Revision as of 20:54, 14 June 2015 editWidefox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers106,503 edits →Edit summaries: dab page← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:57, 14 June 2015 edit undoWidefox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers106,503 edits →Transracial: edit warringNext edit → | ||
Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
Hi. If you think there's a 4chan trolling issue here and you have some evidence for it, I'd strongly suggest you drop a note at ] so that multiple editors can keep an eye on it. It would be worth mentioning the two transracial articles, the Dolezal article, and the editors ] and ]. Thanks, ] 20:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | Hi. If you think there's a 4chan trolling issue here and you have some evidence for it, I'd strongly suggest you drop a note at ] so that multiple editors can keep an eye on it. It would be worth mentioning the two transracial articles, the Dolezal article, and the editors ] and ]. Thanks, ] 20:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
:], that issue aside, this editor is edit warring and not discussing on the talk page of the dab ], and refusing to the requests of several editors to use an edit summary. The dab was here before any alleged issue, and it righting a wrong doesn't trump edit warring. Another edit and they are over the brightline and will be reported and blocked. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 20:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:57, 14 June 2015
Welcome!
|
Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mads Gilbert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VG. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Nassau (region)
- added links pointing to Orange-Nassau, Höchst, Rüdesheim and Herborn
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duchy of Nassau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange-Nassau. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Your move of German Army (1935-45)
You recently moved the article German Army (1935-45) to German Army (1935–46). The reason you gave was that the German Army of World War II was demobilized only in 1946. The source you cited in the article refers to a formation of the military police disbanded in 1946.
I should like to ask you to undo your move, as the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany as well as the Federal Court of Justice of Germany have both ruled in the 1950s that the German Wehrmacht, and all it constituent parts, have ceased to exist after 8 May 1945. Furthermore, the CC ruled that the Proclamation No.2, Directive 18 and Law No. 34 of the Allied Control Commission were merely declaratory in character. So under German law, which should apply in this case, 8 May 1945 marks the end of all German military forces.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- As long as someone is a prisoner of war, they are actively serving military personnel, and since most prisoners of war were repatriated and demobilized only in 1946, and since a number of army functions continued to be active until that time, for example the military justice passing out sentences on soldiers while POWs for things like, being rude to an officer or not obeying orders, the army was certainly not disbanded on 8 May 1945. That's a laughable idea, and absolutely not how a surrender works under international law. An army can not per definition be "disbanded" as long as it still has (as it had until 1946) a vast number of actively serving military personnel under military jurisdiction who have not been demobilized. First when all personnel is demobilized, an army can be disbanded. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am sure you have reliable sources supporting your view. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Wehrmacht was only dissolved on 20 August 1946 by the Allied control council, after it had been demobilized from the summer of 1945 onwards and through 1946. (Large, David Clay (1996). Germans to the Front: West German Rearmament in the Adenauer Era, p. 25). This is of course also mentioned in the main Wehrmacht article. Until that date, it was active, with serving (conscripted and professional) military personnel wearing Army uniform and being under military Wehrmacht Army jurisdiction and military command. There was quite a lot of activity going on involving the Wehrmacht Army in the time after 8 May 1945. (It's impossible to demobilize an army with millions of soldiers stationed in multiple countries in just one day.) If it had been disbanded on 8 May 1945, the conscripted Army soldiers would by definition no longer be obliged to serve (not be under military command) and could not have been held as POWs under international law any longer; this was of course not the case at all. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think this should be discussed in a more approbriate setting, like here. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Wehrmacht was only dissolved on 20 August 1946 by the Allied control council, after it had been demobilized from the summer of 1945 onwards and through 1946. (Large, David Clay (1996). Germans to the Front: West German Rearmament in the Adenauer Era, p. 25). This is of course also mentioned in the main Wehrmacht article. Until that date, it was active, with serving (conscripted and professional) military personnel wearing Army uniform and being under military Wehrmacht Army jurisdiction and military command. There was quite a lot of activity going on involving the Wehrmacht Army in the time after 8 May 1945. (It's impossible to demobilize an army with millions of soldiers stationed in multiple countries in just one day.) If it had been disbanded on 8 May 1945, the conscripted Army soldiers would by definition no longer be obliged to serve (not be under military command) and could not have been held as POWs under international law any longer; this was of course not the case at all. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you handled the discussion quite well. Great job! Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:German neo-Nazi Lutz Bachmann dressed as Adolf Hitler.jpeg
A tag has been placed on File:German neo-Nazi Lutz Bachmann dressed as Adolf Hitler.jpeg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Rayukk (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
please use an edit summary for every edit
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
When editing Misplaced Pages, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Watchlists
- Revision differences
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list and
- Article editing history
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! --Wuerzele (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please use edit summaries. Thank you! 20:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC) 12.180.133.18 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IG Farben, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Müller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karl Lagerfeld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ORF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Hi Tadeusz Nowak...I was going to say the same thing about edit summaries. WP:ES uses "communal consensus" and "When editing, be sure to summarize your contributions." . As we use WP:CONSENSUS, those going against consensus have a harder time here, which you will continue to do. I only didn't template you as another editor just did. Widefox; talk 20:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Um, you are the user pushing a WP:NEO hoax currently subject to an AfD where the general opinion is that it is a hoax, so you are the user going against consensus. Please refrain from heckling and disruptive behaviour on my talk page. There is no requirement to always use an edit summary here on the English Misplaced Pages. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've asked you to discuss on the dab talk page. Huh? a dab page is not an article, please see WP:MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 20:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Transracial
Hi. If you think there's a 4chan trolling issue here and you have some evidence for it, I'd strongly suggest you drop a note at WP:ANI so that multiple editors can keep an eye on it. It would be worth mentioning the two transracial articles, the Dolezal article, and the editors User:XavierItzm and User:Andhisteam. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:Black Kite, that issue aside, this editor is edit warring and not discussing on the talk page of the dab transracial, and refusing to the requests of several editors to use an edit summary. The dab was here before any alleged issue, and it righting a wrong doesn't trump edit warring. Another edit and they are over the brightline and will be reported and blocked. Widefox; talk 20:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)