Misplaced Pages

User talk:Matthead: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:17, 10 July 2007 editMatthead (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers21,271 edits →Blocked for 48 hours: accepted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:58, 26 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Matthead/Archive2010) (botTag: Manual revert 
(839 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
]
|minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Matthead/Archive2010
}}


{{Archive box|]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]}}


== ] & Signpost ==


{{Signpost-subscription}}
== Re:] and ] ==
{{DYK}}
== ]: Voting now open! ==


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Matthead. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
Alright, cheers. ] (]) 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== stub sort with AWB ==


If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''.
I fully understand your concern and hope that we get some action from the AWB programers. Bis denne, ] <font color="green">]</font> 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/3&oldid=750539315 -->
== Merging of grosh and groschen ==

While I'm not the expert of this domain, I wonder if the talk page should be merged too? --] (球球PK) (] | ]) 12:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, I've put a remark on ] to fill the emptiness there. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 12:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

==Your recent Groschen edits==

Isn't Groschen plural for Grosch ? --]<sup>]</sup> 12:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
:Not in German, there is no "]": 1 ], 2 Groschen, 1/2 Groschen, consistent use, maybe related to ]. As for any ], there's only one official German name for the ], e.g. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] or most foreign currencies. Other countries/languages may have historically developed more complicated names (even different plurals), but adopt the straightforward singular=plural also, see ].--&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought there was ein Grosch in Austria. I may have been wrong, though. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I've checked my old German stamps collection (pre-1871) and it's always been Groschen or Silbergroschen (or Thaler, or Schilling or Kreuzer of course), you are right. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

----
*lol @ " that guy a.k.a. this bloke, and that thingie" :-) I replied in ]. - Best regards, ] 10:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

== Nikolaus von Renys vs. Mikołaj of Ryńsk==

Matthead, please read this suggestion about 2 articles and the note on Schwabe
Labbas 8 January 2006 {{unsigned|71.159.31.82}}
---------
] is what you should be using from the start.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
--------

Hi, there seems to be agreement on Nicolas von Renys- that is ok with me (I guess you can skip condensing the talk (as I suggested earlier today ?). Maybe you need to wait longer untill you can move it? Labbas 10 January 2007
--------

== Re ] ==

Hi Matthead,
: ''...I notice that you had archived the talk on Copernicus by Copy&Paste once, rather than by a move which preserves the history. You do the same with your archives. Is that an intentional choice of yours? I think that moving is the preferred method among most editors, even though the policy gives several options.
It is intentional &ndash; and I hope it does preserve the history; the version in the talk page history just before the transfer of material to an archive page should carry that material. I'm not sure how moving a page would work, as the whole page would need to be moved; this would mean the most recent messages would most likely be archived too quickly (unless none had been posted in the few days or weeks before moving the page). However, I hope I haven't overlooked or misunderstood the process! &nbsp;Thanks for your message, ] <span style="font-size:90%;">]</span> 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

: ''I had forgotten to mention ]. Just in case you missed it, it gets shown as a suggestion when a talk page is considerd long.
:: I hadn't looked at this page in a long time and see it is now more sophisticated; thanks for prompting me to do so! &nbsp;Best wishes, ] <span style="font-size:90%;">(])</span> 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from ]: ''"The most common, beneficial method is the cut and paste procedure."'' I find that moving causes problems with putting the current discussion back on the talk page, as you have to cut and paste to do that, which messes up the history.... ] 13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

== Your report on ] ==

You need to warn users at least once (in case of {{tl|bv}} or {{tl|test4}}), before reporting them on ]. &mdash; ] 10:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
: Well, I find it hard to catch IP vandals with their gun smoking when I just notice that articles on my watchlist had been vandalized e.g. during the night. And why yet another warning when they already have enough on their talk, threatening blocks, which then are not made, or if so, maybe are not felt at all as the users is absent anyway. Its annoying that so much time and effort is wasted by dealing with blatant vandals or unsupervised kiddies. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

==Rex Germanus and German Christmas traditions==

I could use your help with Rex Germanus. Please take a look at both ] and ]. He also posted the neutrality tag. Thanks. --] 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

:Another editor has now removed the neutrality tag, but Rex continues to delete sections. --] 17:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

::The whole article ] was deleted by admin ]. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== Historical Eastern Germany ==
I think you'll be quite interested in this:]. -- ] <small>(])</small> 04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

==Vandal==
I have been accused of being a vandal on ] due to past editing disputes with yourself, or other being involved in ways with yourself. Since you have been mentioned, i'd like to ask if you could please comment on the mentioned report, Thanks much. -- ] <small>(])</small> 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== Litoměřice ==

Hi, thanks for the corrections there. Sounds good now. But I removed this statement as a POV "After the ] was dissolved in 1918 and and the German-speaking areas were put under ]n rule". Actually Czechoslovakia was restored in the original borders of Bohemia, Moravia and part of Silesia. Sudetes were never in Germany. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:It seems that this is a misunderstanding. "German-speaking" doesn't mean "part of the German Empire 1871-1981". All of Bohemia was Austrian before 1918. On the other hand, stating that "Czechoslovakia was restored" (after WW I, not WW II) is somewhat, let's say ''unusual''. Also, calling the time after the 1938 Munich Agreement up to 1945 "never" is a little strange. I clarified the article, with a similar statement. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::Avoid adding your comments to Benes decrees. You wrote highly POV article. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

== Leitmeritz vs. Litomerice ==

We don't call Brunn instead of Brno, Prag instead of Prague even in the history. Just mention the german name in the topic's name but don't use it in the article. Otherwise we should rename Aachen to Cáchy in the 14th century. Using other names for places is offensive and POV so please don't do that. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:you are still breaking POV. You can't satisfy using german name. Litoměřice is the appropriate name. This should be considered as a vandalism. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::I'm still breaking POV, yes.--&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Let's write NPOV article instead of arguing and edit warring which usually lead to nowhere. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::What I think breaks NPOV:
:::Leitmeritz usage in the article.
:::Benes decrees comments. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::::Whatever. I stated my reasons in the edit summaries at ], as well as in the section above. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. From my neutral point of view, Matthead is right. This is not a POV when the town was called such in that time. Huge vote and heated discussion alredy set up a precedence in the case of Gdańsk / Danzig. It is a perfect example of how it should look like. Use the name which was used in subsequent period. Regards. - ] 09:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:::That's the different case. Litomerice was always part of Bohemia and there were Czech population, even in minority. Gdansk is not a precedent in this case. Anyway I edited it to compromise version. Check it please if you agree if you don't mind. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== Recovered Territories ==

Why did you revert the changes on this sentence? The last few words "but is not any more in usage today" are poor grammar and sound stilted. -- ] 01:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:I'm sorry if your subsequent edit was road killed. My revert was intended to revert the . For a hint what ''gn'' might mean, look at ], ], his contribs or talk page. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::Even indirect Personal attacks are personal attacks nevertheless Matthead. Biased comments of you, of which there are many, will be reverted or adapted.] 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


== Carlsbad vs Karlovy Vary ==
I support your move. Carlsbad is English name and well established name, it should be prefered to local German or Czech names. Look at my entry in 'support' section. --] 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

== Carlsbad ==
I suggest we consider that poll closed against the rightful name of Carlsbad, and try again at a later date, with as much evidence as we can possibly procure (as they procured none, overwhelming evidence is in our favor) available from the start. <font size="1" face="Verdana">] -- ]</font> 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

== Spelling on ] ==

Guess what, most words in Polish, German and English were spelled differently in the 16th century than they are today. Do you really want to run around Misplaced Pages and put in 16th century spelling for any place that is mentioned in the context of that time period? Do you want to have long disputes about what the appropriate spelling was (since spelling only became standardized recently, and in earlier centuries many versions could be used at the same time)? More pertinently, can you point to any Misplaced Pages guidelines which would encourage such practice?

Per above objections, I politely ask you to stop. The Copernicus article has been stable at a concensus version and we should not start a new edit war. Still, if you do choose to disturb concensus, I will be quite happy to reopen the question of discussing Copernicus' nationality in the lead. ] 07:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For an interesting article hinting at possible difficulties in trying to decide what the old spelling was, you might want to read ] carefully. In a nutshell, German spelling was only standardized from 1880 onwards, before that many spelling variants would be used. I imagine the situation in Polish and other languages was the same. Therefore, trying to decide what the archaic spelling was would only introduce additional controversy, cause unnecessary arguments, and waste everyone's time. If you are really interested in old spellings, you might want to discuss them at the articles about the places, but don't try to insert them elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. ] 07:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

:The Copernicus article had been stable before some people felt the need to put too much emphasis on Polish POV. As the Gdansk vote illustrates, Poland might have acquired some cities after wars, but not the history and historical figures of these places. If available, using documented historical spellings is a very good compromise, better that 19th century German spelling, or contemporary Polish with diacritics that were not yet invented back then. The articles on current Polish places are linked once for info purposes, but otherwise they are meaningless.

:If you "will be quite happy to reopen the question of discussing Copernicus' nationality in the lead", you should also be prepared to provide evidence (other than encyclopedias that lack in detail) of this alleged Polishness. So he shall be designated a Pole because a treaty signed 7 years before his birth changed sovereignty over his future birthplace? Where is evidence that he could speak or write some Polish at all, other than as a foreign language necessary to deal with foreign workers? If he really was a Pole, how come he communicated almost exclusively with other Germans, and published in Germany, and dealt with Poles only if necessary in his job?

:In general, it is not acceptable that different standards are used: claiming 15th century Polish citizenship based on "was part of Polish Kingdom", while 19th century citizens of German, Austrian and Russian Empires are declared ethnic Poles in many biographies. Are you happy if these biographies get revised to strictly report citizenship only, too? --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 14:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

::Let's focus on the main issue in the recent revert war: the spelling. It is you who is trying to turn this matter into a German vs. Polish POV thing. I do not think of this in that way at all. To me this is simply a matter of avoiding the use of archaic spelling, which is standard practice. Just think of the mess that would result if, for example, we tried to use 16th century spelling for all names in ] or ] articles. This would be a nightmare, and is simply not done. (For an illustration of problems, compare and ). Anyway, there was no standardized spelling before the 19th century, so claiming a certain place was spelled in one and only one way in the 16th century is a very strong claim and would require serious backing by sources, which you have so far not provided. ] 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

== You have been blocked ==

<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> ] You have been ] from editing for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:12 hours|a period of '''12 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:]|on ''']'''|}}. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|] 04:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)}}</div> Please note my reasoning for your block at ]. ] 04:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::{{unblock reviewed|1=It is not acceptable to me that my extensive edit from 08:29, 8 April 2007 (diff to my last edit in March) is counted like a simple revert to an identical prior version.|decline=Allegations and conspiracy theories won't get you unblocked. It's only 12 hours, wait it out. — ] ] 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)}}

I also reject the remarks of Piotrus , who is anything but neutral and could not resist jumping in to defend one of his fellow countrymen once again. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 08:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

== Not possible ==

Re: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence

<small>(You wrote)</small>

Please consider the removal of your ]. See on the related talk page. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 12:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::The original idea wasn’t mine, however, it made a lot of sense to me, that’s why I proposed it. Please read corresponding comment on Talk page. --] ] 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


== Hallo ==

Nur ein Frage, ermüdest Du hier nicht auf der en:wp? Kostet doch unmengen Energie diese stndige Diskutierei.--] 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:Manche Themen drehen sich hier tatsächlich endlos im Kreise. Das ist aber immer noch besser als auf .de wo ich angesichts der gnadenlosen Schnelllöscher(ei) und anderer arroganter Akt(eur)e längst aufgegeben habe. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

== AfD West Germany football team ==
Hab auch über das Argument nachgedacht, aber Hong Kong hatte immer eine eigene Nationalmannschaft. Am besten nicht zu hitzig werden lassen, die Argumente sprechen wohl deutlich für Delete. ] 00:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:Tja, aber viele Leute wollen lieber, wie damals der italienische Außenminister, gerne zwei Deutschlands haben - und vor allem eines das nie Weltmeister wurde, denn schließlich hat ja Westdeutschland die 3 WMs gewonnen. Aber leider, leider gibt es dieses Land längst nicht mehr - nah nah na nah na! Wenn ich an die Aufräumarbeiten denke hängt mir das Thema zum Hals raus bzw. genaugenommen diese kranke Misplaced Pages hier, in der ernsthaft über Fakten abgestimmt wird. Wird höchste Zeit daß nächstes Jahr ein Titel herkommt, zwölf Jahre warten sind genug. Und danach bittschön nur zwei Jahre Wartezeit. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

== Changes ==

I asked Gethomas3 for a reason, three days ago, but I received no answer. Will you provide one?--] 22:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has been blocked. So he shouldn't cause any more problems. At least not from this account. ] 03:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

== List of ... ==

I removed ] from the list. Good catch, thanks. ] 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We had a compromise over Copernicus, which required that his nationality is not mentioned. Why are you breaking it now? You used to be in favor. What happened to change your mind? ] 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:Balcer, why do you ask such an "innocent" question, accusing me of breaking a compromise? Ask those who keep the ] which claims "Kopernik" since January 2003. I am in favour of remaining neutral. For example, in April 2007 I had tried several times to have the entry removed, stating that he was not on the ] either. As he was always re-added, I've added him on the German list, too. There are articles in Misplaced Pages that try to portray Copernicus as Pole, e.g. claiming that he made "Polish contributions" to the ]. Maybe you should keep one of the eyes that eagerly watch the ] on these articles? --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

::You are familiar with ], I hope. If you see one article with bad content, don't add bad content to another article in retaliation. Make your proposal for changes on ]. ] 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

::: I did not add bad content. Regarding ''bad content'' and the List of Poles, read ] for my proposal to have entries deleted from that list according to the argument was presented there to defend the inclusion of Copernicus. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 17:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
==West Germany Football Team article deletion==
I never claimed that 2 was needed. I was pointing out how the other one was saying 2 was needed. I was merely showing how pointless having this article is. ] 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

: The discussion there and its formatting is kind of confusing - maybe you wanted to write this to a different user, not me? --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 19:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw your message and automatically thought it was in reply to my comment about the 2 articles per national team. ] 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is no more. It's just a redirect to the German team. ] 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for the cleanup ... I expected it to be deleted but wanted the merge to be complete. ] 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

== Saarland national football team ==

Thanks for your contributions. Do you have an English-language source that the team which won the 1954 World Cup was known as "Germany" and not "West Germany" (or BRD, FRG etc)? Thanks, --] 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::If the websites of FIFA and UEFA qualify as English-language sources, yes:
::
::
::Do you have a source that the 1954 were different from Germany? You can't, as the German Football Association ] and its team was always the same to FIFA and UEFA. Thus, Misplaced Pages can have only one article for this team, named ]. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 18:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

:::You misunderstood me. I asked for a source that "the team which won the 1954 World Cup '''was''' known as "Germany" and not "West Germany" (emphasis added). I also think (West) Germany looks pretty shabby in an encyclopedia, no offence intended. --] 18:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

:::As you "was formerly the user known as Guinnog. I changed name on 2 June 2007.", I suspect using different names for the same person(s) is a very special hobby of yours, no offence intended either. I do regard the ongoing claims that there was a West Germany team which was different from the Germany team as offensive, though, especially since no sources are provided backing this. FIFA and UEFA know only one team. Show me where they, or any comparable source, state there were different ones. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I see. This conversation is now over. Perhaps in your future interactions with other editors you could try to be less easily offended, and part of that may be trying to be less offensive to other editors. I still utterly disagree with you on the content issue, but any further business can be carried out on article talk pages. I won't post here again, and I would ask you not to post on my talk page either. Best wishes, and happy editing. --] 21:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

==Take a look at this==
You might want to take a look at that personal attack (partial here: ''As now the article move got "controversial" because that idiot wants to irritate people. Do something about this. Rex 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)'') This person should be blocked.
{{unsigned|75.8.225.41}}
::The comment above refers to by ], in which he states "User Matthead is, once again, looking for trouble ... because that idiot want to irritate people". --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
::: {{unsigned|75.8.225.41}}

==Austrian national team==
There was no national league or national team for Austria. It was combined with Germany during the 3rd Reich. ] 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
: I know that there was no separate Austrian team after the Anschluss of 1938 until 1945 as Austrians played (or had to play) in the German team. Maybe you wanted to talk to someone else? --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 17:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't want to talk to anyone else. I noticed that you made a revert on this very subject. I have already reverted your revert. ] 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:See my latest edit which hopefully solves the confusion. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

== please take a look ==

Hi Matthead,
You suggested and I tried as well for some time to keep a number of articles NPOV, that is clear of SC and others onesided, often unfactual entries and Nationalistic POV. I had my doubts but tried anyway. I added a number of facts, but as usual, the PPOV group does not bother with facts.

Here is a note I wrote to Astrochemist on ]:

''Hello Astrochemist,
On Talk: Edmund Halley I added a few maps of Prussia with (Freie Stadt) Danzig, (a ''Free City'', a city republic, city state). I am greatly saddened by the unacceptable ramblings made by Space Cadet. Despite his constantly ongoing reverts, which he himself stated 'he does it, when he has nothing better to do', I still had a glimmer of hope, that reasoning and facts might eventually get through to him. Something came up and for at least the next several months it is very important for my health to have pleasant surroundings. I will therefore have to stay away from negativity, from Misplaced Pages spitefulness, vicious attacks and deliberate suppressions of factual history, in other words, no Misplaced Pages. I just wanted to let you know. 75.7. Ainan 1 July 2007''

Matthead, perhaps you can keep an eye on the worst revert warriors. Thanks. 75.2. Ainan 1 July 2007 {{unsigned|75.8.225.41}}

:Due to those revert warriors, I tried to stay away from many articles recently. That doesn't mean that I approve of their edits, of course. The issue has to be dealt in other ways than reverting back and forth. Besides, I suggest to register an user account. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

==Germany national under-21 football team==
The Germany national football team and the U-21 team might be merged. I've already started a discussion and vote for this. You can join the discussion ]. ] 16:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
==Blockade==
If there isn't one, write one; but I see you managed to find a niche in ], where it is at least relevant. The ], after all, ''denies'' Allied responsibility. ] <small>]</small> 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
==''This hasn't be dealt with to my knowledge''==
Was this ever dealt with? ] 16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I see a long list of blocks while on probation. Maybe it;s time to either expand the year or maybe a community ban? ] 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know if anyone has been blocked because of Rex? {{User|Cheiron1312}} edit history looks to be one of a sock. ] 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:No idea - not me, even if he tried to insinuate this recently in ]. Rex was/is in conflict with many. Ask Cheiron about himself. Judging from Rex's readiness to request checkuser, he'll probably reveal soon who he believes to be a puppeteer this time. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we try a ]? ] 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:Community ban looks like a rather big hammer. Recently, calling me an idiot and nationalist was not enough to be called incivility at all. Pretty high standard of courtesy, it seems. In addition, according to Thatcher131 at the ANI board, there is no such thing as "we", as he wrote "if you have have had prior disputes with Rex, and you see that someone else is involved in a dispute with that same editor, it's really not helpful to get involved." No matter how many people are at odds with him, each one must present his case against him alone, so much for Misplaced Pages as a community. I doubt anyone wants to deal with such an unpleasant matter, it seems most people that have met him in the past just avoid him since - "If you go looking for trouble you're more likely to find it". The problem is that the trouble seems to find each corner of Misplaced Pages in which German users might try to hide in.
:I believe you recently asked him for translation help, and then you were filing a report triggered by the dispute you witnessed between Rex and Cheiron. I added my recent and nearly year-old experiences, and all that is said is that Cheirons edit was confrontational, that you "edit warred", and that I "might be trying to see things that aren't there". Some compromise edit at the ship article, and that's it, somewhere below the North sea level someone is laughing his ] off right now. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was involved simply because he called me a nazi. ] 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:Assume good faith, and consider getting called "nazi" by an isolated individual a praise, just like I do with "]". --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I might go to the community sanction place in the morning and see what happens. ] 04:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

==Discuss on ] please==
Hello Matthead.

Please discuss your additions to ] on the discussion page before adding them. Some of them can be considered controversial. ] 20:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

== Hallo Matthead meine Anmerkungen ==
Hallo Matthead meine Anmerkungen zu dem User Rex Germanicus die auch kingjeff mitgeteilt habe!
Die Logik von Rex germanicus ist simpel: Alle Deutschen im 2WK waren Nazis, somit war die Deutsche Wehrmacht eine Nazi Armee und alle Soldaten die Ihr angehörten somit auch alle Nazis. Dagegen habe ich opponiert und klar zu machen versucht das dies keine Fakten sind(die Wehrmacht wurde von den Allierten nicht als Nationalsozialistische Organisation angesehen) sondern nur seine persönliche Meinung ist! Daraufhin wurde ich von Ihm in einer Art "Pawlovschen Reflex" als Veteidiger der Nazis bezeichnet. Das ist wie wir wissen ein Totschlagsargument mit dem er offensichtlich versucht jede Diskussion über Inhalte zu untebinden wenn ihm Argumente fehlen. Meine Auslassungen zu den dunklen Kapiteln der holländischen Geschichte waren duchaus provokativ und konfrontativ dem bin ich mir bewußt! Sie hatten aber nicht die Intention die Verbrechen die durch die Nazis begangen worden sind zu relativieren! Vielmehr war es Ziel meiner Polemik Ihn von seinem hohen moralischen Ross zu holen. Wenn es um die Bekämpfung von Nationalismus geht, sollte jeder erst vor seiner eigenen Türe kehren. Bei ihm habe ich aber den Eindruck ist diese Agenda die er sich lauthals auf seine Fahne geschrieben hat nur vorgeschoben. Er benutzt seinen Kampf gegen tatsächliche oder vermeintliche Revisionisten,Nazis etc. als Deckmantel für seine tiefgehende Antideutsche Haltung. Seine Sichtweise scheint geprägt von einem zu tiefst dualistischen Weltbild, das nur Freund und Feind, gut und böse kennt. Für eine differenzierte Wahrnehmung von Geschichte und ist hier kein Platz. Somit ist für ihn jeder der dieser vereinfachten Sicht nicht zustimmt ein Apostat der "Reinen Lehre" und muß als Häretiker(Revisionist, Nazisympathisant) gebrandmarkt werden. Er gebärdet sich als eine Art Großinquisitor wenn es um die deutsche Geschichte geht, in der nur er im Besitz der absoluten Wahrheit ist. Getrieben von geradezu missionarischem Eifer und Überlegenheitsgefühl findet er offenbar seine Selbstbestätigung darin sich moralisch über die Deutschen zu erheben. In seiner vorgefassten Meinung das jeder der hat er nicht einmal bemerkt das ich kein Deutscher sondern Grieche bin! Ist schon kurios wenn man als Grieche von einem Niederländer als deutscher Nazi beschimpft wird ;-) Vieleicht hab ich ja germanische Vorfahren ohne es zu wissen :-) Man lernt eben nie aus im Leben... LG aus Nürnberg der Stadt des Pokalsiegers ;-) Christos

Sorry, i didn't know that postings here have to be in English.
Christos {{unsigned|Cheiron1312}}

:I agree with you in general, but as you found out, we better communicate openly in English. Please remember to sign also with your account by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, or by hitting the button. Also, see ] and ] for ongoing discussions were you might want to present your view, too. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
==Rex==
You can come ] to discuss. ] 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

==Blocked for 48 hours==
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for a period of 48h in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for tedious reverting w/o attempting to discuss as noted . If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text <nowiki>{{unblock|your reason here}}</nowiki> below. -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:I accept the block as I in fact had given up attempts to discuss with ] and had resorted to reverting, and appreciate the efforts by admins ] as well as its ] in which Rex is blocked for two weeks for disruption and totally inappropriate reverting. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:58, 26 November 2024


Archives

User talk:Matthead/Archive2006
User talk:Matthead/Archive2007
User talk:Matthead/Archive2008
User talk:Matthead/Archive2009
User talk:Matthead/Archive2010


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Did you know & Signpost

The Signpost
24 December 2024
Adoration of the Magi in the SnowAdoration of the Magi in the Snow

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Matthead. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.