User talk:65.78.13.238

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (65.78.13.238) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monique De Wael

I saw your edit summary regarding the name of Monique De Wael, so I created a redirect to Misha Defonseca. Yngvarr (c) 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misha Defonseca

Hallo - i have added some biographical informations about Misha Defonseca. I d' ont agree with your idea to merge the bookstory with the person (or to create a redirect). yours Christophe.Neff (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Daniel

for continuing the discussion : Jane Daniel would merit a biographical article in wikipedia, because it was her tenacity who in fact delivered the true story ! Christophe.Neff (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion to Talk:Misha Defonseca. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fragment

Please asume good faith instead of reverting blindly. I said Fragment is unlikely to be the search term for that publication; I said nothing about the likelines of the book itself. Further more, readability goes over guideline, which is sated is that exact same guideline. Please read MOS:DAB more carefully. — Edokter • Talk • 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] again Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years/Broder

Hallo 65.78.13.238 - interesting to see, that you read and write fluently german; I have added this source, some days before to one of the first versions to the biographical article. This source is more or less the key for understanding the whole process of the book story, - the “surprisingly dubious” role of the publishing editor Jane Daniel etc. Its clear that nobody has read Henryk M. Broder in 1996 attentively, because if somebody has done, this entire story, would never had happen. I have to work now, - but just a personal word for finishing. You should have real name on wikipedia – (or an account using a alias) – why hide behind a number ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm afraid I'm not really fluent in German, but I'm good enough that if I use one of the automated translation services on the Web to translate most of a passage, I can translate most of the parts that the automated services don't get right. (Although with this one, I admit I'm not totally sure about the translation of "Bis auf den "Kompaß"" as "aside from the compass" -- all the translation services render that passage as "up to the compass", but that phrase implies a time sequence in English which doesn't really make sense in the context (it implies that there is objective proof of some parts of Misha's story, but that all those parts occurred after the compass.)
As for whether the deception would have been stopped in 1996 if people had only read Broder's article more attentively... I don't know. Broder points out some ways in which Misha's story is improbable, but nothing that really says "impossible". While I don't really trust everything Jane Daniel is saying (after all, a jury did find that she had hidden money in offshore accounts) I think there is something to what she says about every Holocaust survivor's story, no matter how true, being and sounding improbable. Then again, maybe if more people had listened to Broder voicing his suspicions, maybe it would have come earlier to the attention of people who could turn up the real evidence -- the baptismal record and school record, et cetera. Who knows for sure? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Survivre Avec les Loups

Oops, typo - fixed. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urantia book and spam

I've never spammed in my life. In my opinion, the only way you can make a mention of Mullis commenting on the Urantia book NPOV is to make it clear what some of his other opinions are (I withheld from pointing out that he's wrong about his statements on the Urantia book). Exactly what is spam about what I wrote? He's not a reliable source, so either it needs to be pointed out or removed if it is going to look as though he might be.Doug Weller (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as you told me, you weren't the editor who wrote that edit summary. Many apologies.Doug Weller (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just to say

Thanks for your work on helping to tidy up the Frederick Lenz article. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Majeston

Look at his user page, he was warned last May about labelling edits as vandalism when they are just a difference of opinion. Back to ANI if he doesn't stop, and if he continues to label all his edits are minor (his excuse for this will be that it is vandalism). Or I can bring in an administrator, which I may do.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking at the same thing. "Hunh, looks like he was warned back on the 29th, that was only -- wait, the 29th, today's only the 27th -- he was warned not to do this a year ago and he's still doing it??" Whatever you do about this, whether it's back to ANI or calling in an administrator, I'll try to back you up. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again he is calling people vandals, marking major edits as minor (he doesn't mark talk page edits as minor, so he knows what he is doing I presume, and accusing me of stalking (and telling 2 other people that ScienceApologist and I are a tag team, whereas in fact we haven't been in contact at all. This is on other articles, eg Nephilim, [{Garden of Eden]] etc. where Majeston and others have inserted Urantia stuff and it's been removed. I presume you know what his name means?--Doug Weller (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I had noticed that he was up to those tricks again, yeah. TBH, I don't know if anything will be done about it, despite the obvious fact that something should be done about it, but if you have any ideas for how to bring it to the attention of someone who'd take the appropriate measures, I'm all ears. (I don't know what his name refers to, no.) -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"Majeston is a true person, the personal and infallible center of reflectivity phenomena in all seven superuniverses of time and space. He maintains permanent Paradise headquarters near the center of all things at the rendezvous of the Seven Master Spirits. He is concerned solely with the co-ordination and maintenance of the reflectivity service in the far-flung creation; he is not otherwise involved in the administration of universe affairs." I guess another ANI complaint if he continues.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hunh. Well, no one can accuse him of not thinking big, I guess. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

While I'm in complete agreement with your reverts, do be mindful of WP:3RR. I've left a warning on Majeston's page since by my count he or she has reverted 4 times in the past 24 hours on The Urantia Book, and if this needs to eventually go to the 3RR noticeboard, the edits and reverts of everybody will be looked at. One more and you're in the same boat as him, and it's not worth getting a block over. Wazronk (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I need to warn you that the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per day. If you repeatedly revert, you may be blocked from editing even if you don't exceed three reverts in 24 hours. I recently blocked Majeston for edit warring. Be advised that if you continue to revert, you may get blocked, too. Consider pursuing dispute resolution if necessary. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for the friendly alerts. Heimstern, Majeston has already been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for a very clearcut case of wikistalking, and absolutely nothing was done about it. What can be done to make sure that this time his open defiance of the rules is dealt with?