User talk:Matthead/Archive2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


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)

Contents

Hillclimbing

Thanks 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 W195

I 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 Ludwig

Thanks 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)

ETCC

You 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)

WP:3RR on Nicolaus Copernicus

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)

Sulm

Since 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)

Invitation

You 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 board

Since it is much needed, I created the Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians'_notice_board. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) Image: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 Tyrol

Some 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)

Frombork

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

Let's look at the original text of the Four-Power treaty, shall we? It states very clearly:
:(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.
Nothing in here about Germany ceding territory to Poland. It explicitly refers to "confirming" the existing border. Matthead, if you really must include a mention of this treaty in the Frombork article, be honest and use exactly that wording. Balcer 01:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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!

Thanks!

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 Frombork

Hi. 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 article

Hi! 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)

Hi! The status of User:Tirid Tirid (vandal, sockpuppet, or otherwise) has no bearing on my decision to protect the Toruń article. When I think that an article may need protecting I arbitrarily choose a date and time after which, if the reason for protection still exists, I will protect the article. This is in order to try to avoid showing a preference for any particular version of an article. This is the best way that I can follow the rules that admins are supposed to follow when protecting an article, which state that a protecting admin should not show a preference for which version to protect the page on. Protection is not intended to keep the page on a particular 'good' version, it is intended to force people involved in a revert war to try to find a wording for disputed sections that can get consensus support. I think that debate over the status of User:Tirid Tirid is irrelevant in finding a consensus version--there are two or three sentences in the article that are being disputed, all that is needed is for someone to suggest a version of these sentences that gain support on the talk page and the article can be unprotected. Any user trying to revert from such a new consensus version to one of the older disputed versions could then be considered a vandal and blocked. JeremyA 16:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

17th German Infantry Division

I 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)

Interesting questions, Dr. Dan! After spending some time editing rather uncontroversial stuff, I also encountered openly POV statements in articles and learned since that few (maybe even fewer than it appears, due to sock puppets) users force their opinions on Wikipedia, since neutral users give up sooner or later. After watching some of the more hard-core "fighters", I decided to give them a little opposition. As the quote is concerned, I as a German don't feel to be in a position to recommend deletion. On the other hand, it serves as an example how easy it is to blame Germans in general, so it might stay for that reason alone. To get more confidence in wiki policies, just read some of them, maybe starting with Wikipedia:Verifiability which should give some hints on how sources should be handled. Besides, be bold and don't let yourself get bullied! --Matthead 23:36, 28 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 Olsztyn

Hi. 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

Really good job! I put the tag back and I have to go. Space Cadet 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Remark: Tirid Tirid was suspected to be sock puppet of Space Cadet. Now the puppeteer finally confessed. -- Matthead discuß!     O       20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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 Danzig

Have you ever read what's on that website (Goverment in Exile). There's definetly something wrong with you. Ak47K

Ethymology of Torun

Hi 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 II

Hey, why did you delete my contributions about Augustus II and his wife? Teodorico 23:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By mistake, confused it with the deeds of "usually suspects". Reinserted it.--Matthead 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Road racing

In 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

Hans Heyer

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

German 4th Panzer Division

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)

Torun

Hi 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)

You had reverted twice [2] [3] to Molobo who deleted [4] vital infos which are also reported on Toruns Website itself. You better watch on whom you rely (or ally?), and revert to. --Matthead 23:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I have not noticed there is any other info later on. I just noticed revert to "Culmerland in Prussia" and hopped to conclusion you are German POV-pusher. Szopen 09:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Olsztyn

Outside 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)

Also, I appreciate how you were as uncivil as possible in both your edit summary and your message on my talkpage. Nice. Interestingstuffadder 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Interestingstuffadder deleted my "uncivil" entries from his talk page: [5]. --Matthead 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Wikipedia guidelines say that it is fine and well within witiquette to remove messages (other than vandalism warnings) from one's talk page once he has responded to them. Interestingstuffadder 00:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

translation for London Protocol

done, see translation request page (Patrick 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

{{autoracingbio-stub}}

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 links

I 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.

A note of thanks to Matthead - I have been adding information about the automobile and motorsport figures I know, or knew, because they are not likely to do it themselves. Being born long before the current electronic technology emerged, they often are not much interested in computers and the Internet and, I find that those who are writing about motorsports now, have little knowledge of them. As these drivers, owners, inventors, engineers, mechanics, and constructors die—such as Briggs Cunningham and Mark Donohue—much of their history will go with them because they have not had the opportunity to contribute the kind of details that are documented about contemporary figures. They are not obscure to those who participated at the time. The sources for research on them are becoming obscure as people abandon hard copy references. When their peers, such as Lake Underwood, die also, those without these personal contacts will never know such details. Those deserving articles are many, and time is short. Just trying to cover details about a few, has been quite time consuming. Some of the WP histories are quite disjointed because the details are added by several editors. Those frequently require reorganization and clarification, if not correction. There is much to do. Thanks for the new location for the automotive information on Briggs, I thought of making a new article, but had little time so I merely added it in the only location dealing with Briggs, hoping that someone would do what you did, create a new article, thanks. I have just gone in and redirected all of the old links to the Cunningham (sailing) article that relate to the racing and automobile article under the name of Briggs Cunningham. Someone needs to start an article on his sailing history and contributions. If you will start a stub, Briggs Cunningham (sailing racer and inventor), I will build upon it and hope that those with greater familiarity with his sailing activities chime in. I might be able to motivate some... Red links may tempt others to turn them blue, no links can be ignored much more readily -- but, please at least put the names in black, others may follow up later. ---- kb - 2006.06.04

Constellation Sobieski

Thanks 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 additions

Please 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)


"Keith Odor" results in approximately 10 times more google hits than "Kieth" and that's what makes me confident that that is the correct spelling of the name. -Drdisque 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein Question

Hi! 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 146

Hi. 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 Century

You 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 146

Your 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)

Apparently you haven't learnt on WP, as your inital response was to revert my addition without giving a reason. Beside, there are no compromises to be made on facts. The company gave its planes two names, the public mixed these two and added a nickname. It's not yours to decide what other people use de facto. And it's neither your private article. --Matthead 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not a fact that the BAe 146 is "often also called Jumbolino" which you have conceded by changing it to "sometimes also Jumbolino." As long as an edit summary adequately explains what you did most people won't argue with it. Yes you could argue that it didn't explain why but I think it's pretty clear that I reverted your edit because it contained at least one factual error. Finally I do not claim any sort of ownership of the article. --Mark83 11:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Please stop

Using personal attacks in comments to other users and in summaries of your edits. --Molobo 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation

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)

Not all of the articles are from me, I also added tags to existing ones. I've done a few (even a japanese one!), but the remaining ones should be looked after by others, too. --Matthead 03:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Walhalla temple

It'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 display

A 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)

I've tried it and it works. Thanks!--Matthead 07:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi 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)

Well, yeah, whatever. I noticed that similar bands were in different categories (Molly Hatchet and Blackfoot no American rock music groups!?), and just gave them all the categories to make sure they don't get overlooked. --Matthead 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Memel, South Africa

Hi, 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 Arndt

Please 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)

Ernst Moritz Arndt has died in 1860. Has new evidence, letters from him etc. surfaced after 1900? Hardly. Has anything happened after 1911 that makes people judge him in a different light? Surely. A biography of 1911 is more likely to do him justice than one which is influenced by 20th century events.--Matthead 05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason

Could you please clarify your reasons for editing the Protectorate article? I RV until you do so. ackoz 14:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I checked the article again and, as you can see, I only corrected a grammatical error you left there. ackoz 16:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am really sorry for the tone. I confused your edits with some older ones. ackoz 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinrich Zell

Thank 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 Strasbourg

Ich 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)

I've copied the list of bishops of the Archbishopric Strasbourg into Archbishops of Strasbourg, and also restored some of the statistical data. --Matthead 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I should have kept the statistical data, thanks. I was somewhat confused by the completely different historical facts mentioned in the German and French articles... Kusma (討論) 02:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Convention of Tauroggen

Hey, 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)

Apology accepted. At least you didn't speed-delete the page within seconds, as they do on German Wikipedia...--Matthead 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your series of reverts

I 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)

The anonymous User talk:195.68.232.103 repeatedly inserted "Polish" into Johannes Hevelius [6] [7] [8] and made other Polish POV edits, like repeatedly [9]. I looked at his last edits, saw that he had inserted Polish in several biographies that had not been changed since typcially 12 May, and decided to revert his edits, just to make sure that none of his edits remain current, without judging the content. If his changes are valid, somebody else can make them. I'm not going to tolerate POV pushers, and when they get too troublesome, I'm going to carry the battle back into their home fields. --Matthead 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The activity of 195.68.232.103 at Wiki basically consists of declaring famous people Polish, and removing Polish background from less desireable persons [10]. The guy is active for more than a year, yet only a Czech and a US user had tried to slow him down before I did - judging from his current talk page. After a closer look at its history, I see that you had talked to him a year ago, which he removed [11]. Well, then you know more than I do ... --Matthead 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 1

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)

I haven't noticed that this part was considered archived, as I went there by a "what links here". Maybe changing the background color would be helpful.--Matthead 02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

Hi, 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'm not adding German POV, I'm establishing Memelland NPOV as the parties that collected 75% or more of the vote called themselves "Memellandish", "of the Memelland" or similar. The population of the Memelland has made its point clear in each election between 1925 and 1938, as even ethnic Lithuanians voted against Lithuanian rule. The term "Klaipėda Region" was invented by the Lithuanian occupiers, I should be mentioned in Wikipedia as such, but not used as article name. Lithuanians (and others) should be honest and acknowledge that their country did something wrong in that time, rather than trying to push nationalistic POV. I've got the issue on my radar screen until it is settled in a NPOV way. --Matthead 03:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I wish the world was so simple white-black, wrong-right. But let's see your edits: Lithuania annexed/occupied KR/ML, but it was returned to Germany? Would you mind telling how it was returned? Your beloved 75% of votes, without sources, is pure original research. Also, if you want to rename a page in Wikipedia, you need a consensus. And so far it seems the consensus is on the opposite side - keep KR. And if KR is kept, changing links from KR to ML is POV pushing. It's not about my (?!) government doing something wrong, it's about you and your edits on WP. And please! cite your sources. Renata 03:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Look at the article on "KR", there are sources for the election results (those anyone doubts these?) as well as for census. There are some Lithuanian legends on these issue still in Wikipedia, as some supporters are trying to protect them, but they are bound to fail. In fact, the Memelland is pretty "white-black" - like the colors of Prussia. No matter how many fingers are pointed on Nazis here and Nazis there, this won't work as an excuse for an 1923 aggression. Lithuanians better stop collecting even more eggs on their faces. --Matthead 04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
But how about your interpretation of "German" party? And let's count the "some supporters": me (ok, Lithuanian), Philip Baird Shearer (who knows? but not Lithuanian for sure), Molobo (Polish), Heqs (who knows?). Now, who supports you? Dozens of people wrote about KR and only you push ML on all fronts. And it's not even about the stupid name. If you would give good enough reasons to justify the move, I would support myself. Right now the only reason is given that "I like the German version." It's about WP and its rules. You cannot just go through pages and spam ML because you feel like it. There is this thing called consensus and it looks like it's against you. Renata 04:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
How about respecting the opinion of the large majority of the inhabitants of the area in question, as undeniably documented in elections from 1925-1938? Lithuanian sources to election results, posters etc. are welcome. No matter what ethnicity the people there considered themselves, they've been pushed around by governments which ignored their voice. They were betrayed by France in 1923, by Germany in 1928, and by Lithuania from 1923 onwards. They were less than 150,000 and they've have disappeared since, expelled from their home land, to the west and the east. At least Wikipedia should do them justice, rather than sacrificing them once more.--Matthead 07:55, 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)

If Świętokrzyskie Voivodship or Kazlų Rūda municipality are acceptable in "English" Wikipedia, Memelland is fine also.--Matthead 07:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Kazlų Rūda savivaldybė is Lithuanian. Kazlų Rūda municipality is English. Memelland is German. Memel Territory is English. Klaipėdos kraštas is Lithuanian. Klaipėda Region is English. And since the ML and KR refer to one and the same you need consensus to rename the article. Renata 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
And also, who did occupy the Memel River that you changing the name too? Renata 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okopy Świętej Trójcy

Now 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)

Let me ask you one more time. Could you be so kind as to explain why did you invent a name for a town? It seems you might've had some reason for that, but sadly you keep it a secret so far... //Halibutt 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Several notes

I 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 Knights

Hi, 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

Norum

Please just use the convenient standard signature rather than your name somewhat isolated from the text, which is a litte confuing when a discussion gets many entries. The proper name is Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein [12], it makes no sense to use Konrad III Zöllner von Rotenstein as there was neither a Konrad I Zöllner von Rotenstein nor a Konrad II Zöllner von Rotenstein. Its like with the former German chancellors Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl - noone calls them Helmut I Schmidt and Helmut II Kohl. The current US-President isn't called George II Bush either. --Matthead 06:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

List of German words and phrases

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)

The list said that "very few indigenous German words begin with C. Most such current German words are from other languages, such as French." literally calls to add words, at least town names with should be not totally unknown, having Wiki articles. Other letters lacked entries, too, and Q was totally omitted. And regarding the 3K, mentioning Nazis/Hitler (apparently no Germany-related article can do without anyway) in connection with the church is a little strange. That 3K article is faulty. --Matthead 11:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
O.K. I see - I think it would be better to simply delete the incorrect assertion that "very few indigenous German words begin with C...", rather than adding proper names that don't (in my opinion) belong in the article. Do you object to (a) deleting the assertion and (b) removing the proper names/nouns?
On the point of the 3Ks, how is the 3K article faulty? It was definitely used in National Socialist propaganda, not least in the Bund Deutscher Mädel - just google for "Kinder, Kirche, Küche BDM". I understand what you mean about the unfortunate tendency for National Socialism to be brought up in German contexts - in this particular case, I think it is justified, as that phrase turns up so often in writing about National Socialism, and it is assumed that people simply know what it means. Very few realise the concept pre-dates the National Socialist movement and the rise of Hitler, so it is worth pointing out that it was a pre-existing concept that was taken over/rebadged/reused by the National Socialists. Of course, a whole thesis could be written on German political slogans and their effects: Drang nach Osten; Realpolitik; Blut und Eisen; Weltpolitik; Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer; Ostpolitik and Die Wende - German history seems full of slogans that capture/create the zeitgeist of their times, and I can't easily cite similar example in English/British history. Perhaps you can? Tschüss again. WLD 12:20, 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)

When speaking of getting blocked, you talk from multiple experience.--Matthead 10:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Every of my blocks was followed by good-natured apologies from clueless admins, which I good-naturally accepted. However, your remark indicates that you enjoy revert warring and are here for disruption's sake. Don't say you have not been warned. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"Clueless admins" says it all. --Matthead 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me ask you to stop personal attacks and return to the problem of your sloppy edits. You should know that edits are supposed to improve the articles, while yours either disfigure or uglify them. You should carefully read the Manual of Style before attempting such monstruosities next time. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It did not attempt - I did succeed. And I confess, I did not read that Manual of Style. --Matthead 11:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Marienburg Catle

Matthead wrote:

Your remark "keep as redirect from plausible typo ...but fix double redirect" for Marienburg Catle will get interesting if someone names a breed of cattle like this. Well, less joking, only a typo from Norum is preserved. Most likely people will type -berg instead of -burg, or try c/C. --Matthead 11:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Stalking

And 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)

Subst

When 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 walhalla

I 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)

Currently, Alfred the Great has the following "Categories: Cleanup from March 2006 | 1911 Britannica | Anglo-Saxon monarchs | West Saxon monarchs | Viking Age | English cultural icons | Natives of Berkshire | Natives of Oxfordshire | University College, Oxford | 840s births | 899 deaths". I agree on "too many" for some, but the choice of significance of others is debatable. The cleanup is there to be removed, 1911 is a very crowded cat, few persons are natives of two places. Regarding "what some other people have thought about him", I can acknowledge that "English cultural icons" beats "Walhalla enshrinee" at least from a British POV, but "University College, Oxford" is a little, well, "not King Alfred as has been claimed in the past".--Matthead 17:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, esp. on the University College, Oxford link. There is a problem with the counties: he was from Berkshire until 1974, but Wantage is now in Oxfordshire.

Teutonic Knights

Hi, 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)

No idea. See new article Hochmeister for the TO Grandmasters. Might fit also to "ancient treatments methods" or something. --Matthead 06:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Polish medieval monarchs naming

Hi. 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 birthday

Hi 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).

Well, it would be nice if it could recognize and fix dates with missing or additional brackets, or similar issues.--Matthead 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added brackets to tens of thousands of dates, and am looking to automate this some time soon. The main problem is that dates appear in quotes, URLs, image names, article names names of movements, not to mention the special uses of "September 11" and the ways people choose to write dates see for example. Rich Farmbrough 09:59 14 June 2006 (GMT).

Destruction of the Franco Prussian War article

Your 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)

First, learn about the function of that "+" on the top of the screen before making an entry. So, my edits [13] [14] "totally destroyed" the article, and 9 editors were devoted to cleaning up my spelling and grammar? I'm impressed by your well grounded verdict and rest my case. --Matthead 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

DTM

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll be careful. Colonies Chris 18:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Klaus Niedzwiedz

Thank 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)

Edits

Hello 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)

First of all, I did not "suggest a strange spelling for the name of the country of germany", as this term does not appear at all in the article, no matter what spelling or language. Second, somebody had moved Breslau into Poland to which you did not object. Third, when that was corrected, your edits [15] [16] [17] were trying to reverse this. Fourth, well, "three's a crowd and four you're dead". --Matthead 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me instruct you then. In English, just like in many other European languages, we put down the names of countries with capital letters. The country is Germany, not germany as you suggest with your reverts. Besides, I see no point in mentioning that Berlin is in Germany, every child on earth should know that. //Halibutt 15:05, 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)

Wilhelmstraße

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)

It should be Voßstraße, but I made it Voßstrasse as the article used many -strasse already. Personally, I detest the use of three consecutive "s" that occurrs when the new German orthography is used, which e.g. changes Autobahnanschlußstelle to Autobahnanschlussstelle, which is even more irritating to read. Anyway, "Voß" as a name should not be affected by new spelling, at least in Germany. As "English" Wikipedia is concerned, I've almost given up to promote equal use of diacrits - but only almost! --Matthead 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny foreign squiggles

Matthead 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 POV

I 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.

  • 1. Portrait. It is in fact from the city now called Toruń, but I'd be willing to leave it at Thorn or Thorun, but not at Torun, unless you can show this usage was ever valid.
  • 2. Childhood home. It refers to a building currently in Toruń and to a modern photograph, so this should clearly be changed.
  • 3. Again, Thorn or Thorun, but not Torun.
  • 4. Kraków. What else would you have it be?
  • 5. Back home at... Again, Thorn or Thorun, but not Torun.
  • 6. Again: Kraków. What else would you have it be?
  • 7. Move to... I think that's fair, as it gives an explanation right after.
  • 8. ...part of the Hanseatic League. Again, Thorn or Thorun, but not Torun.
  • 9. Peace of Toruń. Why change a link that isn't even visible?
  • 10. Toruń and Prussia's... Again, Thorn or Thorun, but not Torun.
  • 11. Copernicus was born in... Again, Thorn or Thorun, but not Torun. How about "present-day Toruń"?
  • 12. Why revert my punctuation correction?
  • 13. Why revert my date correction?
See User_talk:Biruitorul#Polish_POV for a general answer. --Matthead 18:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jim Clark

I 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)

Thanks for caring, but I'm afraid there's not much I can do, except unilaterally stopping the ping-pong game. User Pflanzgarten seems to have edited previously under IPs like 89.50.*.* also on the German Wiki (de:Jim Clark) were he did not listen when adopting the account. I'm a fan of Jim (who knows racing and isn't?) as well as the track he picked his username from, but he just goes over the top with his language, and does not accept basic formatting. Maybe someone else should try telling him? --Matthead 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics

Please 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)

And when "we" refer to present-day streets (Wilhelmstraße, Voßstraße) in the heart of the present-day German capital, English Wikipedia uses Wilhelmstrasse and Voss-strasse. As long as that is the case, then modern day Polish spelling in controversial 15th century context is totally unacceptable. I am for the use of diacritics (as long as people are not forced to write them), but only if applied in fair manner, and not totally lop-sided, as in the current status quo of "Ęńgłizśz Włikipędią". --Matthead 19:08, 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)

I support the use of ß so I support the use of the (less weird from a Latin alphabet POV) ń. You won't get "fairness to diacritics" by annoying Polish editors, who dislike having names in their own country misspelled just as you dislike to have Voßstraße misspelled. The discussion in the case of Wilhelmstraße is via a normal move procedure, not by edit warring in totaly unrelated articles. If you want to change the name of the Toruń article to Torun, please file a move request at WP:RM. And the use of diacritics is not lop-sided, the vast majority of Germany-related articles use the ß and the umlauts. Kusma (討論) 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No edit warring in totally unrelated articles? Voss-strasse or Voßstraße had several moves since the article was started as a spin-off today, and by two non-Germans as I understand. Besides, current names are coincidentally disputed by a certain person, but then the modern day towns are of rather few (if any) interest compared to their history (Waterloo, anyone?). The use of modern names is hard to accept though in context of centuries ago, when other names for places and persons applied, see also "Mikolaj Kopernik" and some other old scientists. I usually don't even promote their German names, but the well-documented Latin names they published under, but even that is attacked. Regarding "annoying Polish editors" (I'm quoting :-) you here), Wikipedia was much calmer and more productive when certain accounts were or are absent. The trouble makers are few, very few. --Matthead 19:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Kusma, Krákow is not exactly English usage. And what about this?: 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. To this I say, fighting with English editors over the English spellings of Polish subjects on English Wikipedia is not productive and frequently breaches various conventions. Charles 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Fighting between German and Polish editors about diacritics on Polish names is not very productive in any case, and just produces nonsense like Polish editors (like Molobo in the diff above) fighting against the ß in German names. Matthead and Molobo were apparently applying double standards here (my language's funny squiggles are acceptable in English, yours aren't), which is bad. Using English names where they exist is preferred on this Wiki, but inventing English spellings just to get rid of "weird squiggles" that are well supported thanks to Unicode is just silly. Kusma (討論) 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that I don't know who started in this round of anti-diacritics, and did not want to imply that it is anybody's "fault". Kusma (討論) 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW; what if English names exist or existed, but are denied for some reasons? EB1911 has entries documenting the established use of diacritics-less names like Stettin, Kolberg, Bromberg, Heilsberg, Memel that are apparently not welcomed by certain persons, which claim that "English usage" has learned to use (and spell?, and pronounce?) Szczecin, Kołobrzeg, Bydgoszcz, Lidzbark Warmiński, Niemen//Njemen/Nemunas in a few decades. 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 properly despite prominent bearers of these names in England. How come, a natural talent for slavic? Or successful Stalinist brainwashing? --Matthead 21:40, 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

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Dmcdevit·t 05:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I accept this and apologize for getting angered and digging a hole for myself in the first place, before delibaretely violating 3RR when Molobo put me to the test. Luckily, he's blocked now for a year, and judging from his last block for a month, tempers should settle down again in his absence. --Matthead 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Why did you revert

Hello 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)

Actually, looking closer at the histories of the pages, I did not before realize that the Georges-Francis article is a redirect to Johnny. I appologize for the inconvienience. --ZsinjTalk 16:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hat Trick

Hi 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 team

Dear Matthead, why did you delete the section 'Germany is not successful' from the talk page? --die Baumfabrik 13:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the talk was nonsense at best, and unsigned anyway. I had entered a summary, but apparently did not save that entry, so made a simple delete later on when I noticed that. I've edited the article lead itself to explain the situation, and to prevent further stupid trolling. --Matthead 13:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the posts were the subject of young, fragile minds. I think, however, that it might be a good idea to keep a record of such behaviour in case it comes in useful. I'm not convinced that user:the Frederick has understood the Five Pillars in the six months he's been around. --die Baumfabrik 14:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Monarchs

Thank 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 Racing

Due 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)

This is an update to inform you that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car Racing has finally been launched. Please feel free to browse the project page, add anything you wish to offer, and help in getting the project off the ground. The shortcut to the project page is WP:SCR. The359 02:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You recent article moves

In 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 question

Let 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)

This "question" has been asked by an anonymous user from an IP apparently based somewhere in India. It was quickly erased by User:Lysy before being restored by me now. Normally, I'm in favour of removing vandalisms, but this example should stay documented. I find it remarkable that the only other contribution of the IP user is about a small place in Poland, and the quoted North European Gas Pipeline project is mainly an issue among Poles.-- Matthead discuß!     O       19:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Heinz Oberlinger

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)

Okay, thanks, I'm not up to date on procedures like these. -- Matthead discuß!     O       21:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem... I just noticed it was someone before you who actually added the "Proposed Deletion" tag.  :)--Isotope23 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Austrian-Italian Armistice of Villa Giusti source text

The 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 Munich

I'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)

1966

Excuse 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)

Doenhoff

Please see Talk:Kasper Doenhoff#Surname.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

AWB

It 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)

I'd hoped I made myself clear here.c I want to see you on all the articles you reverted to account for your actions.Rex 17:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Instead of correct typos you might want to REACT on my talk page posts.Rex 18:32, 26 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)


To give an overview on the events:

-- Matthead discuß!     O       23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

1356 Basel earthquake

Hi 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.

The tag said then (and now) "Translation progress: 100%", which I consider "done". A proofreader still can find an old version in the history. Besides: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." -- Matthead discuß!     O       01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'll add my edits now then, well, if I can think of any other than the categories I was going to add! :-) Thanks for putting those categories in there. Carcharoth 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

I disagree not much, but I disagree. Please put up a move request. In an article, one writes probably something like "in the devastating Basel earthquake of whatever-date-format, the church of St. X in Y-town was damaged" or something. A name like 1356 Basel earthquake narrows down the variations the author can choose from, and it requires to know the year by heart, which few authors do (I didn't, and I will forget it again I guess). Who knows when Pompeii happened? 55? Typing in the name and linking it quickly leads to 79, while 79 Vesuvius eruption leads nowhere. As the french name 'Séisme de la Saint Luc' shows, the exact day can be considered even more significant than the year. There are various formats in which disasters are named, even though the "Model year of American cars scheme" like "1959 Cadillac Eldorado" dominates. I still consider it redundant to add a date if there was only one significant event, and thus no need to distinguish. Anyway, I don't mind too much as the Basel earthquake directs to the article now, which helps. Also, I think the Category:Earthquakes by country needs to be replaced by Category:Earthquakes by continents - the Basel one affected at least 3 modern countries, and who knows how many principalities then. See also Dover Straits earthquake of 1580. -- Matthead discuß!     O       01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point about the categories. Have you seen Wikipedia:Overcategorization? About the name, I will add comments to the talk page and put in a move name request, because from what I can tell, the literature refers to it as the 1356 Basel earthquake. See also the discussion here and here. Carcharoth 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Stauffenberg

Please provide some references to your recent edits to this article. Adam 09:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I waite references too Blaablaablaaå

I've recently edited several articles about the Stauffenberg family, but I think you two have the one about Claus in mind? While editing on Jan 2, I got distracted by many articles and sources, and apparently in the end had failed to save the article on Claus. I noticed the loss only on Jan 4, and restored changes from memory, somewhat sloppy it seems, I'm sorry for that. Concerning this anonymous edit, I haven't noticed it among the numerous categories, and did not approve it by keeping it, as it may appear. Just a provocative test, I'd say. As for references in general, I took mainly content from German Wikipedia, the sources given there, and other English Wiki articles. Are there any specific changes which are controversial and in need of references? Please discuss on affected talk pages. -- Matthead discuß!     O       21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Teutonic Order

Hallo 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

Re:ABT and Abt

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