User talk:Pzg Ratzinger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 G41 2 Schoerner 3 Scotland 4 Trivia tagging 5 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SavedFromthetitanicposter.PNG 6 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Besatzung Dora.jpg 7 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Drei Unteroffiziere poster.JPG

[edit] G41

I respectfully request permission to create a disambiguation page for "G41" and rename the G41 rifle page "Gewehr 41". There is an Imperial German torpedo boat SMS G41 and a Royal Navy destroyer HMS Panther (G41) which both have G41 in their names, in addition to the HK G41 rifle discussed previously. I will post this same message on the Talk pages of each of the WikiUsers listed on this discussion page. Pen of bushido 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone else suggested this before because of the H&K G41 - I just never got around to it. user:PZg Ratzinger

Hey Pzg Ratzinger!

I am glad you enjoyed my editing of Brigadeführer Mohnke. There was alot of research involved, he was not that well known of a soldier and I think the only reason I found so much about him was because of his new found fame in film Der Untergang. I'm still working on collecting some more information on him, because there seems to be alot more known about his life in the war and I think wikipedia is a good of place as any to have that information on. So check it out in the next few days because I should be doing another major edit on him, if your interested. Thanks again Brigadefuehrer 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schoerner

• Until 1944 Army officers were not allowed to be Party members, so the many devoted Nazis in the officer corps (Model and Reichenau are obvious examples) were not party members. So it makes perfect sense to say Schoerner was a devoted Nazi without being a party member.
• "Nazi" is the standard English word for German National Socialists. It's only pejorative when used against non-Nazis ("George Bush is a Nazi").

Adam 02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I can tell this is going to be an edit war. Your reasoning it ridiculous, you have yet to explain to me how one can be a devoted Nazi without being a Nazi to begin with! You refuse to compromise, so yes sir, edit war it is. user:Pzg Ratzinger

You're being very silly. A "devoted Nazi" was a person who was devoted to the principles of Nazism. Many Army officers were devoted Nazis in this sense, and were more likely to be promoted as a result. But until 1944 Army officers were not allowed to join political parties, so dedicated Nazis in the Army were not NSDAP members. Is this so hard for you to grasp? Adam 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Sounds like original research if I've ever heard it. user:Pzg Ratzinger

I conclude you are an idiot, and I have a policy of not debating idiots. Adam 04:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have concluded that you are violating the no personal attacks policy, as well as no original research policy of Wikipedia. I will reporting you to a admin, have a nice day. user:pzg ratzinger

A suggestion, both of you: Take a couple days off and cool it. Then come back to the problem with a fresh mindset: Not how can I get what I think is proper onto Wikipedia, but how can I come to a consensus with the other party and achieve a result that benefits everyone? Specifically, how can I compromise? Calling people "idiots" and making threats of "reporting you to an admin" do not help anyone. Cool off for a bit. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland

Hello I'm Scotish and couldn't help but noitice you support independence. Can I ask why? Gavin Scott 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am an American of Scotish ancestory. I still have strong ties to the old country, and I guess I just feel the United Kingdom is an old fashioned and useless idea. user:Pzg Ratzinger

[edit] Trivia tagging

I notice that you trivia tagged Miniature (The Twilight Zone). A trivia tag reads "This is a trivia section. The section could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items." There are only 4 items in the section, and there is no main text to integrate it into. The guidelines say to tag trivia sections as articles get large and the trivia section contributes to disorganization. It seems to me that the only possible problem there is the header "trivia," which could simply be deleted. NjtoTX 01:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but part of that same point is to eliminate bullet points, not just based on an article's size. I didnt actually go in and try to integrate anything on the TZ artcles, yet, but I can already see in that trivia section, one example of original research and the rest needs to be put into the main article, be when it is expanded. Simply hiding a trivia section under a new name(such as the deceptive 'other facts' among others) does not 'fix' the problem. Please read the lengthy trivia guidelines (which are fairly new and a bit muddied). I am not looking to start an argument, but that section is the sort of thing wikipedia is trying to eliminate, as they are impossible to maintain and degrade an article's quality. user:Pzg Ratzinger

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SavedFromthetitanicposter.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:SavedFromthetitanicposter.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Besatzung Dora.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Besatzung Dora.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Drei Unteroffiziere poster.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Drei Unteroffiziere poster.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)