever actually responded to what I said. Ameise -- chat08:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I don't want to put up with their ignorance as per the subect? I wouldn't browbeat (what an odd word to use, one that I have never, ever heard in common speech) if they would at least listen. Ameise -- chat05:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that you're just going to piss more people off if you constnatly keep accusing users (admins in partiuclar) of abuse and calling for desysopping, among other claims. Don't beat people over with a stick to make a point because you're just going to piss them off more and make them less likely to want to support your objective. Hbdragon8808:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like it if you'd read the entire discussion so I wouldn't have to repeat myself for the umpfteenth time.
Rex16:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I did read it, and I also dislike the map -- anyone who happens to just see it will assume that it is only 'minorities' there. Ameise -- chat16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You clearly didn't otherwise you would not have had to make that remark. Wether you dislike it or not has no value to me.
Rex16:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Like I said before, I don't care what you think, neither do I care wether you'll make your own map or not. As for the propaganda remark, I guess that to a selfdescribed German Nationalist even slightly positive "German propaganda" is Anti-German propagnanda.
Rex17:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, I will not ever let your map(s) be used in any article, as they are blatant Dutch- and Polish-biased historical revisionism, and are an insult to my heritage (IE, one who's ancestry is East Prussian). Ameise -- chat17:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
My map was never intended for use, as I've said numerous times on the talk page. Your herritage doesn't interest me, unless you tolled me you can trace it back to the numerous Dutch people who settled in East Prussia in the High Middle Ages, in that case I'd be ashamed.
Rex18:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, neither Hoschett nor Kopplein are of Dutch ancestry, though I could be mistaken. I have yet to actually read my family bible, as it is in German, and I am still learning German (English and German may be similar, but not enough to quickly learn one from the other) Ameise -- chat18:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you wouldn't refrain from personal insults. In fact you've made quite a few in the past half hour.
Rex18:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Name one. Stating that your English is poor or your maps are poor is not a personal insult, it is an observation. Ameise -- chat18:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it might be considered a threat though -- seeing as we are on opposite sides of the planet though, it wouldn't be a serious thread in any case. Ameise -- chat18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
In that case the remark on me and my clogs, though quite childish I could view it as an insult.
Rex18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You would view it wrong then, all I asked is if your clogs were worn -- if I said "omg clogs r ghey", that would be a childish insult. Note that Dutch people all wearing clogs is a common American stereotype of the Dutch. Ameise -- chat18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I know the common stereotype, and the way I see it; you're not quite the judge of whats an insult I think I as the recipient are.
Rex18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a good example of poor English -- let me correct it...
"I know of the common stereotype, and the way I see it is that you're not quite the judge of what an insult is; I believe that I, as the recipient, am."
Though that is true and I apologize if I had hurt your feelings. Though once society leans towards the idea that the recipient determines what is offensive, you are one step thru the door of censorship. Ameise -- chat18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Not really -- especially when one claims that he determines what an insult is, perhaps I find you calling me childish (that is the insinuation when one states that what one does it childish) an insult! Ameise -- chat18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
An insult is different from a personal attack, a personal attack is always an insult but an insult isn't necessarily a personal attack. You don't have to worry though, you're, still, far away from where I draw the line.
Rex18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The same. Now I am going to go enjoy some cheese from the cheese castle (yes, there is indeed a place called that in southern Wisconsin). Ameise -- chat18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You reverted 4 times within 24 hours.
The paragraph that had been in the article at 2006-09-29 01:18 and removed at 1:08, was by you a first time at 2006-09-30 01:23 reinserted, a second time at 17:07, at 17:26 you removed 2 {{fact}}-tags that had been inserted and thus reverted that sentence for a third time, and now at 2006-09-30 21:42 you committed a fourth revert.
I strongly advise you to read 'Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule#I've violated 3RR. What do I do?' and quickly react accordingly.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please note that 'Help:Reverting#Alternative to reverting: move to talk' had already been followed, which gives you all the less reason for your reverts. — SomeHuman30 Sep2006 21:02 (UTC)
