User talk:Johanneswilm

Discussion about European countries

You said that I should verify all the numbers and definitions for nationality for each of those. I wrote about it in my talk page with a bit more detail but the issue isn't nationality or the number of nationals. That varies from country to country but each article's infobox links to the definition of ethnic group and this definition is the same for all of them. That's where the issue is, not about nationality but ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grondolf (talk • contribs) 01:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Email

Thanks for your email. I am paying attention to the topics you suggested.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Norwegian diaspora for deletion.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Volksdeutsche is not the same term as ethnic German-do stop changing this word in articles and do not move the article Volksdeutsche into Ethnic German.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Yes it redirects to ethnic Germans because You made that redirect. Anyway Wikipedia is based on scholarly sources and not on wiki. Read scholarly sources-I assure you this a specific term.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Your or mine opinion is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not based on personal research but on reliable sources. Volksdeutsche is a historic term, that doesn't what you want to describe.I suggest you read Himmler's Auxiliaries: The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle and the German National Minorities of Europe, 1933-1945 by Valdis O. Lumans.Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC) I suggest reading the article before you start edits. You would find sentence that says: For Hitler and other Germans of his time, the term "Volksdeutsche" also carried overtones of blood and race not captured in the common English translation "ethnic Germans". Not to mention your change led to this bizarre and absurd sentence: In 21st century Poland, the word Ethnic German is regarded as an insult, synonymous with "traitor" --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations: S-Z defines what Volksdeutsche means in scholarly terminology. I will add it to the article later.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perfect!

you want to stop moving things around without discussion, or to make sweeping changes to long-standing articles with long histories of debate.

You are completely mistaken if you think Wikipedia article titles are in any way affected by what terminology is "legally recognized by the German state".[1] If you want to change article titles, you are asked to provide evidence that your preferred page title is the most commonly used term in English language expert literature (this is en-wiki. It is irrelevant what the German government chooses as its preferred terminology. See WP:UE). If you can provide evidence for a move based on such grounds, I will immediately support you in implementing it. --dab (𒁳) 20:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at more of your "work". While there is no doubt that you edit in good faith, you have done little more than creating problems and disruption so far. Seriously. You have a strongly held opinion, apparently along the lines that there is no ethnicity in Europe, at least not in countries where the government doesn't have any "official" definition of ethnicity. This is certainly a possible political point of view, which can be carefully documented as one opinion, basically the "leftist" outlook on European nationhood, in appropriate articles. It doesn't mean that it is the only correct view, and that you can go across our articles on European peoples and impose your view as the only correct one. You need to learn about WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:RS and just resign yourself to document your opinions based on quotable literature as one possible outlook on the question.

I assume that you think you are doing something to counteract ethnic nationalism here. Let me tell you that I have spent great effort to contain ethnic nationalism on Wikipedia for the best part of the past six years. You do not contain political opinions by promoting their opposite. You do also not contain ethnic nationalism by denying the fact that there is such a thing as ethnicity. The proper approach here on this encyclopedia is to insist on discussing these questions in a detached manner and based on academic literature, rather than try and fight fire with fire. Thank you.

--dab (𒁳) 10:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about what in the Breivik article?

I thought that the consensus was that legitimate mainstream secondary sources are not to be edited out because we may not agree with them. These are direct quotes of a legitimate secondary source, what consensus do you mean? Please see the article talk page before further edits on this. Scott P. (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus about whether the reference is out of context and or gets undue amount of attention. He wrote 1500 pages, praising everything anti-Muslim there is in the world, yet you choose to only pick a few lines which you interpret as meaning that he admires Bin Laden. The CBS article you linked also puts the Bin Laden text in the context of general hate of Muslims, a detail you conveniently oversee. Please take the discussion to the talk page of the article. I will not discuss it any further here. --Johanneswilm (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm quoting 3 sentences out of about 20 by a CBS reporter who summarizes the overly long work. Most of the other 17 sentences are already found in our Wikipedia article. You can reply in the article's talk page, if you don't mind. Scott P. (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming my talk page. Go back to the original discussion on the issue on the talk page of the article. You have not had consensus in your favor in the past and do not get it either by simply forcing your opinion through. --Johanneswilm (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Johanneswilm,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Your Wikimedia account has been unlocked as no longer compromised, and I have lifted the local block accordingly. Hope to see you around the wiki! 20 years is a long time to have had an account! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]