|
User talk:Matthead/Archive2006
Hello Matthead, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. I saw your extensive edit to 24 hours of Le Mans, and wanted to thank you for the new information. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Gentgeen 02:33, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) HillclimbingThanks for your very useful additions to the hillclimbing article. I've done a few tweaks (British spelling of "kilometre", for example, in line with WP convention of sticking to the form of English an article was started in) but the only significant thing I've changed is to remove the implication that the British Isles are separate from Europe. The important stuff - ie the details of European hillclimbing - has of course been retained, and again I say thank you for that. =:) Loganberry (Talk) 22:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC) Mercedes-Benz W195I like to say many thanks for the additions on the article that I started a few months back. Good work. I really like those changes. Andreasu 13:03, 10 December 2005 WSC and Klaus LudwigThanks for your update on the World Sportscar Championship page. I was beginning to think nobody around here cared about European sports car racing. Some sections still need some improving (especially the 1962-1965 section) but it overall it looks better now. You might want to take a look at Group C, which I expanded a few months ago. Thanks also for creating an article on Klaus Ludwig, one of my all-time favourite drivers, something that has been missing for a long time. --Pc13 09:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) ETCCYou created European Touring Car Championship as a redirect to World Touring Car Championship. I've expanded it into a real article. Feel free to take a look at it and improve it. Pc13 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Hi Matt. Please be mindful of the three-revert-rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) I do note that you have discussed this matter on the article talk page, but there does not appear to be consensus. Thanks :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 08:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC) SulmSince you didn't bother to create a separate or disambiguation page for the Sulm River, I moved your entry to Sulm River. Robbstrd 17:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC) InvitationYou are cordially invited to the Grand Reopening of my Bumper Sticker Gallery User:Space Cadet/Bumper Stickers. If my great work inspires you to come up with your own ideas for a sticker, T-shirt, poster, symbol, sign, etc., please let me know and I'll be happy to try to do my best for you. I will only turn down anything racial, anti-semitic, fascist and so on. Yours Truly, Space Cadet 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC) German wikipedian's notice boardSince it is much needed, I created the Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians'_notice_board. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Hallo, you are pretty new here, so welcome- aber hier stinkts. I'm writing this to let you know what other people [1] found out] MG
Alto Adige / South TyrolSome months ago there was a long discussion about South Tyrol/Alto Adige names, you're cordially invited to read Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol before making other unilateral changes. Thank you. GhePeU 00:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC) I reverted your changes on Frombork, because to my mind you are trying to mix useful edits with highly controversial ones. For example, you are spreading the Copernicus dispute to the Frombork article (by removing the mention of his Polish nationality) before this issue has been definitely settled on the Copernicus article talk pages. So, you are welcome to restore your useful changes, but I will not agree with your attempt to subtly deemphasize the fact that Frombork was part of Poland for over 300 years (i.e. much longer than it was a part of Germany). As you must be aware, Royal Prussia was not an independent state but an integral part of the Kingdom of Poland.Balcer 04:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC) BTW, claiming that Frombork was only "under Polish administration" between 1945 and 1990, and that only the treaty signed in 1990 between Poland and Germany officially made it a part of Poland, is simply outrageous. This might very well be the view of German revisionists, but it is not the mainstream view which Wikipedia is supposed to reflect. Balcer 04:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Dear Balcer! This is not correct: The allies stated, that the German territory (in its 1937 borders) is not affected by any annexions in the Potsdam conference. Some time before the Soviets put the part of Germany eastern to Oder-Neisse line under Polish or Russian administration, which was accepted by the western allies in Potsdam. Nonetheless the western allies insisted, that this matter has to be decided in a peace treaty, although by expulsion of Germans from these territories they became effectively Polish (or Russian). The DDR accepted the Oder-Neisse line in the Görlitz treaty (6 July 1950), Western Germany accepted it as de facto Polish border in the German-Soviet treaty and the German-Polish treaty (both 1970) but kept the point of view, that the final decision depend on a peace treaty to WWII. The German reunification in 1990 lead to the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany/Two-Plus-Four treaty, in which Germany in aggreement with the western allies accepted finally the Oder-Neisse line as the Polish west border. This was also content of the Warsow treaty between Poland and Germany (14 Nov 1990). The Two-Plus-Four treaty is considered as replacing a peace treaty. Germany and the allies agreed, not to make officially a peace treaty as that would require a regulation of reparations. This point of view is shared by western countries. Clearly Poland and Soviet-Union had another point of view. Beside these judicial arguments I would refer to Frauenburg/Frombork as Polish from 1945 on, simply because there were (almost) no more Germans in the town.--dago,19/02/2006
:(2) The united Germany and the Republic of Poland shall confirm the existing border between them in a treaty that is binding under international law.
Responding to Dago's statement: Two-Plus-Four treaty, in which Germany in aggreement with the western allies accepted finally the Oder-Neisse line as the Polish west border. Of course, the treaty says something else. It simply states that Germany and Poland shall sign between themselves the treaty confirming the border. It says not a thing about Western Allies or anybody else recognising the Polish-German border. This is obviously because all the countries in the world except Germany have long recognised that border. In point (5) it is merely stated that the new agreements will confirm the 1945 border. Now, to avoid further arguments, let's look up the meaning of confirm in the dictionary. Webster gives the relevant meaning of confirm as: to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact to give new assurance of the validity. Balcer 02:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your voting! Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you. If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very mach, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Frombork cont.Please don't remove content, especially since in this complicated case brief entries in the timeline tend to be POV and misleading. There are few length restrictions in Wikipedia, and none that I know of that would apply in this case. Please read Wikipedia_is_not_paper#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. If you believe you have the right to cut the timeline, please point me to a Wikipedia guidline that would justify this. Balcer 02:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3RR on FromborkHi. I have listed you for a 3RR on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Matthead. Please do not revert an article more than 4 times in 24 hours. -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Re:Protection of Toruń articleHi! I see no vandalism to the Toruń article. I have been watching this article for a long time (for an entirely unrelated reason) and in the last ten days or so I have seen nothing but reverts. To me the reverts look like a content dispute between a number of different users--are you trying to say that one side of the revert war is made up of sock-puppets of a single user? JeremyA 00:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
17th German Infantry DivisionI am still a new contributor to Wikipedia and am "learning the ropes", so to speak. I have been trying to avoid conflicts and edit wars as best I can, and trying to follow the rules. Occaisionally I fail, but this is more through not understanding procedure than wanting to flaunt protocol. A little while ago I ran across the 17th German Infantry Division, and was amazed at the lack of a NPOV perspective and propagandistic nature of the article. My purpose in writing to you is to understand my rights and limitations in editing this article. I read Polish, and read her testimony in the Polish language. I found the quote of Janina Modrzewka to be unworthy of inclusion in the article. I found the deposition of this 18 year old peasant girl, some 28 years after the fact, taken in Communist Poland, to be suspect for several reasons. Putting these reasons aside for the moment, am I within my rights to delete this quote, since at no place within it, is the 17th German Infantry Division named, or identified by her? To besmirch ten to fifteen thousand men by an allegation, which doe not specifically identify them, is absurd. Whether these allegations took place or not, is not the point. I would not object to a seperate article about the allegations, or Madame Modrzewka, for that matter. I feel that someone is extrapolating this quote, and attempting to make a connection to the division, because they (and other units) were in the area. They then feel that they can add it to the article. Once again, she does not mention this division by name, and it is highly unlikely that she could distinguish German miltary insignia, and to know to what division they belonged. If what I say is true ( that she at no time, mentions the 17th German Infantry Division in her testimony), am I within my right to delete this quote, or is this considered vandalism? Dr. Dan 01:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Asian Languages"Tirid Tirid" in Malay actually means "Sky People" or "Star Children", so I think you're up to something. Tirid Tirid 20:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC) your revert of OlsztynHi. Why this revert ? Do you think that German names like Zichenau should be used for Nazi occupied Poland ? --Lysytalk 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Nice sleuthing!Good job exposing User:Tirid Tirid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.253.162 (talk • contribs) from the region of Warsaw on 20:30, 5 March 2006
German is not equal to "Nazi"Regarding one of your recent edit comments: German is not equal to "Nazi" - wasn't it Nazis that invaded Poland in 1939, or mudered the civilians in Warsaw in 1944 ? It always surprises my how German public opinion conveniently substitutes these terms. It almost seems as if Germany was occupied by Nazis, but then they instantly disappeared and only "good" Germans remained. --Lysytalk 23:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Free City of DanzigHave you ever read what's on that website (Goverment in Exile). There's definetly something wrong with you. Ak47K Ethymology of TorunHi Matthead. I saw you have choosed to push German PoV to restore only German ethymology of city's name, while keeping other ethymologies commented out. I restored therefore all the possible ethymologies of the city name to keep the article name balanced. Note that I am not convinced by supposedly ethymology from German word "Tor". Why Polish village should be called from German name is not clear for me and seems rather an example of folk ethymology Szopen 10:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Augustus IIHey, why did you delete my contributions about Augustus II and his wife? Teodorico 23:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Road racingIn the film “Days of Thunder,” two drivers battled in a pair of renta cars on traffic filled roads up in Canada. You suggest that a confrontation like that, was not roadracing, but running around in a sterilized, resurfaced one-ring circus is. You have everything turned up side down. All that you have is an approximate simulation, of real road racing inside your fence. Real road racing is as I suggested, when you use a motor vehicle in an attempt to out-gain, out-distance, prevent another vehicle from passing or to arrive someplace first. You do not have to know who they are, what are there motives, or even where they are going. All you have to do is finish in front.GT Hoi Matthead! Ich habe heute damit angefangen, einen Artikel Hans Heyer für die deutschsprachige WP zu verfassen. Bei der Verlinkung mit der englischen Version ist mir der Hut-Vergleich den Grenzlandring betreffend aufgefallen. Ich habe selbst 15 Jahre lang in Wegberg gewohnt und vor fast 30 Jahren für eine Story in der damaligen "Rennsportwoche" die Geschichte der Rennstrecke und des 1952er-Unfalls recherchiert. Es ist tatsächlich so überliefert, dass der damalige Bürgermeister der Stadt Rheydt (heute Teil von Mönchengladbach), ein Dr. Markus, im Jahr 1947 eines Nachts mehrfach am selben Radfahrer vorbeifuhr, um erst nach dem dritten Mal zu begreifen, dass er im Kreis fuhr. Aber die Sache mit dem ähnlichen Hut ist doch etwas arg weit herbeigeholt … ;o) Grüße vom Niederrhein! RX-Guru Hi, Matthead. I noticed that you did not revert one of my recent edits. Absent mindedness? Distraction? Or maybe you're still going to? Anyway it's still there waiting. Space Cadet 01:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC) TorunHi matthead, Just wanted you to know, that I am surprised you joined MG's crusade to POV-pushing. I hav removed any reference to whether Culemrland was in Poland or in Prussia, to avoid revrt wars and to move that discussion to Culmerland article, where it belongs. But it seems to you this is not enough and you won't stop revert war until your POV will win. I think I will call for mediation. Szopen 09:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
OlsztynOutside of all your personal disputes with Molobo et al., such edits could hardly be called NPOV. And certainly not a compromise. //Halibutt 02:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
My "accusation"re: Expulsion of Germans after World War II. sorry..I made a mistake (it was early). I thought you had removed that section and now I see that you just made it a new paragraph...Interestingstuffadder 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
translation for London Protocoldone, see translation request page (Patrick 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)) I've been noticing that you've been creating a lot of articles about people who won the 24 Hours of Le Mans and marking them with a {{stub}} tag. It would save me a lot of time (as a stub sorter if you tagged them with {{autoracingbio-stub}} instead of the generic stub, as it is much more accurate. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Amalas =^_^= 14:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Le Mans linksI merely felt that people who had the knowledge in the first place to write about a lot of these more obscure drivers in history would be able to figure out a page doesn't exist through the lack of a link altogether, or through their own searching, just as well as they would through a red link. I just prefered not to see a bunch of red links all over the pages, personally. That is why I never added links to pages that I knew existed even though I knew the driver probably deserved a page, like Briggs Cunningham. EDIT: Although now I notice you've been creating some of these pages from scratch at the same time.
Constellation SobieskiThanks for your improvement. Question on the last part of the last sentence: Have there been constellations named after a real person after their death? If not, let's simplify " ... real (and then still alive) person, which might be the reason why this dedication in not used anymore." to "... real person."
Recent additionsPlease make sure that all additions to the English wikipedia are written in English and please place them in the proper Category:Racecar drivers by nationality category when added]]. -Drdisque 05:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Schleswig-Holstein QuestionHi! I've deleted the merge templates you placed on the three articles involving this article because you didn't initiate a discussion with any reason why this was a good idea to justify this proposal— as is clearly suggested by the templates themselves, and so commenting correctly at leasts put people onto your thought track, and more importantly documents the date such were applied, and why. Perhaps worse, you didn't clearly label the adds in at least two of the article edit summarys which would make it very time consuming for someone to identify the source of the templates after the next thirty plus edits... which can happen over a relatively short time span. It gets rather tedious to page through history diffs looking for where such came from; it gets worse when the servers are very busy, which is most of my working time as Europe and the USA are all pounding away at the keyboards. I've run into such that are well over a year old, and I've begun to take bad documentation on such as rather a pet peeve as it costs other careful editors time—precious free time we all donate— so do be courteous and keep that in mind when applying any such that hit users in the face and say "Wiki is crap". More to the point, there are a lot of people busting their butts to make sure we have an article on every topic in every major encyclopedia published, and I doubt eliminating any of these three sizable articles will satisfy those folks! <G> You may not have noticed, but this one above is giving a Article may be too large warning as 50Kb, so merging it with either war article is going to give a 'size headache'! Best wishes, FrankB 08:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC) BAe 146Hi. I'm happier with the format that makes clear that "Jumbolino" (whatever that means) is not official. As for "Avro 146"; as far as I know "BAe 146" was for the 146-100, 146-200 and 146-300 while "Avro" was only used for Avro RJ-70, RJ-85 and RJ-100. I think to mix the two, either BAe RJ-85 or Avro 146-100 is wrong. However I'll need to do a bit more research. Thanks for the references and search results you posted on the talk page. However can I raise one point? The rediculous search for "Airbus 747" returns 153 results, so presumably Airbus were making jumbos before the A380! Regards --Mark83 00:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Re:Goal of the CenturyYou have to realise that Goal of the Century is mostly used for the FIFA Goal of the Century. Just search with google to see that most hits refer to the FIFA award. But that's not the only reason. The FIFA award is a world-wide award, while the German one is, well, limited to one single country. Perhaps this kind of distinction is needed in the German Wikipedia, but a user searching for Goal of the Century in the English Wikipedia is probably thinging about the FIFA award. The same was Football World Cup refirects to FIFA World Cup instead of being a disambiguation page, I don't believe Goal of the Century should be a disambiguation page. In any case, users that land in the FIFA award are warned of the disambiguation page; this can also be changed with a message such as for the German award see .... Another example is Miami, that redirects to Miami, Florida, from where you access to Miami (disambiguation), where a lot of diferent meanings for Miami is found. The important thing is that the most common use of the phrase points to that article. There are very few article names that are a disambiguation page by themselves. If you still think Goal of the Century should be a disambiguation page, you can start a discussion on the subjet at Talk:Goal of the Century, and publicite it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 10:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC) More BAe 146Your edit summaries, talk page edits and contributions on this subject are incredibly intransigent. I've learnt on WP that the best initial response is compromise, which is why I was willing to leave "often also called Avro 146". I notice your 'revert' edit was to concede that the BAe 146/Avro RJ is "sometimes also Jumbolino". I'm happy to restrict the discussion to this page if you wish to claim a "victory", but would encourage you to consider compromise before conflict in the future. Regards --Mark83 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stopUsing personal attacks in comments to other users and in summaries of your edits. --Molobo 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC) This now has many of your articles. Please translate your old submissions before you submit more German articles (this is overwhelming the capacity of WP:PNT, where all articles from this category should be listed). Thank you, Kusma (討論) 01:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Walhalla templeIt's nice to find an article where my limited grasp of the German language can be of help. I like the idea of creating a category. I agree that "German Hall of Famer" sounds too sports specific. I like the sound of "Walhalla enshrinee" or an alternative suggestion may be "Walhalla honoree." Whitejay251 03:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Long URLs screwing up diff displayA while back, you asked at Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus what could be done about long URLs in the diff display. One way to solve the problem is to add a script that adds scroll bars to the diff view and keeps the size fixed. I just installed it and it works great. You just have to copy the code in the box at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Fix diff width into User:Matthead/monobook.js, save and do a hard reload (ctrl-shift-R on firefox, I don't know what on IE). Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 23:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
CategorizationHi Matthead. It is not necessary for a band's article, like Lynyrd Skynyrd, to be a member of Category:American musical groups when it already a member of Category:American rock music groups. Since Category:American rock music groups is a member of Category:American musical groups by genre, which is a member of Category:American musical groups, the band is already a member of both categories. This is subcategorization, and it helps keep the more general categories from becoming overpopulated. Best regards. ×Meegs 13:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Memel, South AfricaHi, The source came from the Reader's Digest Illustrated Guide to Southern Africa 5th Edition ISBN 0947008179, 1985. I have looked at local websites and most give the meaning as surrounded by water but not the language as the book did. See The Sunday Times Newspaper Lifestyle report (Highest circulation Sunday paper in South Africa) but here is one that names the Prussian language, SA Venues --Jcw69 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Ernst Moritz ArndtPlease do not blindly revert Molobo. His addition of a POV check to the article was perfectly fine, and information on Arndt's antisemitism should also be in the article. I have tried to modernize it a bit using the German article, but it still suffers horribly from a 1911 POV (and I don't know much about Arndt, so I'm not much help). Kusma (討論) 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
ReasonCould you please clarify your reasons for editing the Protectorate article? I RV until you do so. ackoz
Heinrich ZellThank you for contributing this stub! I have announced it at Portal:Germany/New article announcements. If you create more new articles/stubs/templates/categories/images related to Germany, please add them to the announcement page. Thank you, and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 16:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Archbishopric StrasbourgIch fand den deutschen Artikel nicht so dolle und habe ihn daher beim Übersetzen radikal gekürzt. Die Liste der Namen habe ich auch fürs erste weggelassen; sind welche davon besonders interessant? Viele Grüße, Kusma (討論) 02:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Convention of TauroggenHey, sorry I deleted the text you were trying to translate--I was monitoring new pages, which are often of low quality, and wasn't aware that you were still at work on the page. I hope it didn't set you back too much. The text I deleted should still be available in the history, of course. --Grace 07:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please explain your series of revertsI mean this and related from 3rd June. You are restoring an erroneus version, which among other things replace link to szlachta with a more general nobility, and the {{Poland-noble-stub}} with {{Lithuania-noble-stub}}. Also, in most of those cases, the correct adjective from Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is 'Polish', not 'Lithuanian' (although personally I prefer to avoid any confusion and use the full name, i.e. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth noble (szlachcic). On the last note, I don't mind if you change the Polish city names (Wilno) to Lithuanian (Vilnius), both are as correct. Still I'd ask you to do a partial rv of the above edits (restore link to szlachta, correct stub, and use PLC instead of single country adjective).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Most likely I am the only person watching that page, so nobody will see your edit. I suggest you bring the topic up again on the active talk page Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board or just talk to the people who posted in that thread. I will revert your edit to ensure that this stays an archive of inactive discussions and does not become active again. Please don't change archives. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 02:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stopHi, I will have to ask you to stop on Memel/Klaipėda. You say you are removing Lithuanian POV, but you are adding German POV. There is no consesnsus to rename Klaipėda Region to Memelland, and things seem quite the opposite. Changing few words there and there is fine, but spaming Memelland on every single page is a bit too much. Please stop. Renata 03:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I also would like to mention that "Memel Territory" is used more often than "Memelland" in English, as indicated by the search results at Talk:Klaipėda Region. Olessi 06:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Okopy Świętej TrójcyNow this one is strange. Could you possibly take a look at the talk page and perhaps explain your invention of a new placename? I wonder if literal (and missed, BTW, Okopy does not mean a stronghold) translation of toponyms is a new trend in international linguistic circles or is it just you? //Halibutt 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Several notesI have little time for Wikipedia now, but I have noticed you have edited my article on Act of Tilsit. I see you have edited many other related articles as well. I am greatly interested in the formerly German territories such as the East Prussia, Lorraine or Siebenburgen and I know lots of information regarding the German-Lithuanian relations as well. I don't have the time to check all the articles you have edited now but maybe will do so later. I will give you some notes however. 1.Georg Sauervein was a Sorbian. 2.With the exception of Lithuanian nationalists and the German nationalsocialists there were no national parties in the Memelland. The parties that you claim to be German had many non-German members as well and their agenda was not pro-German as such. Therefore, it is wrong to say that all these parties were German. Names of all parties should be given in English rather than German or Lithuanian or any other language by the way as this is an English project. 3."Memellander" option (or "Klaipedietis" or something like that as it was actually presented in census - the word you say is a translation) in the census of 1923 was chosen largely by the Lithuanians who considered themselves to be different from Lithuanians of the rest of Lithuania. This is the reason why the government of Lithuania considered them to be Lithuanians for various reasons - of course, it is doubtful werether somebody can be considered to have different ethnicity than he considers himself to have, but still that does not mean they were Germans as you claim. 4.Lithuania Minor was a separate ethnographic region of the Lithuanians based on the fact that the culture and the religion there was different than in the other regions. I havve explained the German sources on the issue in Talk:Kaliningrad Oblast, if you are interested in the subject try to read the books in library. 5."Klaipedos krastas" or something like that was the official name of the area in 1923-1939. "Memelland" was official when it was under the German rule. "Klaipeda region" is an English translation - I think either that, or "Memel region" should be used, depending on which period is mentioned. 6.I would suggest you to discuss before doing some edits to avoid the possible revert wars.Kaiser 747 07:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Teutonic KnightsHi, I have read your message. Yes, I deleted the links from some of the Grand Masters to the Teutonic Knights as I wanted to write full article about them. I just simply did not have the time to do all of them yet. What is wrong with using the full title instead of the simple version, i.e. Konrad III Zöllner von Rotenstein instead of Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein
Hi Matthead. Why do you think proper nouns should be included in the list? And what is your objection to the 'lecture' on the 3Ks, taken verbatim from the wikipedia article on the subject? The list is not meant as a list of German words, like a mini-dictionary, but as a list of words presumed to be commonly understood by English readers - the problem being that that presumption is often incorrect. Tschüss! WLD 09:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you a troll?Matthead, your unexplained reshuffling of so many texts is annoying. Please find something more useful to do. If you want to contribute something to this project, write new articles or expand the existing. If you are here to add German names to every second article that comes in your way, to reshuffle the texts without any particular reason and to engage in revert warring because of that, you may get yourself blocked for disruption. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 10:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Marienburg CatleMatthead wrote:
Fair point. If you want to re-tag the page for speedy deletion, it's up to you. I'm not bothered – Gurch 11:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC) StalkingAnd now you resort to stalking me. Now I have to remind you that stalking may get you not only blocked, but banned from Wikipedia for good. Please consult WP:STALK and check here for a recent example. Not that I object to enlightening you as concerns Wikipolicies, but I see that you just don't want to learn. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC) SubstWhen using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --Cyde↔Weys 17:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Alfred and walhallaI reverted your edit, as there shouldn't be too many categories in an entry: it makes them less useful. And yours was not a significant one: the others are mainly about what he did, rather than what some other people have thought about him. --Drmaik 06:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Teutonic KnightsHi, Matthead, I'm not sure which Grand Master, but one seems to have suffered a rather unique form of martyrdom. It seems he developed a kidney stone, and to work it out, his Doctor advised that he find a woman and have sex with her. Rather than violate his oath towards celibacy, the grand master died in immense pain from an infection relating to the kidney stone. If you know which one, let me know, and I'll add it to the article. Cheers V. Joe 04:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Polish medieval monarchs namingHi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Mis-formatted birthdayHi Matt, I've looked at it. Not sure what you want me to do/learn. SmackBot did nothing wrong there, and cannot fix up date problems it is not mandated to fix by the Bot Approvals Group. Rich Farmbrough 08:50 14 June 2006 (UTC).
Destruction of the Franco Prussian War articleYour edits since 23 May 2006 to this article have totally destroyed it. In fact, subsequent edits have been completely devoted to cleaning up your spelling and grammar. Your standard of English is inadequate and you drive a coach and horses through the NPOV principle.Dduff442 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
DTMThanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll be careful. Colonies Chris 18:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Klaus NiedzwiedzThank you for contributing this article! It is now announced at Portal:Germany/New article announcements and Portal:Germany. Feel free to add any other related articles you create. Thank you, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC) EditsHello there matthead. I noticed this edit of yours, in which you suggest a strange spelling for the name of the country of germany. do you plan to change other capital letters in the text as well? if "germany" then why not "berlin" and "breslau"? //Halibutt 07:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys! Looks like a simple typo to me. Permit me to present a personal anecdote. Long ago, very long ago it seems, when I was in grammar school, I wrote a paper about Paris. Proud of my work, I expected a perfect grade. My teacher did not agree, and chided me in the margin of my Opus Magnus, in red ink no less, that I did not ever mention France, as in Paris, France. He lowered the grade because of it. Puzzled and angry, I scoffed at his rebuke, and told him everyone knows that Paris is in France. He closed the discussion by saying that well may be, "but I was born in Paris, Illinois". Dr. Dan 15:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the spelling fixes at Wilhelmstrasse. You also changes Voss-strasse to Voßstrasse. I have two questions about that change. Shouldn't it be Voßstraße? and did you notice the discussion at Talk:Wilhelmstrasse about the title of the article, which has some relations to this issue? In any case I will remove the ß from Voßstrasse for now to maintain consistency within the article, which is probably a good thing. Stefán Ingi 16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Funny foreign squigglesMatthead my views on all funny foreign squiggles are well know. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 1#Comments and all the other pages talk pages of WP:UE. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Polish POVI assume you're referring to the Copernicus article, but if you have others in mind please tell me about them. I'll go through the changes I made there, one by one, explaining whether they're valid, and if you have objections, please state them, as I intend to restore my changes. I'm using this page for reference.
Jim ClarkI just wanted to leave you a note to say that, in general, I prefer your version of the article. I believe that the Pflanzgarten version is POV and also just does not read as well as yours does. However, I am concerned at the amount of reverting back and forth between the 2 versions. May I suggest that you either take action to have him censured or blocked, or seek some form of arbitration? It appears to me that you have made many positive contributions and I would hate for things to escalate to the point where your reputation may be put into question. --Brian G 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
DiacriticsPlease don't remove ń and similar diacritics from articles. If we refer to a place that is now in Poland by its Polish name, we should use the proper spelling. If you write Viktor von Weizsäcker correctly with the ä, please spell Kraków with the ó (or use Cracow) for consistency. Fighting with Polish editors over the correct spelling of names of people and places in their own language is likely going to be not very productive. There are many other places where German-Polish issues might not be written from a NPOV, but the diacritics issue is one where I can't understand why we should fight for German funny letters like ß and oppose Polish letters such as ł or Czech letters such as č. Please don't pick needless fights, especially in areas where that might backfire. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Because English and German languages are related theren't as many problems with translation of the German language(it isn't precisaly known for being complicated also). As to Polish diactrics I feel sorry if you have trouble comprehanding them, but there is no better way. --Molobo 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to try changing Stetti from Szczecin, Krakau from Kraków, Posen from Poznań. Why wait if you believe these are names given as result of Stalinist brainwashing.(A hint, they weren't used since decades but since centuries Matthead.Perhaps you should try to find out who they belonged in the first place) --Molobo 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Yet over the span of nearly three centuries, the same English have not even managed to put the second n back into Hanover, or write Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Maybe because the legitimacy over this regions and histroic situation is different ? --Molobo 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Blocked
Dmcdevit·t 05:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Re: Why did you revertHello and thanks for taking the time to ask why I reverted your edit. Upon reviewing the article in which you changed the link to, I saw that the "Johnny" article is a duplicate of "Georges-Francis" article. I am currently in the process of making sure the data on the Georges article contains everything on Johnny one because I plan on making the Johnny article a redirect to the Georges-Francis one. Thanks again. --ZsinjTalk 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hat TrickHi Matthead. I Re-read my initial comments on the discussion page and I don't half sound snotty and arrogant! My Apologies! But just to let you know that I have replied to your comments... Beerathon 14:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Talk: Germany national football teamDear Matthead, why did you delete the section 'Germany is not successful' from the talk page? --die Baumfabrik 13:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
MonarchsThank you very much for your recent work in updating some of the Polish/Lithuanian monarch pages. If I might make a suggestion though, there are a few links which I'd recommend being sensitive on, since they have been the subject of disputes. One is the city of Krakow, where I noticed that you'd been changing spelling to Cracow. However, I recommend using the spelling of Kraków or Krakow, since that's closer to the current consensus title of that article. Also, in regards Jogaila, I would recommend not just entirely removing the alternate name "Władysław II Jagiełło" from articles and templates, but instead keeping it as a parenthetical to reduce confusion and controversy, even if only done as a non-diacritic version: "Jogaila (Wladyslaw II Jagiello)" or "Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Jogaila)". Thanks. --Elonka 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC) WikiProject Sports Car RacingDue to your involvement in some Wiki pages that regard sports car racing of some sort, I would like to ask for you to look into the proposed WikiProject for Sports Car Racing. Any help you may have to offer to the project will be greatly appreciated. The359 03:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You recent article movesIn the edit summary of your recent rename of Lagoon of Szczecin you wrote "no Polish POV". Why do you think that German point of view is better than Polish ? Anyway, since this was obviously a controversial rename, I have reverted it and I suggest that if you insist on renaming, you user proper WP:RM procedure to see if there's consensus for the move. --Lysytalk 00:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC) a questionLet me ask you a question. It is pretty simple one but I am afraid that you may no to able to understand the content. Truly, as far as I managed to notice you seem not to understand much at all. Ok, here it goes: why are you so dumb and stupid? You and your ein volk companions are nothing more than vermin, you only cause disorder, destruction and corruption. Throughout the history you and your volk were responsible for the increased production of shit and nothing more so please do not spread your urine across this place because it stinks, and some people do not like it. You still don’t understand you arrogant pig? One more thing, it is so great to know that in 50 years your volk will die out and your lebens raum will be taken by the Turks. You’d better built that gas pipeline from Russia fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.78.210 (talk • contribs)
You only need to list an article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 31 if you've nominated it for deletion via "Articles for Deletion". You listed this for "Proposed deletion" so it doesn't need to be listed at AfD, that is why it was a redlink when you tried to list it there. Also, you should leave the article text up while the article is proposed for deletion, even if it is nonsense. The only reason it should ever be removed is if it is an attack page on someone, and in that case you could nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page. Hope that helps!--Isotope23 20:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Austrian-Italian Armistice of Villa Giusti source textThe content you re-added to Austrian-Italian Armistice of Villa Giusti are not candidates to be moved to Wikisource because their translator(s) is(/are) not known. The works may not remain at Wikipedia for the same reason (the status of their copyright is not known), but also because Wikipedia does not host source texts. --Benn Newman 00:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Mercedes Benz F.C.Good challenge on Milton Keynes City F.C.. The wlink was invalid. I have corrected the text and provided the citations. --Concrete Cowboy 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC) WikiProject MunichI'm wondering if you would be interested in helping me out with WikiProject Munich. If you're interested, you can check it outhere and hopefully you would sign up here. Kingjeff 16:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1966Excuse me - Please find a cited reference for controversy and please amend your tone. I have avoided being dragged into dispute on this page for months, and since I first raised the issue in June (after Guinnog said he couldn't find any citations for such a controversy) no-one has been able to come up with any evidence and several people have objected to the words. Before I deleted it, the para had been considerably watered down (not by me I hasnten to add) so that it said "it is commonly believed that in the spirit of the game the goal was fair. Few Germans dispute the validity of the 4th goal" - that's practically spitting distance from saying there is no controversy. If YOU think that there is controversy over the goal but cannot provide any citations them I am afraid that it is you who are pushing a POV and promoting original research. Jooler 10:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC) DoenhoffPlease see Talk:Kasper Doenhoff#Surname.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC) AWBIt is the standard format in which AWB sorts out the cats, templates and inter wiki links. Stub templates are put at the very end of the article, as they are not a permanent part of the article and could be easily removed later. STTW (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Stop reverting my edits based on some perceived bias.Stop reverting my edits based on some perceived bias. When you revert, provide an edits summary rather than one big unfounded accusation on my talk page. You remove fact tags and revert articles that were improved. But now you get the backslash of your actions, and it will just take a little bit longer for me, I've started talk page discussions on nearly every page touched by that bias of yours. I hope you've got the needed arguments.Rex 10:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Rex appears to be acting in good faith. If you disagree with his actions, please discuss on the talk page of the articles in question. Also, please provide edit summaries when editing. If Rex tries to discuss the matter with you on his or your talk page, please respond in a constructive manner. Thank you. Cla68 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
-- Matthead discuß! O 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 1356 Basel earthquakeHi there. You moved and edited 1356 Basel earthquake when it was in the process of still going through the translation process. I had some ideas for edits to make (including categories), but was waiting until the process had finished. Do you know whether it is normal to wait for the translation process to finish before starting to edit the article? The proofreader might get confused now that you've made changes.
A separate issue to that is the name change. I think 1356 Basel earthquake is the better name, because that is how it is often referred to in the literature. There is also a long-standing convention at Wikipedia to use dates like this for events even when there is no need for it. If you were writing in another article, you would tend to write [[1356 Basel earthquake]], rather than [[Basel earthquake|1356 Basel earthquake]]. Category:Earthquakes_in_the_United_States has a good mix of names, some of which are dated, some of which aren't. Would you mind if I put this article up for moving back to the original name? Carcharoth 00:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
StauffenbergPlease provide some references to your recent edits to this article. Adam 09:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC) I waite references too Blaablaablaaå
Teutonic OrderHallo Matthead, You recently edited Teutonic Order, please take a look at the info removed by Lysy on Eidechsenbund Lizard Union and the discussion.[[19]] Lysy removed the info and replaced it with 'Polish slachta instead of Preussischen Landadel, which is untrue. Talk Lizard Union has my collection of facts and External links. Thanks ! Labbas 5 January Alright, cheers. enochlau (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
