User talk:TheUnforgiven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Thx

Thx for your support :)--Witkacy 21:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course...TheUnforgiven 23:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thx again

Thx again :)--Witkacy 23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem. TheUnforgiven 15:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:WikiThanks.png and for reverting Zivinbudas at my talk page :)--Witkacy 17:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Right on and thank you. TheUnforgiven 17:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Franks and Scandinavians

Sorry, I won't join you in this crusade. It does not matter whether Swedes, Danes and Norwegians saw themselves as separate groups. The Franks and other continental peoples cared little about such finer distinctions among Scandinavians and called Scandinavians Danes, Normans or Varangians whatever Scandinavian people they were actually dealing with. You find this as early as 516 when the Franks talked of a Danish attack while they were actually taking of a Geatish attack. You can see the confusion in manuscripts where the attackers are called both Goths, Getae and Danes.--Wiglaf 15:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That is possible, but that does not change the fact that Franks and other peoples called the Danish, possibly including Norwegian and Swedish, settlers in Normandy Normans. You cannot read foreign sources on Scandinavian identities in a fundamentalist way.--Wiglaf 15:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I repeat that non-Scandinavians probably had vague ideas about who was Danish, Swedish or Norwgian. Therefore, we have to be careful with reading Normans as referring exclusively to "Norwegians" and Danes as referring exclusively to "Danes". Even the Primary Chronicle defined Varangian as any Germanic tribe.--Wiglaf 15:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
TheUnforgiven, this is not the place to rewrite history. If you want to write that Normandy was founded by Norwegians and not by Danes, you will have to cite sources.--Wiglaf 16:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I am flattered that you like my maps. However, I have one rule when I make pages, verifiability. History is fantastic as it is, and rewriting it is not my cup of tea.--Wiglaf 18:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
It is very important to abstain from adding one's own opinions/theories, because it would be original research and/or POV. My guideline is only to add information that I find in sources written by scholars.--Wiglaf 19:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
In Dan's case, he wants to change the meaning of "Viking" in English, because he feels that there is only one "correct" meaning. He has to rewrite the English dictionaries first, before that will be acceptable in Wikipedia. In your case you seem to want to make Normandy settled by Norwegians and not by Danes. If you insist on making Normandy Norwegian, you should try to change the article Normans first.--Wiglaf 19:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Before you attack the map, you should suggest corrections on the map's talkpage and cite sources.--Wiglaf 19:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
That map has been scrutinized by thousands of knowledgeable people since I added it to Wikipedia. The only one who has criticized it was a Norwegian who did not know that Østlandet technically belonged to West Norse at the time. Another criticism was that the Finnish coasts were not East Norse. However, if the Finnish coasts were East Norse, Finns would attack it as POV (there's no pleasing everyone).--Wiglaf 19:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I have more important things to do than to engage in revert wars with people. I will wait and see whether you get any support at Normans, but if you really believe in your theory you should be bold with the page and see how people react (but citing sources, of course).--Wiglaf 21:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ever partisan to the Zionist anti-Gentile abuse:

Block

Hi again, I've blocked you for a week for 3RR at Aelia Capitolina and for this comment. [1] This is to let you know that, if you make any further comments like this, you may be blocked indefinitely without further warning. There's no place in Wikipedia for anti-Semitism or racism, because we're here to write an encyclopedia. If you decide to carry on editing, and you feel you're being opposed in a way that's unfair, please contact other editors for help, or argue your case on the talk page in a reasonable manner. If you feel this block is unfair, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of his white lie treachery

  • 19:40, 12 August 2005, SlimVirgin blocked #30939 (expires 19:40, 13 August 2005) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "TheUnforgiven". The reason given for TheUnforgiven's block is: "3RR violation and anti-Semitic abuse, as before; has been warned many times".)
  • 19:40, 12 August 2005, SlimVirgin blocked TheUnforgiven (expires 19:40, 19 August 2005) (contribs) (3RR violation and anti-Semitic abuse, as before; has been warned many times)

The Far left component of Wikipedia is so extreme as to allow Zionist systemic bias in favour of culture wars against the Goy collective. Among Gentiles, this is called White guilt. Such people see the Romans as evil but look to the Jews as heroes. Said people also see Christians as evil but look to the Muslims as heroes. These people can also be Neo-Nazis who think that Christianity is Jewish or believe in Christian Identity and are part of British Israelism. Unfortunately, there are proponents of Christian Zionism and Neoconservatism as well. I am absolutely sure that I am a taboo individual at the Wikipedia, because I am no revisionist as all these other crackpots celebrate themselves being in "the real truth". I am as orthodox as they come and I don't accept any rewrote bullshit masquerading as fact, from all these leftists in every stripe. My orientation is to deliver the truth as written centuries ago and none of this Anti-European/American, Anti-Caucasian/White garbage will hold me down. These blocks and reverts are a farce for the supposed power these jackasses have in real life, because this is just about the only amount of reality they will accept. So there you are in witnessing my clearly stated bias to the straight-laced and narrow truth, that I would swear on the Bible for court. I know that is taboo talk too, but the leftists will never conquer my righteous heart. Censor my work and all that, but I am not the one hiding from the genuine like all these manpussy faggots who don't say that they have propaganda. TheUnforgiven 20:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)