User talk:Christchurch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there - would you please consider creating a new account with a different user name? It has certain religious overtones which should be avoided for use on Wikipedia, and so I have permanently blocked the account. You can go to Special:Userlogin to create a new account. Also, please avoid inserting inflammatory comments to articles as this is considered a form of vandalism on Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. --HappyCamper 14:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked this account, because Christchurch also has non-religious meanings. FreplySpang (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I apologize, the block was my error in judgement. I hope it doesn't scare you away from editing Wikipedia though! (See below for a welcome and a bunch of useful links for you). --HappyCamper 15:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Christchurch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --HappyCamper 15:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish ultranationalism

Hi Christchurch! Thank you for visiting my user page! Did you see the photo gallery or the bumper sticker collection? Did you like? Let me know! Space Cadet 15:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your remarks at Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion were highly offensive and I expect apologies. I am a Pole yet I'm not a nationalist - as a matter of fact none of my friends is. Also, declaring that an entire community is composed of nationalist just because one book you read was written by a nationalist is definitely not what I would expect of a historian. Anyway, please think twice before you claim such rubbish next time. Also, providing sources for such claims is rather a good tradition here in wikipedia. Halibutt 17:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are far more insulting than mine. As for Wikipedian traditions of sources, i would say that the endless articles concerning Poland, Danzig, Kongisberg, Stettin, Pomerania, etc etc., are seriously wanting of decent source materials (with the exception of some accepted Western sources that I note have only recently been added). My comments are not based upon "one book". So you are not a nationalist? Does that mean that, er, you refute all the spurious Polish claims to other countries? Would you like a long list of them? Say, the list presented to the Versailles Conference? What about a list of all he wars and skirmishes and terrorist activities the new Polish state engaged in after Versailles? As Churchill remarked to the Polish Government in Exile in London in 1943, 'when this is over you'd better not go down the same roads you went down in 1919'. Unfortunately Polish nationalism is blind to advice. (This is an earlier contribution I forgot to sign).

I speak not so much as an individual on this subject but more as an accurate historian with no local axe to grind. A good set of reference books are the three seperate series of Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939. Essential reading, especially on the period of the Versailles Treaty, including all the secret meetings most people never read about. The interwar years also make disturbing reading. Christchurch 10:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello christchurch, I can just strongly recommend you not to try to discuss with certain people on basis of facts and/or academic principles - it is a fight against windmills! Rather chauvinism paired with inferiority complexes than enhancing Wikipedia articles is their motivation`s backround. They just see/hear what they want to see/hear. So do not waste your time, it is not worth it... 213.70.74.164 10:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is a bit of a headache editing Wikipedia because people just revert your work because it does not comply with their political objectives or is not politically correct. I naturally meet with this in my employment all the time, but its a worry on something which professes to be an encylcopaedia which is then commended as source material. I am still looking around, however, at a great many history articles on Wikipedia and trying to evaluate how or, indeed, whether, I can proceed with meaningful contributions. Christchurch 16:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Iron Kingdom"

Hello Christchurch. FYI, you might be interested in a new book on Prussia: "Iron Kingdom," by Christopher Clark. Explains much in terms of how politics and geography were related.

For a review, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/books/27grim.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.

PS: I suggest you not respond to injudicious comments by ultra-nationalists of whatever stripe. Wikipedia is maturing and they are gradually losing influence.

Sca 15:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your warning to Vintagekits

Regarding this warning: If you interfere with the posts on AfDs again I will make a complaint on the Administrator's Notice Board. It appears I will not be the first to complain about you. I'd like to know what policy or guideline you feel Vintagekits is violating here. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

He was complaining about this edit. He inserted his comment at the top of the discusson instead of the bottom. I moved it to the bottom.--Vintagekits 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If that's all CC was complaining about, then we have no problem, but it also appeared that he objected to your responses to multiple "keep" !voters (which, as I told Vintagekits on his talk page, doesn't appear to violate any policy or guideline). | Mr. Darcy talk 02:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is no specific guideline or ruling which states your vote on an AfD must go at the bottom of the page. I may, of course, have missed it if it does exist. But I do object to someone who is not an administrator and who has, it would appear, been involved in disputes with numerous editors, moving my posts. And yes, I think it inappropriate to challenge everyone who votes in a manner that Vintagekits does not like. Who does he think he is? Christchurch 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's standard practice to add !votes to the bottom of the page for readability; by moving your post without editing it, Vintagekits did absolutely nothing wrong. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/User_talk%7EChristchurch_3df3.html"