User:Chris 73/Archive 008

Wikimedia Foundation

If you find this page on any other site than Wikipedia, then you are viewing this from a outdated mirror. Please direct yourself to the real thing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chris_73 or one of the subpages there.

This is an archive of my Talk page. Do not edit this page! Please leave new messages on my Talk page.

(Old archives: 001 — 002 — 003 — 004 — 005 — 006 — 007 — 008 — 009 — 010 — 011 — 012)

Thanks

For reverting my friend's User-page so fast back in July 2005. Really means a lot to him. 194.109.22.149 15:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Pixelquelle

Hi. I'm afraid pixelquelle.de images aren't PD. They are under a custom license which is noncommercial, and other restrictions that makes them unusable.

Image:GreenTrousers.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:GreenTrousers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Secretlondon 17:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:ArmorSchlossHomburg.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:ArmorSchlossHomburg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Secretlondon 17:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:LaundryLine.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:LaundryLine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Thanks for dropping me the notice. I uploaded the images a long time ago when it still was an acceptable license. Now I completely support their deletion. Good work cleaning up Wikipedia. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 18:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mescaline1.jpg

I don't think this is pd. The source German wikipedia had no longer has the photos available but nothing on that site looks pd - its a US university - not the work of the US federal government as far as I can see. Secretlondon 19:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I copied the image from the german wiki, but since they now state that it is no longer PD, the image should be deleted here, too. Please go ahead and delete it. Happy editing. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I changed PD to non PD on German wiki as I can't find any evidence that it is - so my altering their page doesn't count as evidence! I wanted to draw their attention to it (my German is strictly de-1). Secretlondon 20:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I also cannot verify now if the image is PD or not, since the source page is gone. To delete or not to delete... either way is fine by me. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Super Smash Brothers. Revolution

Just wanted to let you know that I had already put this article up for AFD when you deleted it with no explanation. I was thinking about speedying it myself but it doesn't fall under any of the CSD criteria so I hope you don't mind that i took the liberty of undeleting the article so that it can finish it's run on AFD. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Cereal

Hi. A few months ago there was a vote to delete an individual cereal article. Since i think your latest contributions (Weetabix Minis, Fruit 'n Fibre) are nice, but the topic is not encyclopedic, i have listed them on WP:AFD. Feel free to comment on the Voting pages. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. It is difficult to decide what stays and what goes, and I am myself often not sure. In any case, the articles were well written and linked, and it was good work, even though at least the Weetabix one is vanity. I hope this does not dampen your enthusiasm, since your contributions in general are good and wanted at Wikipedia. Best wishes and Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed a 'Ready Brek' article I'd written, and been in the middle of correcting when I noticed your original message and got distracted. It was there (and wrong) anyway, so I figured I may as well correct it. Feel free to decide if it's worth keeping. Just out of curiosity, what do you think of TV/VCR_combo and VCR/DVD_combo? I'd tidied the first one up a few days back, but my gut reaction was that I'm not sure they should have been there in the first place; they had some mildly useful info (once cleaned up), but should they be separate articles? Would you put this on 'articles for deletion'? I'm not that experienced, so I erred on the side of caution. However..... And I'm not going to get started on the quality of the photo; it illustrates the point, but it's very poor otherwise; the person didn't even clean/edit the green 'snot' from the front of the thing :-O Fourohfour 00:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. It seems the current tendency of the vote is to keep the articles. In this case my first guess was too conservative, sorry for causing trouble. If the vote survives, feel free to create more cereal articles, and I will be perfectly fine with it. Even for long time Wikipedians it is sometimes difficult to estimate what stays and what goes. As for the TV/VCR/DVD combos, these are a group of products, not just a single brand, and my feeling is that they should stay. I wish you all the best and happy editing! -- Chris 73 Talk 09:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. BTW, since we're discussing AfDs, and you have more experience than me, what's the etiquette on 'drastic' consolidation/redirection of articles? (i.e. where a number of articles which *someone* feels should be combined get merged into a single one, and the others are redirected to this). Should it be voted upon?

Fourohfour 22:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to check the talk page. If there is a significant discussion going on, you may want to bring up the topic there first. Otherwise, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages and just change it. Pretty much everything can be made undone if necessary. The only two things to take care of: (1) Try to keep most of the information, i.e. no missing subsections in the final combination. (2) If you move an article, use the "Page Move" function, rather than a cut/copy operation. By using "Page Move" you also move the edit history. If teh page move is not yet available to you (a safety feature for very new users to prevent page move vandalism, which puts a high load on the servers), list it on Wikipedia:Requested moves, and it will be moved in time. Otherwise go ahead and move/merge. If others disagree, it can always be discussed on the various talk pages. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 14:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Chris!

Thanks my dear Chris!

Thank you for your good wishes, my dear Chris! The reason why I didn't tell you about my RfA is that I intentionally did no campaigning for myself, which I find distasteful. Thus I didn't notify any of my friends about it; it would have been very easy to let you do the voting for me, but I wanted community to decide, and I feel glad that I was considered worthy. Thank you!

I've detached myself from German-Polish issues on purpose too, because I felt that nothing was being gained in the matter, and my Wikistress rose like a rocket. Could you update me on the matter? I feel I'm in better position now to help if needed. I hope you're doing creat, Chris, and I'm here whenever you need me. Hugs! Shauri smile! 22:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The "new" Emperor

You might want to take a look at the recent edits of User:86.140.64.32, User:86.137.198.78, and User:86.131.15.13. Each one has been adding links to various articles connected with Germany and European nobility. The links are run by someone in England claiming to be the next Holy Roman Emperor. I am unsure if any of the information should be kept or not; while the lists on the pages could be useful, the crackpot delusions of the site owner cast doubt on the entire page. Olessi 16:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Kosavo Edits

I was just looking for odd anon edits, thanks for the reverts! Ronabop 15:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget...

... to Smile! for me today, my dear Chris! :) Hugs! Shauri smile! 23:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Article names

Hello Chris! I have initiated discussions at Talk:Bishopric of Warmia, Talk:Ştefan cel Mare, and Talk:Ţara Bârsei about changing their article names. Take a look if you are interested. Olessi 20:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Image source/licensing for Image:Berners-Lee.jpg

The image you uploaded, Image:Berners-Lee.jpg, has no no source information. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be marked for deletion on 24 October 2005.

This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 12:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo

Hey Chris. You know (I hope) that I tend to stay out of the entire Gdansk vote dispute, but I've noticed it is a second time you have blocked User:Molobo, citing this vote as the reason, when in fact he has not broken the 3RR rule. I don't recall that this vote allows anybody to block a person who goes agaisnt it (if he in fact has done so)? It allows those who act according with the vote result to ingnore the 3RR, but does not give them the blanket 'block warrant' for everybody. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Btw, support for this block by anon of such estimeed contributions does not vouch good for your decisions. Anyway, I would like to ask you for your definition of the 'shared history' in the Gdansk vote. I can imagine people arguing that the all cities in Poland are affected by it, since they were a part of Germany from 1939/1941 to 1944. What do you think about that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Chris has not requested support from the anon, so that does not have any relevance. I agree that Molobo should not have been blocked, as I do not see that he broke the 3RR either. I am strongly in favor of further discussion of the Vote so that "shared history" can be clarified to avert the all-too-frequent arguments over it. Olessi 02:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. I did not block Molobo for a 3RR, but for disrupting Wikipedia. (This is a valid reason to block according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy [1]). A block of Witkacy for the same reason was spontaneously confirmed by another admin whom I did not know before. About the vote: The vote is not perfect, but I still think it is good. A very strong majority voted for double naming, yet a few editors go into the face of the 70%+ majority. Molobo would even remove the birthplace of a bio-article from the middle ages just so that there is no mentioning of Danzig [2]. He did remove double naming repeatedly and over long periods. He also has the annoying habit of calling edits he does not like either vandalism or personal attacks, and he is in a POV dispute with dozends of editors and a few admins. Hence I finally blocked him for disrupting Wikipedia and going against community consensus by again despite multiple warnings removing double naming. On one point I agree with you, maybe the wording of the vote should be renamed to something like "other names still in use in English in relation to the article". On the other hand, every voting result can be misinterpreted and stretched beyond reason if someone really wants to. One editor even wanted to rename New York since it has a relation to Polish-German history. If you have a solution for this conflict I am all ears. I DO have a high opinion of you, and value your contributions. I just don't want to go back to ignore the vote and restart hundreds of edit wars. Other than that I have little interest in articles about Polish or German history. Best wishes and happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 12:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I do not know this anon, and I have not requested support from anybody. I also dislike German POV edits. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Disruption, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be well defined and are definetly controversial. Besides, I don't see that Molobo has been warned before the block, which is a requirement. All things consider, I'd advice you not to block him unless he breaks a rule like 3RR. Or you may want to go for dispute resolution, like RfC or RfA. I am reminded of a lenghty disupute with user:Zvinbudas, but even through he was much more aggressive then Molobo, I (and other involved admins) never blocked him for 'disruption', only for 3RR and personal attacks - they are much safer and nobody objected to them. Eventually we were able to get an aribration ruling to ban him from Wiki. I don't think, however, that Molobo behaviour breaches the line enough to warrant such an action, but if you feel it does, you have non-controversial, legal means to deal with it. As for Gdańsk vote, perhaps we could have an additional vote on the clarification of the 'shared history'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"I also dislike German POV edits." Chris comment : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.7.179.169&diff=9421756&oldid=9421733 "A very strong majority voted for double naming" Actually a very strong majority voted for Gdansk to be named Gdans from 1466 to 1793 yet was ignored. "and he is in a POV dispute with dozends of editors" You yourself are in POV disputes, and Wiki policy forbids admins in POV disputes with the user to block the user.You violated that policy. " Other than that I have little interest in articles about Polish or German history. Best wishes and happy editing " Doesn't seem so in this comment where you supported an antipolish vandal and presented him "fine example of polish culture" as you called : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.7.179.169&diff=9421756&oldid=9421733 --Molobo 13:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to support Chris on the vote removal - majority of the removed votes were sockpuppets or new users who created accounts just for the vote and then dissapeared. I do understand your argument 'on what basis were they removed'? Common sense, unfortunately, easily leads to disputes and is not very NPOVed. I have proposed a change in voting procedures but unfortunately it didn't generate much support (although, now that I think of it, it didn't generate any opposition, so maybe we should go ahead and apply those changes to Survey guidelines?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your update on Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes. Also, i have definitely warned Molobo, SpaceCadet, and other user numerous times. I do not block without warning (unless the username includes on wheels), and in the Gdansk issue I have warned repeatedly and frequently. I had no contact with the user Zvinbudas, but if he got banned by the arbcom then I am sure he deserved it. In the Gdansk issue, we have the advantage of a vote with a clear outcome (double naming), and I plan to support it until we have something better. If necessary I will block users. This support comes with common sense, so I don't agree with the recent renaming of Braunschweig. If you see me reverting an edit you think was good let me know. I make mistakes, too, and I do value your comments. Thanks! -- Chris 73 Talk 05:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"we have the advantage of a vote with a clear outcome" Which was ignored.Also your comments about what is a high Polish culture and who are Polish editors show that you have a certain bias towards Poland.As an an admin perhaps you should refrain from topics towards which you have a certain prejudices as shown above ?--Molobo 14:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

H'lo Monsieur Molobo, you don't seem to have read (or at least not understood) the NPOV policy, because it clearly states that "people are inherently biased" and I'd laugh straight into your face if you'd tell me you aren't or any less biased than anyone else. Oh, and please try to avoid hypocritical advises. As if anyone would consider taking it. As if it was reasonable to just leave Wikipedia to the anarchic POV-pushing of nationalistic mentalities only because one certain individual complains about perceived bias.

Chris, I really have to thank you for maintaining the task of thwarting those people. As well as continuous work and those peoples' blizzards of libel and hate, the task is only thankless. So Ireally have to express my great respect for your work. As those anti-vote people become organized and try to wage revert wars with every revert warrior having three reverts until the next comes, why not block the stubborn warrior if violation against the community consensus allows it. It's more productive than having to protect every affected page or play endless revert wars. The way of revert wars should be clearly discouraged if it violates a decision based on majority voting.NightBeAsT 20:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Strong support for Molobo-Blocking

The reason you gave is not the only reason to block Molobo. He is also removing comments of other people who do not have the same opinion as he. You have my strong support! Thanks!

I just want to add that Molobo has been banned twice from the Axis History Forums (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=7219&start=105) for constantly violating the rule that no serious national or religious insults are allowed. After realizing that he had no other chance to spread his personal German hate, he has come to wikipedia to do it all over again. I strongly suggest that he gets warned and after it banned, because his "contributions" to Wikipedia are far more serious. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and many people who come to this page take Molobos nationalistic view on history for granted. He can do MUCH harm if you let him get away with his "hidden agenda". I have only registered to Wikipedia for informing you about Molobos own history. In general, the idea of Wikipedia is great, because all people can give their knowledge about certain topics. But it is very open for people with a hidden agenda (eg Molobo). Thanks for taking my points into account.

Sorry if you have reasnoble arguments take them into articles.If you find any incorrect information be my guess to correct it.After nothing stops you from adding information you find correct. " for constantly violating the rule that no serious national or religious insults are allowed." Please don't lie, no such thing happened,my account was banned only once and as to reason for banning Axis it is governed by different rules then Wiki and frankly my often offtopic discussions had more to do with it. I certainly don't use any insults.Particulary religious ones since I am an atheist and see value in all religions.Of course since you lie about I urge you to give example of my supposed "religious and national" insults.Be my guest. --Molobo 19:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Chris, follow the provided link. There you can read why the Administrator banned Molobo and his former alias Obserwator. The reasons were given by him and not what Molobo wants you to believe. Molobo is just deceiving and evading. Axis History is a serious page with people from all over the world. People are not banned for just having a different opinion. It takes some serious actions for being banned. I just want to inform you about Molobos past and why his "focus" went to Wikipedia.

Hi Quak. Looking at Molobos edits on Wikipedia I am willing to believe you. Unfortunately, without a login on axishistory.com I cannot see the information you mentioned on your site. In any case, on Wikipedia he is judged by what he does on Wikipedia only. But nevertheless than you for the info. Best wishes. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"There you can read why the Administrator banned Molobo " Why there is nothing about my banning is there ? And if you are so sure why don't you post it ? Simple-I made no national or religious insults.

"Unfortunately, without a login on axishistory.com I cannot see the information you mentioned on your site" You don't need login on axis to search for my posts, or posts about me. In fact I urge to do so to see that this lies are nothing more then lies. "Looking at Molobos edits on Wikipedia I am willing to believe you" Please point me to any insult I made. --Molobo 23:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes

The debate has restarted, your input would be much appreciated, as the discussed propoasal is the one incorporating your previous suggestions and comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Moves

Hello Chris! Would you be able to move Bishopric of Warmia to Archbishopric of Warmia? I can't change it myself, since the redirect already exists. You also might want to add your thoughts on Talk:Weissenburg in Bayern about a move to Weißenburg in Bayern. Olessi 17:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

moved. Thanks for the info on weissenburg -- Chris 73 Talk 17:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:CellMembraneDrawing.jpg

Hi Chris, I'm interesting to use the 'CellMembraneDrawing.jpg' to ilustrate one of the my chapters in my PhD Thesis. How do I know if I can or not use it? (user:200.130.12.28)

Check the image page Image:CellMembraneDrawing.jpg, where you can find its copyright. This particular image is public domain, and can be used freely. For a good PhD thesis i would still sugest to give a citation to the source. Good luck -- Chris 73 Talk 17:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk article

You seems to have been an active participant in the Gdansk talk page. I just wanted to notice you that the page is under heavy attacks by Polish chauvinists who make propaganda edits. The situation is quite unbearable when the article is filled with propaganda for much of the time. Perhaps you could watch after the article. Miroslawa 04:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk

Please include an english document that mentions German name of Motława river and reason why you consider its current name shares Polish-German history.If it does I open to giving its a German version of the name.All according to to rules in the vote mind you.Currently however the river doesn't involve any joint Polish-German history as far as I know and thus the German version of the Polish name doesn't fall into the vote. --Molobo 18:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A very brief search revealed at least two english language books [3], [4], and a whole bunch of websites that use only Mottlau, including some in the polish domain [5]. As for the shared history, correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe the river flowed through Gdansk when it was part of Germany, too. Hope this satisfies your curiosity -- Chris 73 Talk 19:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto dozends of books for Thorn, Kulmerland, Marienburg, Elbing, Ermeland, Allenstein. Gdansk/Danzig needs no separate proof, i believe. Best regards, -- Chris 73 Talk 19:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes you provided many books with Germanised names but please provide ones that use German names in relation to period and event we are speaking about. Please don't use personal sites and blogs as they don't count under Wiki policies. --Molobo 19:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The vote requires a shared history.Please provide a shared history confirmation for Motława in regards to historical period it is described in the article.If you would be talking about period when the region was occupied by Germany then the Germanised named could be used, however the article speaks about present day and no major shared history is given.As to argument: I do believe the river flowed through Gdansk when it was part of Germany, too. Its a poor argument of "shared history". Warsaw was part of German territory too during WW2.Do you intend to name it Warschau ? Furthermore the article speaks about present day not about period of German occupation. The site http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8158 doesn't posses Germanised name of Motława. -- Molobo 19:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.bruno-groening.org/english/brunogroening/ichlebe_buch.htm This site is about the birth and childhood of Bruno Groening and is not meant to be used as historical reference.

OK, here's a history book about the river [6]. Herethe river was used as a border line. BTW, the Gdansk article includes the Gdansk history, hence the name is appropriate, unless you can prove me that the river flows through Gdansk only since 1945. -- Chris 73 Talk 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry but the book is unaccesable to me.From a distorted fragment i only see a german name without the context-it seems it does speak about WW2 not modern period as it is used in the article though. Gdansk article includes the Gdansk history, hence the name is appropriate, Again I am sorry but the Germanised version of the Polish name is used in relation to current geographic and economic setup of Poland and doesn't fulfill the requirment of shared history.Again if it would be about period of German occupation we could add the Germanised name if its important for history of Germany. Please provide an English reference document that uses the Germanised name in relation to current geographic and economic setup of Poland as it is used in the article.Please aslo provide reason why do you believe the river enjoys shared history with Germany in relation to the period the article mentions it.I am waiting for your responce. --Molobo 20:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, about the Gutemberg site: You would have to click on one of the links. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo

I request that User Molobo be blocked in view of his incessant reverts of the Gdansk/Danzig article with a version stating that Danzig was "liberated" in 1945 -- an indefensible distortion of events. See my discussion on the Gdansk/Danzig talk page.

Thank you.

Sca 19:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC) an indefensible distortion of events Gdansk was invaded by German Reich on 1st September 1939 and occupied by its forces till 1945.Whats the problem ? --Molobo 19:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop from editing Pokoj Torunski until the naming dispute is over

This is not well for our discussion.Please provided Germanised names of the regions in English Reference Document that speaks about the time and event that is disputed.Thank you.I hope you will agree to my proposal not to temper with the article untill such sources are provided. --Molobo 20:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC) DO not remove valid information from articles I removed the information from the article because currently we don't know if its correct.Until you provide a English Reference Document that uses Germanised names of these locations in relation to period and event it would be best to not use names that are disputed. --Molobo 20:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the shared history, the article is largely about history, including a lot of german history. The river is mentioned outsided history section, in regards to current geography and economy of Poland.Thus it doesn't fulfill the requirment of shared history.

If you have an article that does not touch history before 1945, I can live with single naming (e.g. soccer clubs etc) The name is used in relation to situation post 1945. --Molobo 20:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As the mentioning of the Motława in the article is not in a historical context, I agree with Molobo that there is no need for double-naming. I would expect it in a historical context, however, ala "grain was shipped to the city along the Motława (Mottlau) river". Olessi 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

German noticeboard?

Is there one? I wanted to post a request for an article on German nobility but I cannot find any place other then Wikipedia:Requested articles for it. There is a Category:German nobility, a proposed stub template - but no article on such an important subject? Can you check German wiki if there is a corresponding article and perhaps create a stub? Tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. I created a stub German nobility for you, based on de:Adel, which was the closest I could find on the German Wiki. It has a large section on German nobility, some parts of which i translated. Please check the stub, since my nobility-related vocabulary is not so good. Also, I think there is no German Noticeboard on the En Wiki. Strange. Anyway, happy editing! -- Chris 73 Talk 12:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Tnx! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a good start for the German nobility article. Ernst, Graf von Mansfield needs to have his last name changed from Mansfield to Mansfeld; however, should the article be at Ernst, Graf von Mansfeld, Ernst, Count of Mansfeld, Count Ernst of Mansfeld, or Ernst von Mansfeld (which the German wiki uses)? There doesn't seem to be a set naming system at Category:German nobility. Olessi 17:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. A quick google count for english language sites: Ernst von Mansfeld: 1910 hits, Ernst Graf von Mansfeld 629 hits, Ernst Count of Mansfeld 11 hits, Count Ernst of Mansfeld 7 hits. Hence i would go with Ernst von Mansfeld, but mention all the other variants in the article. But otherwise any version is fine by me. -- Chris 73 Talk 19:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article. Would you be able to move it to Ernst von Mansfeld, or does it have to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves and a discussion first? Olessi 02:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved the whole thing to Ernst von Mansfeld, and created redirects. Wikipedia:Requested moves is needed only if you cannot move the page yourself, or if it is a controversial move, which I think (hope) this one wasn't. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 06:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your assistance! Olessi 07:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Admins above the law?

I think we may have a problem requiring some attention. You know I try to avoid the nationality discussions, but I think that admins should not block users if they haven't broken any rule. I'd appreciate your comment on this. It also seems that Kulturkampf page has become the site of a new, nasty revert war, with admins (German admins?) exclusively on one side, and some Polish editors on the other. This can get nasty pretty quick, so I would be happy to see some more reasonable people intervene and stop the hotheads before it spins out of controll. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

See? I told you so :/ What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment

Could you please respond to this thread? Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Done -- Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 09:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

I think you would be interested in voting here, especially as there are voices that Halibutt is an anti-German (Russian, etc.) POV-pusher, dispute aggreviator and member of a Polish conspiracy to take over WIki :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Second? That's interesting. Is it archived somewhere? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... i was sure there was a nomination something like 2 years ago, but I can't find anything now. even though I went looking around quite a bit. As long as I can't find anything, treat it like it did not happen. Maybe my brain is playing tricks on me. I'll keep on looking. Also, at one point Space Cadet asked me to nominate him User:Chris_73/Archive_004#User_talk:24.7.179.169, which i politely declined. -- Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 09:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I remember this is the first time I agreed to my nomination and the first time a RfA process was started. Or perhaps there was some earlier process I'm not aware of? Let me know should you find it somewhere, might be interesting to read :) Halibutt 18:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Halibutt, seems I was wrong. I could have sworn there was a previous RFA for you, but it looks my mind is playing tricks on me. Sorry for the confusion, and my apologies. I'll also clarify it on Piotruis talk page. -- User:Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk 21:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, I believe there's nothing wrong in being nominated for an admin IMO :) Halibutt 22:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

sea of japan image

hi, about your sea of japan image, as mentioned at Talk:Sea of Japan#map:

• korea strait refers to the entire strait between japan & korea, this is not clear in the map. see map for Korea Strait & [7]
• what is labeled as tsushima basin appears to be more commonly referred to as ulleung basin in english: [8] [9] [10]; see also google results: [11] [12]
• this one is less clear-cut, & i wouldn't call it an error given the controversy, but i think the main label should be "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" because:

1. that's how the sea is described in the article
2. that's how britannica (see above link), rand mcnally, & nat'l geography identify it
3. the vote at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) 3. For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea)), & this article's main claim to fame is the dispute, although, it could also fall under 1. For all international articles use: Sea of Japan.

thanks. Appleby 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

When i created the map, I used Sea of Japan (East Sea) as the name of the sea. Another user changed the name on the image on the commons. I just rolled it back, so the image should be fine now. When i created the image, the basin was listed in the article as tsushima basin, hence i used this name. Now only ulleung is listed in the article. I think both names should be in the article, as the english language google count is only 669:402 for ulleung. I can update the map - as soon as I get to my computer again, probably next weekend. Finally, the straits: This was my mistake, I should update this, too. Not sure how exactly to do the layout so that it is both clear and also readable -- Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 23:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work. However please see discussion regarding the western channel of Korea Strait.

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names

What started as a discussion to stop some revert warring involving Russian names is developing into something big - maybe even with a potential of finally fixing the Gdansk (sad excuse for a) vote. We would definetly appreciate your comments, and if you think that others may be interested in this, please spread the word.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Braun (disambiguation)

I'd do it myself, but I cannot translate part of it: Talk:Braun. Since there is no German noticeboard, I am again posting it on your talk page (I looked at Portal talk:Germany but it is dead).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Meša Selimović

Can you explain me why did you reverted a version which is a compromise between User:Millosh and myself? That version was ok, but this is not ok? It is not according to facts. Have you read any novel by Meša Selimović? Emir Arven 15:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for details. I merely reverted you because of your 3RR, regarldess of the content. Please do not revert a page more than 3 times in 24 hours, because the next time you most likely will be blocked from editing for 24 hours. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have just seen that rule. I didnt know for that befor. I was just trying to protect compromise that I made with User:Millosh (from Serb Wikipedia), but after that hard-line Serb nationalists tried to destroy that compromise. Just see their contribution. They are constantly destroying articles related to Albanians, Bosniaks, Croats and Montenegrins (Serbs against the other people in the Balkans). Just check out contributions of these Serb users:User:Nikola Smolenski,User:PANONIAN and User:HolyRomanEmperor. They dont honour and act according to discussions, they act according to Serb mithology which says that all other nations that live in the Balkans were actually Serbs. Emir Arven 15:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that User:Emir_Arven has acused me of being a hard nationalist. You should read carefully what he told you and see User_talk:Emir_Arven and User_talk:Rx_StrangeLove, and read what he keeps spreading about Serbs as a whole nation throughout wikipedia. I have no interest in the bitter fights between him and User:Nikola_Smolenski regarding nationalist subjects like History of Republika Srpska that seem to have absolutly no end. But, as a historian, I do mind when people mess-up history-related articles. Emir, for instance, has edited this great writer' famous quotations: Petar Petrović Njegoš, you should see User_talk:Rx_StrangeLove and read the other nonsensical edits that he made. HolyRomanEmperor 16:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that it is a bit strange that he keeps acusing only Serbs, Croats and non-nationals (tha last being me; I am a cosmopolitan, and it appears that this exactly is what frustrated User:Emir_Arven) Besides, VKokielov, Rx_StrangeLove and now you have all warned him. And he logded an appeal (against me) which Owen (another administrator) found unaceptable. While my work is to destroy nation(alism)s and to make a utopia, he threw at my face that I am a nationalist? And a Serbian nationalist? :) HolyRomanEmperor 16:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You still keep lying about myself?! Pathetic. I have already shown that you lied about my contribution when you said to Rx_StrangeLove that I changed the articles: Raška, Travunia, Pagania, Zahumlje etc. And I have never visited those articles. You can see that here User_talk:Rx_StrangeLove. Emir Arven 17:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You also started a ban process against me which was discareded. Emir Arven 17:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I logded an appeal against you because you came to my talk page and started to spam it whit your question: "Was the Cetina-Una line the historic border of Croats and Serbs in the Early Medieval Ages? HolyRomanEmperor 17:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)" I said I am not interested in Croats and Serbs and their mithology, and you continued to spam my talk page: "Are you busy or what? Because I wanted to start a long discussion with you... You're not ignoring me intentionally, are you??? HolyRomanEmperor 16:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)" I asked you not to do that anymore, but you continued and lied that I did that because of your edits in the Njegoš article?! You can see that here...Emir Arven 17:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

So stop lying behind my back. Chris, I am sorry to use ur talk page to explain that. Just check his contribution. He continues to change and deny Bosniaks and Montenegrins in the articles.Emir Arven 17:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have already apologized and stated my inacurracy at User_talk:Rx_StangeLove. Those were the articles which I "run", and User:Emir_Arven edited unapropriately only Doclea and Zeta (state). He also misunderstood one fact about me. I am a libertarian and think that no one is anythin by birth, but should decide it throuh life. Meaning that Montenegrins and Bosniaks (and Muslims, Janyevs, Bunyevs, Šokci) are all disnict peoples. However, I do not approve changing and re-writing of quotations and history, like that user did in those two articles and at Petar Petrović Njegoš. I was not lying, nor do I think that the other user is lying about me. He only appears to have judged me wrongly (stereotype?) HolyRomanEmperor 18:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not have the knowledge to judge the content, I only enforced the 3RR. Since Emir Arven violated the 3RR multiple times despite being warned, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Please rest assured, that I also will block you if you violate the 3RR (provided that a) I notice, and b) I have time and energy to take care of it). This is also not a punishment, but merely to stop excessive reverts and to force the reverting parties to continue a discussion on the talk page. Please do so with Emir Arven after his block expires. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I am only worried by Emir_Arven's silence. His talk page is not operational for me, as he deletes all my posts, and when I make clear statements like on Njegos' talk page, he silently revert the article. I have no idea how to fight that save for reverting him back! P. S. I have heard of this 3RR before, but I am still not familiar with the rule. HolyRomanEmperor 13:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. But I still do not know how to deal with Emir Arven's edits, and not get banned because of 3RR... HolyRomanEmperor 21:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You didn't have to block Emir because he broked up 3RR just with adding POV tag. And we didn't have stable version of the article. I think that present version is stable enough. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Yea, I'm back after some pause. I didn't knew that I have to inform someone about 3RR, I thought that it should only be done when reporting vandalism and similar. You however haven't blocked him instantly but warned him at first (and I agree with that) so I believe it is OK. Nikola 23:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comitting suicide illustration

Chris 73, thanks for your note about the spelling change in the Death poem article. I hadn't noticed that what I was editing was the file name --- it was so long that it looked like a caption! Thanks for persisting in getting it right. Fg2 22:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

We (me and others) have violated the 3RR rule on the article of the Montenegrin national anthem. The discussion has (finally) started and is well underway, so I see no point to block anyone. Just a warning in case you decided to block anyone of us. HolyRomanEmperor 12:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, is there a possiblity of deleting my user-name? Or at least to put a tag that my user has permanenetly retired from wiki (I am extreemly disappointed by it) HolyRomanEmperor 21:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the day

Hi Chris,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Cathedral of Magdeburg Inside.jpg is due to make a reappearance as Pic of the Day on the 5th December. I've cut down the caption a little from the last time, but you can check it and make any improvements at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 5, 2005. -- Solipsist 21:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a name change. I meant permanent retiring. HolyRomanEmperor 22:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Fir0002 FPC page

Hi Chris!
Hope you can cast your vote on this batch of photos! Thanks --Fir0002 10:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And again here if you don't mind! --Fir0002 06:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Canberra Photos

Hi Chris, I would very much appreciate your input in the following argument. There seems to be a gang of users unwilling to allow anyone to interfere with there Canberra project without invitation. It was risky to take my camera on our school excursion to Canberra, but I did for the sake of the photos I could upload to Wiki. Needless to say, I'm deeply distressed over the reaction that has taken place. In particular, I would like to ask if the removal of all my photos off the Lake Burley Griffin article was a step forward in the usefullness of the page. Please either voice your opinion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra or write back to me. Thanks for your time (and I hope) support. --Fir0002 08:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Asim_Led has violated 3RR rule on History of Bosnia and Herzegovina more than once. As he is an administrator (but not on bosnian wiki), he most certainly knew about the rule. The other administrators didn't react in time, so I am notifying you. HolyRomanEmperor 18:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nine moves

Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Nine? There are nine articles which have recently been copy/paste moved incontroversially, so I believe that it would be much better if an admin (and that means you :) would move them properly now, rather than tediously merge edit histories later. If you don't have the time perhaps you could forward this to someone who likes moving articles :) Nikola 09:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! :) Nikola 10:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dragoljub Draža Mihailović

First off, thanks for repairing my nine cack handed cut and paste edits. I'm having some trouble with User: Bosniaco's approach to editing the article on Draža Mihailović. He waded in, changing the article back to his last version after almost two months (October 20 - December 13). I changed it back to generally accepted version three times(Edit History), but unfortunately as User: Bosniaco changed it back to his version of October 7 a fourth time in 24 hours, my hands are now tied and anyway, I don't have the time or inclination to get into a long running edit war. I offered to discuss his problems with the article each time but (as you can see in the edit history), but he just compared Mihailović to Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot and Ante Pavelić, not to mention that he insinuated I was a Fascist. I am NOT asking for him to be blocked for violating the 3 revert rule (although he has), just for it to be brought to his attention that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable when working on a collaborative project. I'd really appreciate it, thanks in advance. --estavisti 07:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I've also sent this message to User:ChrisO & User: Darwinek

SCA blocked

Chris, do you have any idea why I have been blocked by an administrator named Marudubshinki?

Sca 14:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ERP

Since you have edited Enterprise resource planning, I thought you might like to see that I just added some stuff both there and to its talk page. This is just a courtesy notification that I have updated the article since your last activity there, in case you share my interest in developing the potential of Wiki development of this article.

I believe that I have altered the tone of the article to correct what I thought was an unfortunate WP:POV, or historical bias, but there is also an issue with respect to adequately presenting information about commercial software, open source, and homebrew. Many facts about ERP are true in one of these three main areas, but totally wrong for the others.

I posted an uncertainty about disadvantages style in the December 23 section of the Help Desk whose first response cautioned risk of WP:NPOV. I can see apotential need to show several commonplace WP:POV that can risk article contamination, if not acknowledged. User:AlMac|^(talk) 22:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

J. W. Westcott II

Thank you for finding an image of the J. W. Westcott II to add to the article. As they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and trying to imagine something like a 45' long mail-boat is almost impossible without first hand knowledge of the subject. Thanks again, and since I am an "image" challenged editor, please feel free to puruse any of the articles I have listed on my user page, for further photographic enhancement. See you 'round! Hamster Sandwich 07:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

SS Keenora

Thank you for going through the trouble and finding the pictures of the Keenora and the Wolverine. Really saved my day. Should you find some more photos clearly showing the vessel I would like to see those (just drop a note on my talk page if you do). --Tve4 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)