User talk:Geo-Loge~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello, Geo-Loge~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! .--Dakota ~ ° 00:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcoming.

Please contact my german account, if you expect quick answers! Nevertheless I will also check this discussion page in future. Geo-Loge 12:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nadia Kittel

I would take it to WP:AN, WP:ANI or the Wikipedia:Requests for investigation page. Much more appropriate for what you are looking for. It's too complex for AIV. I'll warn him but I'd still take it to one of those other 3 places. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is doing fine constructive work on many articles. Solving would be better, I guess. Geo-Loge 11:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I warned him. Well he might be doing good work but on the other hand, what he is doing is very much against policy. Uploading images and listing yourself as the source isn't ok. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I posted here and went back to his talk page, he had removed the warning. *sigh* Going to try again. If he removes it again, I'd go to AN or AN/I if I were you and go from there. He needs to learn that communication is necessary here. Putting your fingers in your ears and pretending that you can't hear isn't the way to go. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the way he is ignoring messages is not very constructive and in some nuance aggressivly ;) Geo-Loge 12:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have others helping out. Good. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He had stop his blanking. Next step would be an answer.. :D Geo-Loge 12:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And unfortunately, if you look at his contribs, he went right back to uploading copyright vio images. Don't think he quite gets it. I'd recommend taking it to AN or AN/I. I'd handle it myself but I'm not an expert on copyright law. But some of the other admins are. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are a lot of copyright vio in different manner: missing license, wrong license, no Panoramafreiheit. At least one picture was redundant to the commons (where he had taken it from) but badly licensed (no CC-Attribution). I hardly do not know, what he is doing.. I even do not know if he does... Geo-Loge 13:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Resetting) I blocked him for 12 hours. I hate to do that, I really do. Something just needs to be done to get him to communicate. I don't know. Maybe he has a legitimate reason why he isn't communicating. As he ever left comments? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can not remember any comment on his changes. He has writen to an administrator this afternoon (european time) complaining my reverts. Since I have answered there, he is off.. Geo-Loge 01:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well hopefully the block will help. Maybe not. Either way, I'd keep the Request for Investigation going. The thing is, I don't care what you 2 work out. I just want both sides talking to each other. Otherwise, it's a recipe for edit wars and we don't want that. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never deleted any of his information and contributions. I have created a new article with his content but my information about this article never reached him. A strange case. Geo-Loge 01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. First, I am not an admin (though I wish to be) :) .

I've written a note to Nadia. I would also like to remind you (though I'm sure you know) of the 3 revert rule. You and Nadia have taken up a whole page of history for yourselves ;). Didn't your mother teach you to share? We'll see what Nadia says; he seems to be more receptive of me, perhaps because I was the one that welcomed him and gave him initial advice. I'll be around, so let me know how things are. And remember, always stay cool. Cheers! Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 03:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand why he has talked to you. At least one case is a clear copyright violation and reverts are needed also to save him of damages etc. I share Woohookitty's opinion: It is really sad blocking him, due to he in fact does not want anything to destroy. It is just his attitude as a lone fighter which creates ignorance. Geo-Loge 09:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm on WP:RFI patrol today. Has the situation with Nadia Kittel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) improved any? I don't see many complaints to him in the last week or so. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand him at all. His changes are often reverted in many topics like football and the ultra scene in football or history of former East Germany. But it seems like he is accepting the reverts. And he has not uploaded a copyright violating image for a longer time. But on the other side he never answered to any message left on his talk page. Strange guy at all. Geo-Loge 23:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bee swarm sections

I am sorry to be asking so bluntly: Did you translate the sections of the Civil Code yourself? Or whoever translated it, the translation has serious flaws. For instance, the incorrect use of a progressive aspect in sec. 923; translating "unverzüglich" with immediately, because "unverzüglich is legally defined in sec. 121 as being "without undue delay" and not immediately; the question is not whether the owner stops his pursuit, because a stop could be an involuntary act; "foreign land" sounds like it is land outside Germany, but it is land not owned by the owner of the bee swarm; beehive is the terminus technicus for "beeyard"; he has to compensate not the damage, but only the damage that was a result of the action. There are more incosistencies but those were some examples. Anyhow, I think a translation within the article is not neccessary, because the article already contains a link to a website which has the (withdrawn) translation of the Civil Code. Furthermore, it is not like the rhyme and the hexameter, where the precise wording is needed to demonstrate that the section is indeed a hexameter, respectively rhymes. Thus I believe it would be sufficient to state that the Civil Code has some very specific regulations dealing with ownership of bee swarms, and give the range (ie sec. 961-964). Blur4760 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tried to translate but wording was not thought over very intensive I see (and saw). I must have ignored the linked (official?) translation of the code.

I aggree that in fact a short summary of the four chapters would be the better way. But some of your wording is wrong too: Of course beehive would be a better terminus technicus but the german correspondent "Bienenstock" is not in use in the Code which uses a more general term "Bienenwohnung" - beeyard.

By the way: I tried to renew the legal system chapter of the Germany article. Maybe you can shortly review the text before I place it in the current version. Geo-Loge 20:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I admit I may have been wrong about the beeyard. The translation at the University of Edinburgh site used to be an official translation but was withdrawn by the Ministery of Justice for some errors in translation. Sure, you can send me your text before submitting it. I will look at it either this evening or tomorrow morning (let's say before 1 pm CEST). Blur4760 20:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Of course if you finish it later, send or post it later. Blur4760 22:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that User:Lear 21 rejected my larger contribution in the Germany article. I accepted his justification (the article was going to be featured article just some hours after my contribution.) Geo-Loge 09:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I didn't see that your changes were already visible at the link you indicated if only I had scrolled down... I went over your changes now (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&diff=121420982&oldid=121413507]) instead, and hope my revision is acceptable. Blur4760 14:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart - a German?

"Is there any question about Mozart as a German? This quote "killed" the discussion and your only argument is, that the discussion does not find any solution. Why searching it if Mozart gave the answer by himself? Geo-Loge 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

No, this quote did not kill the discussion, because other posters have been objecting to the claim that there was a "Germany" at Mozart's time. Maybe you should read the appropriate section on the talk page again!

Nellov5 02:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Germany at Mozart's time? He must be a stranded time traveller babbling senseless phrases. There was a Germany at his time (Großdeutschland) which is indeed different to the Germany of today (Kleindeutschland).

The term Deutschland (Germany) developed in the 15th century from the term teutsche Länder meaning all the german states of the HRE. So you all are concerned about Germany as a correctly defined entity. Germany has been the Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nationen (Holy Roman Empire of german Nations; a loose confederation), the Deutscher Bund (a loose confederation), the Deutsches Reich (German empire, established as a federation and transformed into a unitary state) and at last the Federal Republic of Germany (a federation). We had this discussion in de de.wikipedia: You will find literature and scientific work beginning in the 17th century that is about Germany and Germans.

So again, if Mozart would have proclaimed that he is Austrian and no German anymore (if he for example prefered Austria seperated) then we should respect his statement. But he did not and we should respect his proclaim.

The quote stopped the discussion for days. That is what I meant. Geo-Loge 09:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit of yours: I am confused. Does that refer to my last comment above? I didn't mean to suggest that one should use modern concepts of nationality. My examples of Kant and Kafka were rather meant to show how absurd that would be. Blur4760 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and tried to argue by the "german national identy" of confederations and federations. It is not an answer to yours, it is more an addition. Geo-Loge 09:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden data

Well, even if nobody conventionally compares city sizes by area (after all, what's the point, a city is defined by its people and not the amount of ground it covers), at least now the statement is verifyably true ;-). If you think this is semantics, please post a widely accepted citation of a source where the term "largest city" is referring to the area of ground a city covers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuthor (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A district is basically an area whose largeness is measured in m², km², square mile and not in GWh p.a., Beaufort in average or humans having their principal residence there. Dresden is the fourth largest urban district and the 13th largest city in Germany. Geo-Loge (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or to differentiate the largeness: Dresden is the 4th largest urban district an the 13th most populous city in Germany. Geo-Loge (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wines

Hello, I undid your edit to Template:Wines. While that template is horrible in itself, we write for an international audience, it is the international notability that should guide when it comes to "non-English speaking phenomena". Outside of Germany, in principle only Riesling wines are noted, and this has been the case for the last 200 years or so. You may wish to consult which wines and wineries are covered and rated by international wine critics. Württemberg exports approximately zero, and Franconia is surprisingly unknown outside a few northern European export markets. Saying that Rheingau is less known that these is completely false, especially from a historical point of view (the Prädikat system and so on), and Nahe has built up a considerable international reputation in the last decade or so. Of course, the content of the template is up to debate, but if you include any German regions at all, Mosel and Rheingau have to be there from a notability point of view. Tomas e (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Statistics of Dresden

I have nominated Statistics of Dresden, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistics of Dresden. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Geo-Loge. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Geo-Loge~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

00:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

13:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]