User talk:Matthead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

User talk:Matthead/Archive2006


Contents

[edit] Re:ABT and Abt

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 discuß!     O       12:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent Groschen edits

Isn't Groschen plural for Grosch ? --Lysytalk 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 discuß!     O       21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought there was ein Grosch in Austria. I may have been wrong, though. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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)

[edit] Nikolaus von Renys vs. Mikołaj of Ryńsk

Matthead, please read this suggestion about 2 articles and the note on Schwabe [1] Labbas 8 January 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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 discuß!     O       11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [2] by admin User:Centrx. -- Matthead discuß!     O       04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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≈≈talk≈ 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 discuß!     O       21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Avoid adding your comments to Benes decrees. You wrote highly POV article. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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≈≈talk≈ 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≈≈talk≈ 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still breaking POV, yes.-- Matthead discuß!     O       22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's write NPOV article instead of arguing and edit warring which usually lead to nowhere. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 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 discuß!     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≈≈talk≈ 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 discuß!     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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 discuß!     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 [3] and [4]). 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/t/User_talk%7EMatthead_e270.html"