Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matthead (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 18 July 2007 (→by the way). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Matthead/Archive2006

Re:ABT and Abt

Alright, cheers. enochlau (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

stub sort with AWB

I fully understand your concern and hope that we get some action from the AWB programers. Bis denne, STTW (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging of grosh and groschen

While I'm not the expert of this domain, I wonder if the talk page should be merged too? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've put a remark on Talk:Groschen to fill the emptiness there. -- Matthead      O       12:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent Groschen edits

Isn't Groschen plural for Grosch ? --Lysy 12:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not in German, there is no "Grosch": 1 Groschen, 2 Groschen, 1/2 Groschen, consistent use, maybe related to Plurale tantum. As for any unit, there's only one official German name for the currency, e.g. Mark, Thaler, Kreuzer, Schilling, Franken, Rappen, Heller (money), Pfennig 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 Linguistic issues concerning the euro.-- Matthead      O       21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought there was ein Grosch in Austria. I may have been wrong, though. --Lysy 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. --Lysy 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• lol @ " that guy a.k.a. this bloke, and that thingie" :-) I replied in my talk page. - Best regards, Evv 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.31.82 (talk • contribs)

WP:RM is what you should be using from the start.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  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 Talk archiving

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 – 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!  Thanks for your message, David Kernow (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten to mention Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page. 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!  Best wishes, David (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page: "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.... Carcharoth 13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your report on WP:AIV

You need to warn users at least once (in case of {{bv}} or {{test4}}), before reporting them on WP:AIV. — Nearly Headless Nick 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. -- Matthead      O       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 German Christmas traditions and Talk:German Christmas traditions. He also posted the neutrality tag. Thanks. --The Argonaut 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The whole article German Christmas traditions was deleted by admin User:Centrx. -- Matthead      O       04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical Eastern Germany

I think you'll be quite interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

I have been accused of being a vandal on User:LUCPOL/Vandal:R9tgokunks 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. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 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 Austrian Empire was dissolved in 1918 and and the German-speaking areas were put under Czechoslovakian rule". Actually Czechoslovakia was restored in the original borders of Bohemia, Moravia and part of Silesia. Sudetes were never in Germany. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 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. -- Matthead      O       21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Avoid adding your comments to Benes decrees. You wrote highly POV article. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 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. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 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. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still breaking POV, yes.-- Matthead      O       22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's write NPOV article instead of arguing and edit warring which usually lead to nowhere. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What I think breaks NPOV:

Leitmeritz usage in the article.

Benes decrees comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tulkolahten (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Whatever. I stated my reasons in the edit summaries at Litoměřice, as well as in the section above. -- Matthead      O       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. - Darwinek 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. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 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. -- Bkavanaugh 01:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if your subsequent edit was road killed. My revert was intended to revert the edit which was summarized as "m (rv gn)". For a hint what gn might mean, look at User:Rex Germanus, User:Rex Germanus/Rex' nationalism scale, his contribs or talk page. -- Matthead      O       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.Rex 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. --IEEE 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. Antman -- chat 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling on Nicolaus Copernicus

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. Balcer 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 German orthography 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. Balcer 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? -- Matthead      O       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 Elizabeth I of England or Henry VIII of England 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. Balcer 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked

Please note my reasoning for your block at WP:AN3RR. Heimstern Läufer 04:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matthead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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 reason:

Allegations and conspiracy theories won't get you unblocked. It's only 12 hours, wait it out. — John Reaves (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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. -- Matthead      O       08:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not possible

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

(You wrote)

Please consider the removal of your Request to rename Piotrus' ArbCom case to something else. See my entry on the related talk page. -- Matthead      O       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. --Poeticbent  talk  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.--Tresckow 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. -- Matthead      O       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. Malc82 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. -- Matthead      O       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?--Fantocci 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. Kingjeff 03:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

List of ...

I removed Steve Wozniak from the list. Good catch, thanks. Balcer 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? Balcer 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 list of Poles 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 list of Germans 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 History of philosophy in Poland. Maybe you should keep one of the eyes that eagerly watch the list of Germans on these articles? -- Matthead      O       19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are familiar with WP:POINT, 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 Talk:List of Poles. Balcer 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not add bad content. Regarding bad content and the List of Poles, read Talk:List_of_Poles#Nicolaus_Copernicus for my proposal to have entries deleted from that list according to the argument was presented there to defend the inclusion of Copernicus. -- Matthead      O       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. Kingjeff 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? -- Matthead      O       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. Kingjeff 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is no more. It's just a redirect to the German team. Kingjeff 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup ... I expected it to be deleted but wanted the merge to be complete. Agathoclea 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, --Guinnog 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If the websites of FIFA and UEFA qualify as English-language sources, yes:

FIFA: GERMANY FIFA World Cup™ victories Winner (1954, 1974, 1990) Runners-Up (1966, 1982, 1986, 2002) Third (1934, 1970, 2006) Fourth (1958)

UEFA: German Football Association Founded:1900 UEFA Affiliation:1954 FIFA Affiliation:1904

Do you have a source that the 1954 were different from Germany? You can't, as the German Football Association DFB and its team was always the same to FIFA and UEFA. Thus, Misplaced Pages can have only one article for this team, named Germany national football team. -- Matthead      O       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. --John 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. -- Matthead      O       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. --John 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.225.41 (talk • contribs)

The comment above refers to this Admin talk page edit by User:Rex Germanus, in which he states "User Matthead is, once again, looking for trouble ... because that idiot want to irritate people". -- Matthead      O       18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

and this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.225.41 (talk • contribs)

Austrian national team

There was no national league or national team for Austria. It was combined with Germany during the 3rd Reich. Kingjeff 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? -- Matthead      O       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. Kingjeff 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See my latest edit which hopefully solves the confusion. -- Matthead      O       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 Talk:Edmund_Halley:

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.225.41 (talk • contribs)

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. -- Matthead      O       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 here. Kingjeff 16:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Blockade

If there isn't one, write one; but I see you managed to find a niche in Aftermath of World War I, where it is at least relevant. The Dolchstosslegende, after all, denies Allied responsibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This hasn't be dealt with to my knowledge

Was this ever dealt with? Kingjeff 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? Kingjeff 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know if anyone has been blocked because of Rex? Cheiron1312 (talk · contribs) edit history looks to be one of a sock. Kingjeff 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No idea - not me, even if he tried to insinuate this recently in Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matthead. 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. -- Matthead      O       20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we try a community ban? Kingjeff 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 achtersteven off right now. -- Matthead      O       03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was involved simply because he called me a nazi. Kingjeff 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 "German nationalist". -- Matthead      O       03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Discuss on World War II please

Hello Matthead.

Please discuss your additions to World War II on the discussion page before adding them. Some of them can be considered controversial. Oberiko 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheiron1312 (talk • contribs)

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 ~~~~, or by hitting the button. Also, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rex_Germanus and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rex_Germanus.27_user_page for ongoing discussions were you might want to present your view, too. -- Matthead      O       16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex

You can come here to discuss. Kingjeff 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 here at the ANI. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -- FayssalF - 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I accept the block as I in fact had given up attempts to discuss with User:Rex Germanus and had resorted to reverting, and appreciate the efforts by admins in the case as well as its Outcome in which Rex is blocked for two weeks for disruption and totally inappropriate reverting. -- Matthead      O       21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

by the way

Are you from UofM? later, Icsunonove 00:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but I got a Wolverines T-shirt. Also, I once played American football for a team with that name. -- Matthead      O       00:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)