Revision as of 20:41, 14 June 2015 editWidefox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers106,465 edits Caution: Unconstructive editing on Transracial. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:42, 14 June 2015 edit undoWidefox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers106,465 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Transracial. (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | ||
Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's ], and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in ]. ''It is ] not BRRD. Several editors have asked you to use edit summaries. It would be worth listening to the advice, else it gives the appearance that you wish to force your edits through without discussing on talk pages or allowing scrutiny of the summaries.''<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 20:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's ], and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in ]. ''It is ] not BRRD. Several editors have asked you to use edit summaries. It would be worth listening to the advice, else it gives the appearance that you wish to force your edits through without discussing on talk pages or allowing scrutiny of the summaries.''<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 20:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 20:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:42, 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)
June 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Transracial. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. It is WP:BRD not BRRD. Several editors have asked you to use edit summaries. It would be worth listening to the advice, else it gives the appearance that you wish to force your edits through without discussing on talk pages or allowing scrutiny of the summaries. Widefox; talk 20:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Transracial shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Widefox; talk 20:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)