User talk:Matthead/Archive2007

Re:ABT and Abt

Alright, cheers. enochlau (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

stub sort with AWB

I fully understand your concern and hope that we get some action from the AWB programers. Bis denne, STTW (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging of grosh and groschen

While I'm not the expert of this domain, I wonder if the talk page should be merged too? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've put a remark on Talk:Groschen to fill the emptiness there. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent Groschen edits

Isn't Groschen plural for Grosch ? --Lysy^talk 12:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not in German, there is no "Grosch": 1 Groschen, 2 Groschen, 1/2 Groschen, consistent use, maybe related to Plurale tantum. As for any unit, there's only one official German name for the currency, e.g. Mark, Thaler, Kreuzer, Schilling, Franken, Rappen, Heller (money), Pfennig or most foreign currencies. Other countries/languages may have historically developed more complicated names (even different plurals), but adopt the straightforward singular=plural also, see Linguistic issues concerning the euro.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought there was ein Grosch in Austria. I may have been wrong, though. --Lysy^talk 21:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC) No, I've checked my old German stamps collection (pre-1871) and it's always been Groschen or Silbergroschen (or Thaler, or Schilling or Kreuzer of course), you are right. --Lysy^talk 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

• lol @ " that guy a.k.a. this bloke, and that thingie" :-) I replied in my talk page. - Best regards, Evv 10:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nikolaus von Renys vs. Mikołaj of Ryńsk

Matthead, please read this suggestion about 2 articles and the note on Schwabe [1] Labbas 8 January 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.31.82 (talk • contribs)

---

WP:RM is what you should be using from the start.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi, there seems to be agreement on Nicolas von Renys- that is ok with me (I guess you can skip condensing the talk (as I suggested earlier today ?). Maybe you need to wait longer untill you can move it? Labbas 10 January 2007

---

Re Talk archiving

Hi Matthead,

...I notice that you had archived the talk on Copernicus by Copy&Paste once, rather than by a move which preserves the history. You do the same with your archives. Is that an intentional choice of yours? I think that moving is the preferred method among most editors, even though the policy gives several options.

It is intentional – and I hope it does preserve the history; the version in the talk page history just before the transfer of material to an archive page should carry that material. I'm not sure how moving a page would work, as the whole page would need to be moved; this would mean the most recent messages would most likely be archived too quickly (unless none had been posted in the few days or weeks before moving the page). However, I hope I haven't overlooked or misunderstood the process!  Thanks for your message, David Kernow (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten to mention Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Just in case you missed it, it gets shown as a suggestion when a talk page is considerd long.

I hadn't looked at this page in a long time and see it is now more sophisticated; thanks for prompting me to do so!  Best wishes, David (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page: "The most common, beneficial method is the cut and paste procedure." I find that moving causes problems with putting the current discussion back on the talk page, as you have to cut and paste to do that, which messes up the history.... Carcharoth 13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your report on WP:AIV

You need to warn users at least once (in case of {{bv}} or {{test4}}), before reporting them on WP:AIV. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I find it hard to catch IP vandals with their gun smoking when I just notice that articles on my watchlist had been vandalized e.g. during the night. And why yet another warning when they already have enough on their talk, threatening blocks, which then are not made, or if so, maybe are not felt at all as the users is absent anyway. Its annoying that so much time and effort is wasted by dealing with blatant vandals or unsupervised kiddies. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus and German Christmas traditions

I could use your help with Rex Germanus. Please take a look at both German Christmas traditions and Talk:German Christmas traditions. He also posted the neutrality tag. Thanks. --The Argonaut 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has now removed the neutrality tag, but Rex continues to delete sections. --The Argonaut 17:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole article German Christmas traditions was deleted [2] by admin User:Centrx. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical Eastern Germany

I think you'll be quite interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

I have been accused of being a vandal on User:LUCPOL/Vandal:R9tgokunks due to past editing disputes with yourself, or other being involved in ways with yourself. Since you have been mentioned, i'd like to ask if you could please comment on the mentioned report, Thanks much. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Litoměřice

Hi, thanks for the corrections there. Sounds good now. But I removed this statement as a POV "After the Austrian Empire was dissolved in 1918 and and the German-speaking areas were put under Czechoslovakian rule". Actually Czechoslovakia was restored in the original borders of Bohemia, Moravia and part of Silesia. Sudetes were never in Germany. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this is a misunderstanding. "German-speaking" doesn't mean "part of the German Empire 1871-1981". All of Bohemia was Austrian before 1918. On the other hand, stating that "Czechoslovakia was restored" (after WW I, not WW II) is somewhat, let's say unusual. Also, calling the time after the 1938 Munich Agreement up to 1945 "never" is a little strange. I clarified the article, with a similar statement. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Avoid adding your comments to Benes decrees. You wrote highly POV article. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Leitmeritz vs. Litomerice

We don't call Brunn instead of Brno, Prag instead of Prague even in the history. Just mention the german name in the topic's name but don't use it in the article. Otherwise we should rename Aachen to Cáchy in the 14th century. Using other names for places is offensive and POV so please don't do that. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

you are still breaking POV. You can't satisfy using german name. Litoměřice is the appropriate name. This should be considered as a vandalism. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still breaking POV, yes.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's write NPOV article instead of arguing and edit warring which usually lead to nowhere. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What I think breaks NPOV:

Leitmeritz usage in the article.

Benes decrees comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tulkolahten (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Whatever. I stated my reasons in the edit summaries at Litoměřice, as well as in the section above. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. From my neutral point of view, Matthead is right. This is not a POV when the town was called such in that time. Huge vote and heated discussion alredy set up a precedence in the case of Gdańsk / Danzig. It is a perfect example of how it should look like. Use the name which was used in subsequent period. Regards. - Darwinek 09:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the different case. Litomerice was always part of Bohemia and there were Czech population, even in minority. Gdansk is not a precedent in this case. Anyway I edited it to compromise version. Check it please if you agree if you don't mind. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Recovered Territories

Why did you revert the changes on this sentence? The last few words "but is not any more in usage today" are poor grammar and sound stilted. -- Bkavanaugh 01:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if your subsequent edit was road killed. My revert was intended to revert the edit which was summarized as "m (rv gn)". For a hint what gn might mean, look at User:Rex Germanus, User:Rex Germanus/Rex' nationalism scale, his contribs or talk page. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Even indirect Personal attacks are personal attacks nevertheless Matthead. Biased comments of you, of which there are many, will be reverted or adapted.Rex 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Carlsbad vs Karlovy Vary

I support your move. Carlsbad is English name and well established name, it should be prefered to local German or Czech names. Look at my entry in 'support' section. --IEEE 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Carlsbad

I suggest we consider that poll closed against the rightful name of Carlsbad, and try again at a later date, with as much evidence as we can possibly procure (as they procured none, overwhelming evidence is in our favor) available from the start. Antman -- chat 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling on Nicolaus Copernicus

Guess what, most words in Polish, German and English were spelled differently in the 16th century than they are today. Do you really want to run around Wikipedia and put in 16th century spelling for any place that is mentioned in the context of that time period? Do you want to have long disputes about what the appropriate spelling was (since spelling only became standardized recently, and in earlier centuries many versions could be used at the same time)? More pertinently, can you point to any Wikipedia guidelines which would encourage such practice?

Per above objections, I politely ask you to stop. The Copernicus article has been stable at a concensus version and we should not start a new edit war. Still, if you do choose to disturb concensus, I will be quite happy to reopen the question of discussing Copernicus' nationality in the lead. Balcer 07:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For an interesting article hinting at possible difficulties in trying to decide what the old spelling was, you might want to read German orthography carefully. In a nutshell, German spelling was only standardized from 1880 onwards, before that many spelling variants would be used. I imagine the situation in Polish and other languages was the same. Therefore, trying to decide what the archaic spelling was would only introduce additional controversy, cause unnecessary arguments, and waste everyone's time. If you are really interested in old spellings, you might want to discuss them at the articles about the places, but don't try to insert them elsewhere in Wikipedia. Balcer 07:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Copernicus article had been stable before some people felt the need to put too much emphasis on Polish POV. As the Gdansk vote illustrates, Poland might have acquired some cities after wars, but not the history and historical figures of these places. If available, using documented historical spellings is a very good compromise, better that 19th century German spelling, or contemporary Polish with diacritics that were not yet invented back then. The articles on current Polish places are linked once for info purposes, but otherwise they are meaningless.

If you "will be quite happy to reopen the question of discussing Copernicus' nationality in the lead", you should also be prepared to provide evidence (other than encyclopedias that lack in detail) of this alleged Polishness. So he shall be designated a Pole because a treaty signed 7 years before his birth changed sovereignty over his future birthplace? Where is evidence that he could speak or write some Polish at all, other than as a foreign language necessary to deal with foreign workers? If he really was a Pole, how come he communicated almost exclusively with other Germans, and published in Germany, and dealt with Poles only if necessary in his job?

In general, it is not acceptable that different standards are used: claiming 15th century Polish citizenship based on "was part of Polish Kingdom", while 19th century citizens of German, Austrian and Russian Empires are declared ethnic Poles in many biographies. Are you happy if these biographies get revised to strictly report citizenship only, too? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's focus on the main issue in the recent revert war: the spelling. It is you who is trying to turn this matter into a German vs. Polish POV thing. I do not think of this in that way at all. To me this is simply a matter of avoiding the use of archaic spelling, which is standard practice. Just think of the mess that would result if, for example, we tried to use 16th century spelling for all names in Elizabeth I of England or Henry VIII of England articles. This would be a nightmare, and is simply not done. (For an illustration of problems, compare [3] and [4]). Anyway, there was no standardized spelling before the 19th century, so claiming a certain place was spelled in one and only one way in the 16th century is a very strong claim and would require serious backing by sources, which you have so far not provided. Balcer 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on History of philosophy in Poland. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Heimstern Läufer 04:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note my reasoning for your block at WP:AN3RR. Heimstern Läufer 04:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matthead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It is not acceptable to me that my extensive edit from 08:29, 8 April 2007 (diff to my last edit in March) is counted like a simple revert to an identical prior version.

Decline reason:

Allegations and conspiracy theories won't get you unblocked. It's only 12 hours, wait it out. — John Reaves (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I also reject the remarks of Piotrus [5], who is anything but neutral and could not resist jumping in to defend one of his fellow countrymen once again. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       08:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not possible

Re: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence

(You wrote)

Please consider the removal of your Request to rename Piotrus' ArbCom case to something else. See my entry on the related talk page. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The original idea wasn’t mine, however, it made a lot of sense to me, that’s why I proposed it. Please read corresponding comment on Talk page. [6] --Poeticbent  talk  19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallo

Nur ein Frage, ermüdest Du hier nicht auf der en:wp? Kostet doch unmengen Energie diese stndige Diskutierei.--Tresckow 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Manche Themen drehen sich hier tatsächlich endlos im Kreise. Das ist aber immer noch besser als auf .de wo ich angesichts der gnadenlosen Schnelllöscher(ei) und anderer arroganter Akt(eur)e längst aufgegeben habe. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD West Germany football team

Hab auch über das Argument nachgedacht, aber Hong Kong hatte immer eine eigene Nationalmannschaft. Am besten nicht zu hitzig werden lassen, die Argumente sprechen wohl deutlich für Delete. Malc82 00:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tja, aber viele Leute wollen lieber, wie damals der italienische Außenminister, gerne zwei Deutschlands haben - und vor allem eines das nie Weltmeister wurde, denn schließlich hat ja Westdeutschland die 3 WMs gewonnen. Aber leider, leider gibt es dieses Land längst nicht mehr - nah nah na nah na! Wenn ich an die Aufräumarbeiten [7] denke hängt mir das Thema zum Hals raus bzw. genaugenommen diese kranke Wikipedia hier, in der ernsthaft über Fakten abgestimmt wird. Wird höchste Zeit daß nächstes Jahr ein Titel herkommt, zwölf Jahre warten sind genug. Und danach bittschön nur zwei Jahre Wartezeit. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I asked Gethomas3 [8] for a reason, three days ago, but I received no answer. Will you provide one?--Fantocci 22:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has been blocked. So he shouldn't cause any more problems. At least not from this account. Kingjeff 03:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of ...

I removed Steve Wozniak from the list. Good catch, thanks. Balcer 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We had a compromise over Copernicus, which required that his nationality is not mentioned. Why are you breaking it now? You used to be in favor. What happened to change your mind? Balcer 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, why do you ask such an "innocent" question, accusing me of breaking a compromise? Ask those who keep the list of Poles which claims "Kopernik" since January 2003. I am in favour of remaining neutral. For example, in April 2007 I had tried several times to have the entry removed, stating that he was not on the list of Germans either. As he was always re-added, I've added him on the German list, too. There are articles in Wikipedia that try to portray Copernicus as Pole, e.g. claiming that he made "Polish contributions" to the History of philosophy in Poland. Maybe you should keep one of the eyes that eagerly watch the list of Germans on these articles? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are familiar with WP:POINT, I hope. If you see one article with bad content, don't add bad content to another article in retaliation. Make your proposal for changes on Talk:List of Poles. Balcer 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not add bad content. Regarding bad content and the List of Poles, read Talk:List_of_Poles#Nicolaus_Copernicus for my proposal to have entries deleted from that list according to the argument was presented there to defend the inclusion of Copernicus. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

West Germany Football Team article deletion

I never claimed that 2 was needed. I was pointing out how the other one was saying 2 was needed. I was merely showing how pointless having this article is. Kingjeff 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion there and its formatting is kind of confusing - maybe you wanted to write this to a different user, not me? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw your message and automatically thought it was in reply to my comment about the 2 articles per national team. Kingjeff 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is no more. It's just a redirect to the German team. Kingjeff 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup ... I expected it to be deleted but wanted the merge to be complete. Agathoclea 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Saarland national football team

Thanks for your contributions. Do you have an English-language source that the team which won the 1954 World Cup was known as "Germany" and not "West Germany" (or BRD, FRG etc)? Thanks, --Guinnog 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If the websites of FIFA and UEFA qualify as English-language sources, yes:

FIFA: GERMANY FIFA World Cup™ victories Winner (1954, 1974, 1990) Runners-Up (1966, 1982, 1986, 2002) Third (1934, 1970, 2006) Fourth (1958)

UEFA: German Football Association Founded:1900 UEFA Affiliation:1954 FIFA Affiliation:1904

Do you have a source that the 1954 were different from Germany? You can't, as the German Football Association DFB and its team was always the same to FIFA and UEFA. Thus, Wikipedia can have only one article for this team, named Germany national football team. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I asked for a source that "the team which won the 1954 World Cup was known as "Germany" and not "West Germany" (emphasis added). I also think (West) Germany looks pretty shabby in an encyclopedia, no offence intended. --John 18:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As you "was formerly the user known as Guinnog. I changed name on 2 June 2007.", I suspect using different names for the same person(s) is a very special hobby of yours, no offence intended either. I do regard the ongoing claims that there was a West Germany team which was different from the Germany team as offensive, though, especially since no sources are provided backing this. FIFA and UEFA know only one team. Show me where they, or any comparable source, state there were different ones. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. This conversation is now over. Perhaps in your future interactions with other editors you could try to be less easily offended, and part of that may be trying to be less offensive to other editors. I still utterly disagree with you on the content issue, but any further business can be carried out on article talk pages. I won't post here again, and I would ask you not to post on my talk page either. Best wishes, and happy editing. --John 21:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this

You might want to take a look at that personal attack (partial here: As now the article move got "controversial" because that idiot wants to irritate people. Do something about this. Rex 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)) This person should be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.225.41 (talk • contribs)

The comment above refers to this Admin talk page edit by User:Rex Germanus, in which he states "User Matthead is, once again, looking for trouble ... because that idiot want to irritate people". -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

and this one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.225.41 (talk • contribs)

Austrian national team

There was no national league or national team for Austria. It was combined with Germany during the 3rd Reich. Kingjeff 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that there was no separate Austrian team after the Anschluss of 1938 until 1945 as Austrians played (or had to play) in the German team. Maybe you wanted to talk to someone else? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't want to talk to anyone else. I noticed that you made a revert on this very subject. I have already reverted your revert. Kingjeff 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See my latest edit which hopefully solves the confusion. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

please take a look

Hi Matthead, You suggested and I tried as well for some time to keep a number of articles NPOV, that is clear of SC and others onesided, often unfactual entries and Nationalistic POV. I had my doubts but tried anyway. I added a number of facts, but as usual, the PPOV group does not bother with facts.

Here is a note I wrote to Astrochemist on Talk:Edmund_Halley:

Hello Astrochemist, On Talk: Edmund Halley I added a few maps of Prussia[9] with (Freie Stadt) Danzig, (a Free City, a city republic, city state). I am greatly saddened by the unacceptable ramblings made by Space Cadet. Despite his constantly ongoing reverts, which he himself stated 'he does it, when he has nothing better to do', I still had a glimmer of hope, that reasoning and facts might eventually get through to him. Something came up and for at least the next several months it is very important for my health to have pleasant surroundings. I will therefore have to stay away from negativity, from Wikipedia spitefulness, vicious attacks and deliberate suppressions of factual history, in other words, no Wikipedia. I just wanted to let you know. 75.7. Ainan 1 July 2007

Matthead, perhaps you can keep an eye on the worst revert warriors. Thanks. 75.2. Ainan 1 July 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.225.41 (talk • contribs)

Due to those revert warriors, I tried to stay away from many articles recently. That doesn't mean that I approve of their edits, of course. The issue has to be dealt in other ways than reverting back and forth. Besides, I suggest to register an user account. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Germany national under-21 football team

The Germany national football team and the U-21 team might be merged. I've already started a discussion and vote for this. You can join the discussion here. Kingjeff 16:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Blockade

If there isn't one, write one; but I see you managed to find a niche in Aftermath of World War I, where it is at least relevant. The Dolchstosslegende, after all, denies Allied responsibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This hasn't be dealt with to my knowledge

Was this ever dealt with? Kingjeff 16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I see a long list of blocks while on probation. Maybe it;s time to either expand the year or maybe a community ban? Kingjeff 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know if anyone has been blocked because of Rex? Cheiron1312 (talk · contribs) edit history looks to be one of a sock. Kingjeff 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No idea - not me, even if he tried to insinuate this recently in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matthead. Rex was/is in conflict with many. Ask Cheiron about himself. Judging from Rex's readiness to request checkuser, he'll probably reveal soon who he believes to be a puppeteer this time. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we try a community ban? Kingjeff 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Community ban looks like a rather big hammer. Recently, calling me an idiot and nationalist was not enough to be called incivility at all. Pretty high standard of courtesy, it seems. In addition, according to Thatcher131 at the ANI board, there is no such thing as "we", as he wrote "if you have have had prior disputes with Rex, and you see that someone else is involved in a dispute with that same editor, it's really not helpful to get involved." No matter how many people are at odds with him, each one must present his case against him alone, so much for Wikipedia as a community. I doubt anyone wants to deal with such an unpleasant matter, it seems most people that have met him in the past just avoid him since - "If you go looking for trouble you're more likely to find it". The problem is that the trouble seems to find each corner of Wikipedia in which German users might try to hide in.

I believe you recently asked him for translation help, and then you were filing a report triggered by the dispute you witnessed between Rex and Cheiron. I added my recent and nearly year-old experiences, and all that is said is that Cheirons edit was confrontational, that you "edit warred", and that I "might be trying to see things that aren't there". Some compromise edit at the ship article, and that's it, somewhere below the North sea level someone is laughing his achtersteven off right now. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was involved simply because he called me a nazi. Kingjeff 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith, and consider getting called "nazi" by an isolated individual a praise, just like I do with "German nationalist". -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I might go to the community sanction place in the morning and see what happens. Kingjeff 04:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Discuss on World War II please

Hello Matthead.

Please discuss your additions to World War II on the discussion page before adding them. Some of them can be considered controversial. Oberiko 20:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Matthead meine Anmerkungen

Hallo Matthead meine Anmerkungen zu dem User Rex Germanicus die auch kingjeff mitgeteilt habe! Die Logik von Rex germanicus ist simpel: Alle Deutschen im 2WK waren Nazis, somit war die Deutsche Wehrmacht eine Nazi Armee und alle Soldaten die Ihr angehörten somit auch alle Nazis. Dagegen habe ich opponiert und klar zu machen versucht das dies keine Fakten sind(die Wehrmacht wurde von den Allierten nicht als Nationalsozialistische Organisation angesehen) sondern nur seine persönliche Meinung ist! Daraufhin wurde ich von Ihm in einer Art "Pawlovschen Reflex" als Veteidiger der Nazis bezeichnet. Das ist wie wir wissen ein Totschlagsargument mit dem er offensichtlich versucht jede Diskussion über Inhalte zu untebinden wenn ihm Argumente fehlen. Meine Auslassungen zu den dunklen Kapiteln der holländischen Geschichte waren duchaus provokativ und konfrontativ dem bin ich mir bewußt! Sie hatten aber nicht die Intention die Verbrechen die durch die Nazis begangen worden sind zu relativieren! Vielmehr war es Ziel meiner Polemik Ihn von seinem hohen moralischen Ross zu holen. Wenn es um die Bekämpfung von Nationalismus geht, sollte jeder erst vor seiner eigenen Türe kehren. Bei ihm habe ich aber den Eindruck ist diese Agenda die er sich lauthals auf seine Fahne geschrieben hat nur vorgeschoben. Er benutzt seinen Kampf gegen tatsächliche oder vermeintliche Revisionisten,Nazis etc. als Deckmantel für seine tiefgehende Antideutsche Haltung. Seine Sichtweise scheint geprägt von einem zu tiefst dualistischen Weltbild, das nur Freund und Feind, gut und böse kennt. Für eine differenzierte Wahrnehmung von Geschichte und ist hier kein Platz. Somit ist für ihn jeder der dieser vereinfachten Sicht nicht zustimmt ein Apostat der "Reinen Lehre" und muß als Häretiker(Revisionist, Nazisympathisant) gebrandmarkt werden. Er gebärdet sich als eine Art Großinquisitor wenn es um die deutsche Geschichte geht, in der nur er im Besitz der absoluten Wahrheit ist. Getrieben von geradezu missionarischem Eifer und Überlegenheitsgefühl findet er offenbar seine Selbstbestätigung darin sich moralisch über die Deutschen zu erheben. In seiner vorgefassten Meinung das jeder der hat er nicht einmal bemerkt das ich kein Deutscher sondern Grieche bin! Ist schon kurios wenn man als Grieche von einem Niederländer als deutscher Nazi beschimpft wird ;-) Vieleicht hab ich ja germanische Vorfahren ohne es zu wissen :-) Man lernt eben nie aus im Leben... LG aus Nürnberg der Stadt des Pokalsiegers ;-) Christos

Sorry, i didn't know that postings here have to be in English. Christos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheiron1312 (talk • contribs)

I agree with you in general, but as you found out, we better communicate openly in English. Please remember to sign also with your account by typing ~~~~, or by hitting the button. Also, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rex_Germanus and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rex_Germanus.27_user_page for ongoing discussions were you might want to present your view, too. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex

You can come here to discuss. Kingjeff 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for a period of 48h in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for tedious reverting w/o attempting to discuss as noted here at the ANI. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I accept the block as I in fact had given up attempts to discuss with User:Rex Germanus and had resorted to reverting, and appreciate the efforts by admins in the case as well as its Outcome in which Rex is blocked for two weeks for disruption and totally inappropriate reverting. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus

Page is now fully protected to avoid an edit-war. There is a dispution about this article, please add your opinion here consensus dispution. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a link to that section, I will read it then if I haven't recently. If you mean the vote section, it's rather self-explanatory.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Matthead, posting on separate pages is the traditional way. You don't have to follow it, but don't expect many replies. And yes, we are all waiting for the change in wiki software to deal with it, sigh... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

It is not a consensus about the mention nationality or not, it is a consensus with a question as it is. Do not revert it or change. There is a consensus attempt, if you will continue with blanking, deleting or changing consensus attempt we will have to ask administrator for assistance. Please assume good faith in this long-time edit war. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm speechless. You speak of consensus, "blanking, deleting or changing consensus attempt" and "have to ask administrator for assistance" in the same sentence, then belatedly add WP:AGF [10], while reverting my suggestions for the poll format based on policies like Wikipedia:Straw polls and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion with summaries like (rv: unnecessary destroying of consensus attempt) and (rv vandalism), the latter even within the same minute? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against your opinion, I have contacted you with a notice about the consensus dispute, remember. But what should I think when you come to that page, blank all votes, change question? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why were you not a little more patient? You could have waited and see what my series of edits would have lead to, and read up the policies in the mean time. I suggest you revert your last revert, and let me continue from that before others jump in and confuse it even more. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Before the wild edits, lets discuss what do you want to change. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Map in Ostsiedlung article

I redeleted the map that you restored. Another editor has raised issues regarding the map. Please discuss these issues on the Talk Page and wait for resolution via consensus before restoring it. Thanks. --Richard 18:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack, by Tulkolahten

Stop doing personal attacks as you did here (rv of repeated vandalism back to consensus) in your comment. Disagreement is not a vandalism. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack? You repeatedly changed the link to John III Sobieski to suit your POV. I reminded you about the correct consensus name (John III Sobieski) of the article. You reverted twice (rv, his name is Jan, not John) (renaming Jan to John has really no sense.) anyway. To make matters really interesting, about two hours later somebody moved [11] the Sobieski article from John to Jan, which soon was taken advantage of by a third person, reverting with (target article spelt "Jan"). At that time that may have been correct, but the article is now back at John. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       00:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Taking German based theories as proofs-they are equall to other thoeries in their worth. Wikipedia should present balanced facts not taking one nationality as basis for determing if something is true or not. Also please reconsider making moves without voting. I noticed you did several. You should ask for vote first. --Molobo 13:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Theories are not equal to sourced facts. Applies also to "moves" - whatever you noticed there. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       13:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourced thoeries are good like any other sourced theories and equal to any other facts. As to moves they are based on number of facts and voting.--Molobo 13:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts are superior to any theory, no matter how often sourced. Many sourced theories have been written about Atlantis, and other mythical territories. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretzel attack

Matthead,

You have accused me of vandalism without so much as sighting an instance. I am removing your note on my talk page. In the future please sight specific instances, and sign your comments. -- Tletnes 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

After Further review My guess is that you disagreed with my application of the weasel template to Farkle. There was at lease one use of weasel words on the page at the time. "Some even trace it back to the days of the renaissance" Perhaps you feel that I should instead have requested that sources be sighted, either way this was NOT vandalism. -- Tletnes 23:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit at Pretzel [12] is vandalism, even if the recipe addition seems to be in good faith. Do you have any explanations for that, some freaky computer error? Besides, you better change the subject of this section. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The only changes I intended to do were to add the recipe section. I do use the Google Toolbar spell check, which has never given me problems before, Other than that I do not know how the edits you show could have happened, but they were not intentional on my part.

Your use of Template:Test3 seems excessive given the types of changes I see. I suggest that you do more research on the individual your are accusing in a case like this before assuming bad faith, this automatic assumption of bad faith is why I call this a personal attack. -- Tletnes 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

More accusations, Tletnes? Personal attack, again? Others would be embarrassed by the mess that was caused, by yourself or by the software you use. And no, I don't "do more research on the individual" if I see vandalism, especially a blatant one from an account where user page and talk page are still red. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My "accusation" as you call it is simply that you did not apply common sense before accusing me of deliberate wrongdoing. I have no idea what technical SNAFU cause corruption during my edit, however I recognize (as seen above) that in some way may edit did apparently cause the issues you noted.

Given that this is a web based forum you have no way to infer may emotions so I do not understand why you imply that "Others would be embarrassed" (while I am not?)

If you had bothered review my other edits I think you would have found that (while there are not many) I have generally tried to improve the quality of articals, and wikipedia in general.

But based on my research of you I believe I can safely consider you a Troll, at least form my perspective, and act accordingly. -- Tletnes 22:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If there were any doubts, you removed them now. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK

Hey Matthead, lets discuss here instead. First question, are you from UofM? Second, isn't it going just a tad bit far to say that using Bolzano-Bozen in Italy is fascism? I think you really have quite a few misconceptions about BZ. The defend Germany at all costs is just silly now, isn't it? i.e, relax dude. :P Icsunonove 22:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not copy articles from foreign-language Wiipedias here. Make a stub and add {{translation}} to the talk page. Then update the page Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/de accordingly.  Andreas  ^(T) 00:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Diana, Princess of Wales

Diana did not revert to her maiden name upon her divorce. She took the style of the ex-wife of a peer. As such, it wasn't her married name when she died, although it was the same form. Other royals use their birth names. The name Diana is listed under was her own when she died. Charles 21:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Early human rocket flight efforts

Thanks for creating this page and working to clean up Astronaut and Human spaceflight. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• When article was semi-protected and proposed for deletion, some of important links (added to section "Further reading" almost simultaniously) and note about low reliability are losted - see [13] These need to be restored, or article would be accused in luck of facts.

List of astronauts by name

I've reverted your move of List of astronauts by name to "List of people trained as spacecraft crew members". Please raise the issue on the Talk page if you feel this change is warranted. I'll be glad to discuss why you feel that the suggested title is an improvement when the English word for someone "trained as a spacecraft crew member" is "astronaut". Regards Rillian 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Difficult to read sentence

Ich kann aus diesen Satz einfach nicht schlau werden:

"GDR did not even call itself Germany, and in hindsight does not quite deserve to be a reason why the 11-state FRG of 1949-1990 should not be regarded as "the Germany". After all, we call the 16-state FRG now Germany, even though the area is still smaller than in former times."

Tut mir leid, aber auf English ergibt das keinen Sinn. Vielleicht kannst du mir auf Deutsch mitelein was du da sagen wolltest. Danke - Grüße aus Kalifornien Signature^brendel 06:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, das Ganze sollte ungefähr so lauten:

"Die DDR hat sich nicht selbst als Deutschland bezeichnet, und im Nachhinein verdient sie es nicht ein Grund dafür zu sein, warum die Bundesrepublik Deutschland mit 11 Bundesländern von 1949-1990 nicht als das Deutschland bezeichnet werden sollte. Schließlich bezeichnen wir die Bundesrepublik Deutschland mit 16 Bundesländern jetzt als Deutschland, obwohl ihre Fläche immer noch kleiner ist als in früheren Zeiten."

Im übrigen empfand ich es zuerst amüsant, aber inzwischen zunehmend als Beleidigung wenn mir (und Millionen anderen) mangels Geschichtskenntnissen oder aus anderen Motiven unterstellt wird ich hätte 1990 meinen Wohnsitz von Westdeutschland nach Deutschland verlegt, oder ich hätte einen neuen Reisepaß, eine neue Staatsbürgerschaft oder eine neue Identität bekommen. Über 70 Millionen Menschen haben damals in Deutschland gelebt, irgendwo in Nord, Süd, Ost, West, Mitte, und sind nicht ungesiedelt. Für knapp 60 Millionen hat sich im täglichen Leben nichts wesentliches geändert, sie waren Deutsche in Deutschland, als Bürger der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, sind es gelieben und sind es noch. Sollen wir die USA mit 48 oder weniger Staaten vor 1959 auch als "die zusammenhängenden Vereinigten Staaten" bezeichnen, und Sportergebnisse der USA nach 1960 unter "die im und am Pazifik liegenden Vereinigten Staaten" auflisten? Die englische Bezeichnung "West Germany" war und ist schlampig. Sie und unterstellt eine Symmetrie und Gleichberechtigung für und mit dem sowjetischen Vasallenstaat DDR. Schöne Bundesgenossen hatten und haben wir da in UNO, NATO, EU und Wikipedia. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. No habla ingles

en-0This user does not understand English (or understands it with considerable difficulty).

Nichtsdestotrotz - gerade diese schlampige Englische Wortwahl zu verwenden ist was die Policy vorschreibt. Agathoclea 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Eine "Policy" kann man ändern, wenn man will, vor allem wenn es gute Gründe für eine Änderung gibt. Wahlen gibt es alle paar Jahr, auch die Wortwahl sollte regelmäßig überprüft werden. Man kann natürlich auch weiterhin aus Opportunismus andere lügen lassen daß sich die Balken biegen ... wie mit "750 Jahre Kaliningrad" etwa. Von mir aus können entsprechende Begriffe auch weiterhin stehen bleiben, nicht weil sie legitim wären oder per Gewohnheitsrecht irgendwann legitim werden, sondern weil ich sie als Mahnmal für Unkenntnis und fragwürdige Intentionen ansehe. Gerade die Zerfledderung von deutschen Sporterfolgen ist ein typisches Beispiel. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

West Germany

I have filed a move request for the page formerly at West Germany; I have left my rationale on the talk page. As the last person to move the page, your input is welcomed there. Knepflerle 22:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Victor Suvorov

You just reverted all my changes in this article. Could you explain why, please? I left my explanation at the article's talk page. Thank you.Biophys 22:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Double town names in Gregor Mendel

Hello Matthead. Please see my invitation to User:Tulkolahten to find policy to justify single town names (the Czech forms) in the Mendel article. Your response to the same question would be most helpful, if you have looked into the policy issues at all. Before posting my own recommendation at Talk:Gregor Mendel I was hoping to find out if there were any clear statements of policy we could refer to. EdJohnston 19:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol again

hello there Matthead, you once voted and showed interest on the topic of South Tyrol. Certain Italian users just can't seem to give the topic a rest and had the article moved with a sham vote to the Italian name. I am calling for that vote to be annulled or at least extended so that more can vote and the result be representative. Drop by the talk page or drop me a message if you would like to share your thoughts, I am interested in hearing from you. sincerely Gryffindor 04:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

William Ling (referee)

Hi. Good edits to the above. However, what does the term "German backups" mean? I don't want to sound thick, but I think we need to tone down slang - I can't be the only one who doesn't understand the phrase. If it's meant as derogatory (which I doubt), it needs to be withdrawn. I'd be grateful for your explanation of the terminology. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, coach Herberger decided not to field the best players against Hungary, especially goal keeper Turek, in order to "sacrifice" some of the backup players in the upcoming defeat.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       10:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Re my slang point, perhaps "German reserve players" might make it more understandable to dunderheads like myself? What do you think? Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thaddäus Haenke

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Thaddäus Haenke, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Thaddäus Haenke is a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project (CSD A2).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Thaddäus Haenke, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Cracow

Matthead, why did you move this article to the German title? You do realize that germanisation is just as bad as polonisation on English Wikipedia. Charles 16:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency, see free city talk.[14]. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not consistent and that title is not English. Really, you rejected the English form which you previously supported for all articles by moving it. Please read WP:UE and WP:POINT. Furthermore, it is not up to you to jump to such conclusions and actually remove valid, English names. Charles 17:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I did support the English form, for the free city and related articles, and it was rejected by a 8-12 minority plus a closing admin. Go figure. Charles, if you want English names on English Wikipedia, you need to find more and better supporters for that odd concept. Ask the Ministry of Foreigns Affairs for help, they'll inform you about proper English. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthead, you voted for the form with Cracow on that article. If you voted for that form, how come you changed another article away from that form? I am not about to ask biased users for help, I just ask that you don't do essentially what they do. Charles 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I still support Cracow for the historic articles - and for the present city, I dare to say. Cracow was rejected, though, so new names need to be chosen for articles that use Cracow. See also Distrikt Krakau, where a choice had been made earlier.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       05:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are mentioned in a recent report to WP:AE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for dropping my name again [15].-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       05:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Sections

Hi - I wouldn't say that renaming a trivia section to 'other facts' stops it from being a trivia section. Would you? 82.35.235.53 08:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. It has nothing to do with deleting improper articles. --Closedmouth 07:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation of German ships articles

Hi, I noticed that you're translating articles of German ships from de:wiki. Can you please either:

• Post the articles here after the translating :-), or,
• Use {{inuse}} template while you're at it. (I assume you are right now).

...because they have CSD tags right now (SMS Sachsen (1877) in particular). [Please reply here]. Duja► 07:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See entry above, I've noticed that CSD tags were placed by Closedmouth (talk · contribs) on various redirects and articles of ships like SMY Hohenzollern and Sachsen. I absolutely loathe the impatient behaviour of Requesting speedy deletion which made me stop contributing to German Wikipedia, and refuse to continue working on articles that were infected by this disease of serial trigger happiness. Go on, make Wikipedia a better place by deleting articles and driving editors away. See also Thaddäus Haenke for yet another recent example. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       08:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason for harsh reaction; I was handling CAT:CSD and had no intention to delete the page, and it still stands. I just wanted to explain that, if you utilize {{inuse}}, such misunderstandings are less likely to take place. Yes, new page patrollers could show some more patience, but then, you could also do something (e.g. at least half-translate and/or comment out the foreign language parts) to make it obvious that the article is a work in progress. Duja► 12:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Chelsea F.C.

Hi. Why did you undo my change to the article? Chelsea played the West Germany team, not Germany. It is misleading and inaccurate to say Germany. SteveO 15:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea did not play a country, they played a team, Germany national football team, which exists for nearly 100 years. "West Germany" is just a surplus informal name used in English for the period 1949-1990. What would you do if some people would insist that "Queen Elisabeth II England national football team" needs to be used since her coronation?-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And that team was commonly known in English as West Germany, to distinguish it from East Germany. To use plain 'Germany' at a time when their were two German national teams will just cause confusion. SteveO 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

East Germany intentionally distinguished itself from (West) Germany, even with the help of a wall, so there is no danger of confusion. On the other hand, using two names for the otherwiese nearly identical pre-1990 and post-1990 German state and team keeps existing confusion alive - there are still too many people who believe that West Germany and Germany were two different states, and even that their teams played each other! -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       05:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some articles even claim that a player made his debut against "West Germany" in 1991 [16] [17], or that some players [18] [19] played for two teams, "West Germany" and Germany. Insisting that it was "West Germany" that played on 29 August 1990 [20], when the unification was already agreed upon, is also rather lame. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For 40 years there were two German states, with their own football teams, olympic teams etc. Neither was officially called East or West, but for the sake of clarity they were referred to in that way, just like the two Koreas are. Otherwise no one would know which Germany was being discussed. Since 1990, there has been no need for this, because the East no longer exists. As it is now, someone reading the Chelsea article will not know whether they played the East or West team. As noted by the editor below and the editors who responded to your comments on WikiProject Football, you cannot change history and this is an argument you cannot win. SteveO 22:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thaddäus Haenke

Hi, instead of reverts let's discuss how to make that article better. I've found he was a proud Austrian and also sources claims he was Bohemian. Also he spoke fluently German. I think we should put him into all three categories (German, Czech, Austrian botanists). I've seen that sources you included claims he was Bohemian only. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but presently, I'm busy fighting sickening claims that the 60 million people living in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1949 and 1990 were no Germans, but something else.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       13:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

West Germany?

I really don't understand you. I see you are from Germany, and therefore you should probably know more on the issue than me. I also know that Germany is the successor of the results made by West Germany, while the East Germany national team is officially defunct. Yet, it was West Germany that won the titles back in '54, '74 and '90, and the unified team appeared for the first time at the European championship in 1992. I am from Serbia, yet, you don't see me correcting the fact that Yugoslavia won the Basketball World championships in '70, '78, '90, and following your logic, I should do that. My point is: you can't rewrite history, and there is no need for that. With regards, --Vitriden 17:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comparison, which is also often (mis)used by others, is none: while other multi ethnic states split up, "West Germany" grew bigger when more German states acceded, in 1957 and 1990. Thus, 1958 Germany and 1991 Germany were not successors to 1956 "Central Germany" and 1989 "West Germany", it remained the same, still the Federal Republic of Germany (since 1949), same flag {{flagicon|FRG}}==={{flagicon|GER}}, no government changes except after regular scheduled elections, continuous membership in international organizations like UNO, EC/EU, NATO, FIFA, UEFA. The only changes affected the people living in the Saarland, and in the former GDR when the communist "East Germany" vanished. That state was the only reason why "we" were called "West Germany" by some anyway. And that was as and is as idiotic as would be calling the Great Wall of China "Great Wall of West China" while "East China" is independent (also called Taiwan/Taipei/Formosa or whatever).

Imagine Serbs winning Olympic medals in 2008. Then imagine a small former Yugoslav area would accede to the Serbian state in 2009. Then the same Serbian medalists win again in the 2012 Olympic games. Would you accept future claims by foreigners that the 2008 medals had not been won by Serbs, but by "Central Serbs", "Old Serbs" or whatever stupid informal name is used? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a very big problem with that, and I am not at all pleased by the fact that I've lived in four different countries during my short lifetime, since SFR Yugoslavia≠FR Yugoslavia≠Serbia and Montenegro≠Serbia≠Serbia without Kosovo (if that's what would happen). But the fact is that borders have changed, and so did the name of the state(s). I also frequently change the links to Champions League to European Cup if the text mentions that competition in the time context before 1992, although it is, practically, the same competition. The fact that name has changed may or may not be significant, but that is a fact, I didn't make it up, and neither did anyone else, that is a historical fact, and it doesn't make your country better or worse in any way.

Also, I can see that the voting has left you pretty much alone on the issue, so I think you should reconsider if your point of view is really so correct and based upon the facts.--Vitriden 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See, I only lived in one state which did not change its name or flag in the last 5 decades. The only noticeable change in the everyday live of someone in the Southwest Germany of 1990 was that the local supermarket was a little short on goods for some days when the Deutsche Mark was introduced in the GDR, affecting about 15 million Germans there. In contrast, the introduction of the Euro and the Schengen area did change practical life for all 80 million since. Also, while I have to travel several hours to the former GDR, I can "invade" a neighboring country in about one hour, with only a sign at the roadside informing me that I'm just passing a border. I can pay there with money marked with a German Eagle and words from the German national anthem, too. That's similar to conditions that had existed before World War I, how's that for a change? Yet, some people keep telling me that according to their point of view from a distance (outside Germany, the Schengen area, and the Euro zone), my life has changed bigtime in October 1990, but not since. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point of view isn't important here. The facts are. Nvertheless, I accept every decision by the community, and so should you. You can inform people at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, if you think you can find people who think like you there. Then, we can have a debate. This way, you are on ane side, and everyone else is on the other.--Vitriden 12:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

West Germany/Germany

You should know: [21] an AN/I thread about your edits has been opened.

I see that number of editors have already come to you about this. Further, there appears to have already been a discussion about this issue, as relates to soccer, in which consensus was against the change. I recommend you stop, and either find new consensus, or find a new way to contribute to en.wikipedia. ThuranX 23:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have requested the deletion of the "West Germany nft" redirect [22]. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to change your approach in this matter, or you may find yourself marginalised. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Talk to Commons

I can't move things across wiki's, so I copied the text over to the commons talk page (Commons:Image talk:Nationalities in Second Polish Republic ca. 1931.png) and linked to the original so that the GFDL history is preserved. I think that's what you wanted, though if not, or if you would like anything else, just give me a shout. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Copernicus

Did you read Matthead the question in "German or English Engineer"--131.104.219.177 03:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit probably isn't bad but you should provide an explanation at Nicolaus Copernicus because it's a controversial article and that would set a good precedent. Sciurinæ 23:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Map

Yeah that was me. To lazy to log in ;). --Bigbrisco 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

You've been blocked for 3RR. You responded to the report here, so you've already seen the evidence. No matter how in the right you believe you are, edit warring is still a blockable offense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not if it fights vandalism. Too bad you blocked me so quick that I had no time to illustrate my view. Please look at this diff, which compares my edits of today, implementing the good suggestions of others, with the consensus of the last few days, maintained by at least 5 editors other than me. This version was approved by a GA review stating "The history section looks great!" before Piotrus mangled it. He started his editwarring attack in order to push his POV into the article before it gets GA status. I've neutralized that within 3RR. He then was followed by Szopen (what a coincidence!), who also did 3RR, which I deliberately[23] neutralized to protect the consensus of the last days - while merging in good faith edits in the process. Piotrus and Szopen obviously were willing to go to the limit of the rules, 1RR was not enough for them. Piotrus, who was repeatedly under scrutiny himself, predictably reported me for 3RR [24]. You reverted [25] to the last version by Szopen - are you not confident that other, uninvolved editors would take care of that if necessary? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not overt vandalism, so that argument simply doesn't hold water. Finally, I reverted your final edit(s) to the page, not because I have any opinion in the content dispute, but only to revert the extreme abuse committed by the blocked user: you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule#Exceptions "reverts to conform with community consensus on geographic names which fall within the scope of the Gdansk Vote" are excepted. Cracow was as Krakau part of German-speaking Austria for about 100 years, a fact which Piotrus tried to conceal by erasing[26] large part from the history section, as well as {{lang-de|Krakau}} from the intro.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote is about Gdansk, not Krakow. Austria is not Germany. The community consensus was against you. The edit war was about more then mere naming. Gdansk/Vote is not applicable here, please don't abuse it in attempt to gain 3RR immunity.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Austria uses German language and was part of the German Confederation. Double standards are interesting. Regarding the Danzig vote, do you approve of Polish names being put into the articles of places located in Kaliningrad Oblast, or into the biographies of persons from these places? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       00:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matthead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As per 3RR exceptions, "reverts to conform with community consensus on geographic names which fall within the scope of the Gdansk Vote" are permitted. See my reasoning given above, Piotrus and Szopen erased not only the German language name Krakau, but also large parts of the history section

Decline reason:

I have had a look with fresh eyes at the subject of this dispute and I have come to the conclusion that your invocation of the Gdansk vote is an attempt to 'game the system' of the three revert rule. This is a simple content dispute and you were engaging in a revert war about it, which is precisely what the three revert rule is there to stop. The block is appropriate. Sam Blacketer 14:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Support block of Matthead (as if my opinion mattered) as his long time record speaks for itself - and against him. Denying centuries of Polish history by pushing German POV over it is Matthead's only agenda. As long as he is around, development of the German-Polish-related topics on Wikipedia will stagnate as his behaviour is driving away good faith editors. After all this time he's been here, it should be him who is made to go elsewhere, e.g. to the Wiki articles covering modern Germany (or motor sports). Sincerely Space Cadet 14:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How flattering, Space Cadet is copying my edit to the recent Proposal to ban User:Space Cadet from German-Polish-related topics on the Community sanction noticeboard. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course! I always try to learn from Great Masters. Space Cadet 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I corrected your German oder into English or. Don't thank me or anything.

Oder is German, indeed.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean as a river? Keep dreaming! Space Cadet 16:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Curiosity question

What city are you from? Stuttgart maybe? Why do I care? Nothing really, I just had a drinking buddy from Stuttgart ages ago, before the WIKI, when I was still "on the sauce". Space Cadet 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm from Glendale CA, then Warsaw, then Los Angeles, currently New York City. Space Cadet 17:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's highly interesting to read about the cities you visited, your drinking buddies, you being "on the sauce". This is exactly what Wikipedia is for. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine! Let's stay the way we are. Forget I was trying to be friendly and stuff. Space Cadet 20:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, Wikipedian brother.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was NOT a joke, I was REALLY trying to straighten things up with you! You blew it in my face, fine. I'll propose a Non-Aggression Pact to somebody else, maybe your buddy Sciurinæ. On second thought maybe not. Not after he tried to ban me, that would be a sign of weakness. Forget it then, I already have unwritten pacts with two Germans. More pacts with Germans and my own people will start spitting in my face. Space Cadet 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend straightening up your "on the sauce" issue, and other signs of weakness, before you make further forays into unwritten international diplomacy. Regarding the prospect of more things getting blown and spitted into the visage of yours, you may want to stay away also from your own people. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Next time I'll try to make friends with somebody less anti-Polish like Erika Steinbach Space Cadet 21:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you calling me Anti-Polish? Erika Steinbach? Both? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       00:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond on Saturday. Instead of entertaining you during your block, I'll let you rot with no one to talk to, like you well deserve it. Space Cadet 00:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, "Matthead is not anti-Polish". Thanks for showing up uninvited, overstaying, sharing your expertise on decomposition, and retreating in a hurry. For unsolicited messages, Saturday is fine with me, but no sooner than late April of the year 2053. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       01:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello there. I noticed that you have an image in your signature. Could you kindly review WP:SIG and remove the image? Best wishes, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as it seems to me that is a misunderstanding of yours, could you please specify what you mean with "image"? I do not use any image file, JPG, PNG or the like, but only characters, a yellow "O" on blue background, in accordance with WP:SIG#Images as I believe. Some time ago, when people experimented with funny features, I did the same. See also this    ☠    or that    ☢    as examples, using Unicode characters. Do you think this tricky way of waving a flag and including an internal link violates any policy, or the spirit of any policy? I have to confess that my entries can easily be spotted on a talk page, which might be annoying. Once a good faith idea, it has worn out, see also [27]. Most others seem to have reduced the flashiness of their signatures anyway. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Would Matthead  DisCuß  be an improvement over -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with your signature. It's not blinking or anything. dab (𒁳) 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Kraków

Matthead, you immediately took me to be someone who is part of apparently warring factions. I made a simple update which meant exactly what it said, no more, no less, then you insist it contends things on a scale it doesn't, that the synagogue(s) are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article (immaterial), and so forth.   If you would like to discuss topics without interspersing accusations, simply based on plain and simple reputable facts, I'll be glad to respond in kind. Accordingly, I will be answering your question as to whether I had gone through the diff in detail. If "we got off on the wrong foot," I can certainly look past that. That said, even a quick look through edits tells me that if you wish to make any progress on widening coverage of Kraków under the Habsburgs--if there were specific developments affecting or contributing to the city, more than a mere change in administration--you'll need to change your approach, including conforming your edits to the current structure of the article, which does not discuss the history of the city according to who ruled over it during what period of time. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to spend a lot of time on the article. However, some parallels come to mind with regard to Riga--which was the cosmopolitan engine of Latvia in the latter half of the 19th century (same timeframe) and which was the culmination of seven hundred years of Baltic German domination.

  On the one hand, Latvians have adopted external manifestations of Baltic German led accomplishments for their own, e.g., "Latvian colony of Tobago", established by the godson of a King of England. They take some pride in Latvia's historical position in world culture...Latvia is home to two of the three pipe organs surviving on the planet built by J.S. Bach's favorite organ builder. Wagner was the director of the Riga opera for a couple of years (until he had to jump ship to avoid some debts he had accumulated, so the story goes).

  On the other hand, when it comes to Baltic German society and its scientific and artistic accomplishments, there's much less luster--the barons were living it up while the Latvians were serfs, and that undercurrent remained even when the Baltic Germans were largely stripped of their holdings when independence came. The only Baltic Germans commemorated to any degree are those who furthered Latvian culture and ambitions. (Or if they won a Nobel prize, a bit difficult to ignore.)

  If Kraków was, indeed, a cosmopolitan center (as the article indicates), then you may have some success with that, properly added. But if the German contingent merely flowered there for a while under the Habsburgs without enriching (culturally) the locals and then was gone, it may be a better choice for an article focused on the A-H Empire or on that period of flowering in particular. So, you might consider whether there's a better way to tell the story of Kraków being a cultural magnet during the A-H Empire era--if that was indeed the case (and is what you are seeking to portray). But just pushing for more recognition for the A-H Empire likely will not work. BTW, the empty time period section is problematic as the prior section (title notwithstanding) contains information up to the first World War. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See article talk for psychadelic web source which corroborates the personal site.

   My question for you is what sources do you have that specifically relate to Kraków under the Habsburgs? And what story do you want to tell? I've learned the hard way that if you create a section, editors don't come. Admittedly Poland is out of my normal realm of interest except for Poland-Lithuania and then post-WWI through WWII.

   You might suggest/try the current nostalgia for all things Galician as an angle. Way past my bedtime. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

West Germany

I agree that the article badly needs a re-write - go for it. PMA 12:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists

Thanks for your recent edits to the Nobel Prize articles. Since I noticed that you have an interest in this topic, I wanted to let you know that there is currently a Request For Comments about the country data in the Nobel lists. Your comments in this matter would be appreciated! Germany vs West Germany and all of its other names are up for discussion. –panda 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII

An article that you have been involved in editing, Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 October 2007

Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer

Until move will be decided according the naming conventions and manual of style leading tittle will be the same as the arcitle's name. Changing this before the move consensus might be considered as a vandalism. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You have proven time and again your expertise in vandalism. Your POV-pushing case is lost. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Have followed your advice. Any other observation regarding other distracting images would be appreciated.

Best wishes, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories update

I've begun cleaning up the People from Prussia categories and will work on them when I have time. Former states can be included in Category:People from former German states. I also created additional categories for Königsberg, Ducal Prussia, Royal Prussia, Ordensland, Grand Duchy of Posen etc. Your assistance would be appreciated in helping to categorize the biographical articles if you are interested. If you do find biographies that do not fit in existing categories, please create the relevant categories for them. For individuals from the pre-Modern Era, perhaps categories such as Silesian Germans or German Silesians could be created.

Regarding an earlier comment of yours, it might be good to ask it again at WP:GSWN. Were you thinking of Category:German diaspora? Cheers, Olessi 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

Well i have been trying to find it, but apparently vandals have removed my image....blindly and immaturely...-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still there, on en-Wiki only, see your talk page. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Next time you will be reported

It is not you rule Matthead to put a label on my page. Next time you will be reported.--Lobby1 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This sock belongs to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Polish "obsession"

Once again, the only thing you "contribute" to a biography is removing ", Poland". [28]Space Cadet 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten [29] the intro to the "Life" of Arthur Schopenhauer. Three cities are mentioned in these paragraph, none with a country, as it is distracting to clutter biographies with irrelevant geography or dubious political claims - which is exactly what you do over and over again. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's so distracting then why don't you even leave the city names out? What was that? Come again? That's what I thought. Space Cadet 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing the subject drastically: your homie Olessi created a Category:People from the Province of Prussia. See? Wasn't so hard now, was it? But your bias towards any input by a Pole was just blinding you.Space Cadet 18:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Now fix the many biographies which have suffered from your "input" and "output".-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing "suffered". Don't blow things out of proportion. And I fixed them already together with Olessi. Space Cadet 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, too many biographies suffer from your "output" of Category:German natives of East Prussia which only recently was moved to Category:People from East Prussia. Now, be a good homie and provide category "input" again to all those bios listed in Special:Contributions/Space_Cadet. That's an Categorical imperative. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I DID already! How can a biography "suffer", when it's removed from an incorrect category? And it should be "a Categorical imperative", duh. Your "homie" Space Cadet 12:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you did not restore a category of provenance to all the biographies you made suffer from your anti-German obsessive nitpicking. Do your homiework, mop up the damage you have done. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not done any damage (removal of an incorrect category improves a biography, does not damage it), I am very pro-German and if you think I missed something, don't just stand there and point fingers, participate! Your Central-European homeboy Space Cadet 13:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

R to section etc.

I find it hard to understand why you insist that The Germanies should be

#redirect [[History of Germany#Early modern Germany]]{{R to section|Early modern Germany}}{{R from alternative name}}{{cat also|}{{PAGENAME}}| History of Germany | History of the Germanic peoples | National histories}}

pointing to a section within History of Germany that hardly explains the use of the term, nor the subdivisions of the HRE it describes, which are covered in German states of the Holy Roman Empire. As "the Germanies" also refers to the post-1815 [30] and post-1949 [31] situations, it has to be a redirect to Germanies were all meanings are explained and linked. Please don't revert again. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not interested in the states per se as the key concept is the idiotic non-government of the times circa 1632. Any use of the term post Bismark is likely figurative momentum, and very inaccurate. Once Napolean arrived and conquered, pretty much a strech. However, since YOU aren't composing those phrases, and using the link perhaps you should review links and see where it's being employed. More often than not, it will be in the fiction article of 1632 series, though I've probably used it in other historical contexts during fixups as well. That's why I insist... your disambigulation, and even German states of the Holy Roman Empire, are much too technical and miss the sense of the information to be conveyed. (In short, you probably know too much for your own good, a good thing! Me, I have to suck this stuff up by osmosis) // FrankB 03:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• See if you can live with this update (Germanies) which puts the diplomatic and autonomy issues on the table. Why "Hypothetical" on the more modern usages? The google cites you provided indicate the term is within recent history books. I'd like to think there might be more there to mine that in fact could be a citation in that disabig page. In any event, as far as the way I use the term, my revision will actually do better than redirecting to that section. Thoughts? // FrankB 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: your inappropriate striking of comments in the afd for Operation Wilno

Please see my edit summary: [32] Thank you. --victor falk 15:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You have made a second entry at the bottom after having made one near the top of the page several days earlier. You did not strike out your first vote, so I stroke out your second. Also, the case was closed afterwards. Despite the fact that it is explicitly asked "Please do not modify it", you and somebody else altered it. Also, you removed my hint to your first vote. Thus, I restored [33]. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer

I added sources [34] that claims he was Bohemian, son of German father and Bohemian mother. He was born in Bohemia and died here. There is perfectly accurate to have Czech-bio-stub and if you will remove it again I will report you for a vandalism. Because you remove it just because WP:YOUDONLIKEIT. You are edit warring in Nicolaus Copernicus article where you loudly roar there is no nationality in the medieval but you push it everywhere else. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like Matthead, all right. Space Cadet 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Get lost in Space Cadet, and stop cluttering my talk page.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you try to be a little more civil? And it should be "(...)Space, Cadet(...)", otherwise you make no sense again. When you clutter my page, then it's OK, right? Are you dreaming you are an Übermensch, or something?Space Cadet 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See this [35] he emigrated from Czechoslovakia to Germany and he is "German" footballer. But Dientzenhofer emigrated from Germany to Bohemia but he remained "German". According to your logic Votava's entry must be changed from "German" footballer to "Czechoslovak" footballer or vice versa. And Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer was not a German, he was born in Bohemia and died in Bohemia thus he was clearly Bohemian. Your statements remain unsourced, but the fact that he was Bohemian is easily sourced! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oooops

Did you have an objection to the cat, or just to the cut buffer "garbage" I inadvertently forgot to pick up while documenting things at various WP pages. (I realize the goof as soon as I returned to the edit left for that digression! You beat me to the fix, and I thank you for that— I RARELY have that kind of goof and I tack things into previewed pages temporarily all the time!) I was focusing on what I needed to say at Wikipedia talk:maintenance I'm afraid! Cheers! // FrankB 03:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that something must be wrong, identified the template as culprit and reverted. Did not bother to look at categories. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       11:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Copernicus

I replied to your comments on the talk page. --Solumeiras ^talk 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Warsaw

If you have time, would you be willing to investigate a question of mine? I'm unsure about the political status of Warsaw from 1795-1807 (concerning New East Prussia and South Prussia). I have raised questions about it at Talk:Warsaw#1795-1807 and de:Diskussion:Preußen#Warschau in Südpreußen oder/und Neuostpreußen, but there were no responses. Any assistance or clarification would be appreciated. Olessi 16:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop personal attacks

Disagreement is not a vandalism [36], but false accusation from vandalism is a personal attack. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But if you wish, you might help me with improving Georg Giese article. You are welcome there. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ulrich Horstmann

I am in the process of setting up a page on the German author Ulrich Horstmann. I took the German Wikipedia entry and ran it through the Google translate function just to get it started. The results were highly disappointing to say the least. So I need someone to read the original German article and assist in the translation. Can you help? Or refer me to someone who can? I really think that this man's ideas need to be introduced to the English speaking world. Thanks. Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The online translators I know of are horrible, even though I was assured years ago that professional tools would work fine. Did some copyedits, hope they help. I abandoned fixing the Works section, as I have doubts that making OR attempts to title translations is the proper thing to do. Some puns are really hard to translate, e.g. "Ich kaufe ein Gedankenlos", which is a pun on "Toughtless" and "Thought lottery ticket". Maybe you just copy the German section, and add translation suggestions in parentheses behind the entries, rather than interleaving ones? -- Matthead  DisOuß   12:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your help. Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Teutonic_takeover.PNG

Can you explain how this image violates the terms of the vote? It's not clear whether the place names refer to before or during 1308, or how the vote is to be interpreted for place names other than Danzig/Gdansk.

In any case, neither reason you gave is a valid reason for speedy deletion, so I have removed the tag.—Random832 18:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This map was cropped from a larger one, which is part of a series:

• Image:Teutonic state 1250.png
• Image:Teutonic state 1308-1455.png <-- this one
• Image:Teutonic state 1455.png
• Image:Teutonic state 1466.png

It's possible, though, that there is a larger issue with the city names shown on all those maps.—Random832 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I had no idea what was going on at the time and thought somebody was just posturing to get maps deleted (I had no idea about the Gdańsk vote either). Does the map need to be replaced or deleted? east.718 at 23:35, November 28, 2007

Speedy delete the original research image Image:Teutonic_takeover.PNG used in edit wars at Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk), History of Gdańsk (Danzig), Pomerelia in order to supersede the proper sourced map Image:Pommerellen.png. It is part of a compaingn by some Poles to deny the 600+ year history of Danzig. They also make an attempt to rally a posse to overthrow the results of the Gdansk/Danzig vote, see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_30#Template:Gdansk-Vote-Results. -- Matthead  DisOuß   14:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Being the subject of a content dispute - or even being original research ("original research" is, in general, less strictly interpreted for images, and you haven't explained what novel idea this map advances - but even so, it's a matter for IFD, not speedy deletion) is not a valid reason for speedy deletion - nominate it at IFD if you have a problem. I notice your map (though it may be of better quality in general) exclusively uses german names; while that may be technically valid, is it really appropriate to choose just one or the other name for an event which immediately _before_ it was Gdansk and immediately after it was Danzig? —Random832 15:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do anything to the content of the template (other than the introductory header) and I wasn't aware we were even talking about the template until this time. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and you seem to have concluded I've taken a side in this nationalistic dispute. The reason I changed the template is that it is an eyesore. And, yes, it was called Danzig for 600 years. But when talking about the event that STARTED those 600 years, it seems inappropriate to use either name in isolation, either in a map or in the article.—Random832 15:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Zwantepolc de Danceke, 1228

Technically, regarding the Teutonic takeover of Danzig in 1308, Danzig applies according to the vote. I share your concerns, but I am convinced that for pre-1308 Danzig is much more appropriate than "Gdansk", which has no sources anyway, other than maybe the single Latin "urbs Gyddancyz" of 997. The pro-Gdansk faction won the vote for that period due to boldly voting in full strength, sock puppeteers and all, while pro-Danzig voters were more cautious, due to shortage of sources on that early time, and the many spellings used, like Danceke or Dantzike. Anyway, in 1224 the town received German Lübeck rights, warranting the German naming well before 1308. Polish POV is ruthlessly enforced on en-Wiki. Do you want to know how the "English" wiki article on the fellow to the right, Zwantepolc de Danceke, is currently named? Świętopełk II of Pomerania. Done by move warring, not by sources. Edit warriors everywhere, I'm sick of it, especially when "neutral" editors jump in and make it worse. -- Matthead  DisOuß   15:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Prague spring

[37] good point. That paragraph is not well written, in the first days there were thousands of troops and in later months over 600 000 mainly soviet soldiers. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to have found barely anything, and just added a list as a starter. I remember that back in 1989/90, the degree of participation of Nationale Volksarmee in the suppression of Prague spring was discussed. Same for 1981 Poland. It seems that someone eventually realized that doing like the Nazis some decades earlier was not a good idea. My attention was brought to the issue as the deletion of the redirect Polish occupation of Czechoslovakia was requested. -- Matthead  DisOuß   13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

made also Occupation of Czechoslovakia a proper disamb, both for 1968, and the 1938 actions of Germany, Poland, Hungary -- Matthead  DisOuß   14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We consider Munich Agreement as a betrayal and occupation. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That disambig is not bad, but afaik the polish annexation of the area near Tesin is not widely considered as an occupation. And I am not sure about the Hungary involvement. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See the 1939 source given, I did not invent it. At that time, your compatriot was sure about was going on. I guess decades of Soviet Bloc propaganda has whitewashed Polish and Hungarian involvement in 1938, just as for 1968. Czech and Slovaks should take some interest in the events, and clarify it. History of Cieszyn and Těšín looks lopsided to me. -- Matthead  DisOuß   14:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Significant part of propaganda is a splitting of the world to bad guys and good guys. But anyway the history of Tesin and polish-czechoslovak relation are a bit more complicated and the background of Tesin is not so clear. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Template

What are your specific objections to the changes made to the vote notice template? I can change it back to not be a collapse box; are you happy with this version? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice&oldid=174460118 The old version is ugly and I'd like to know what actual objection you have to the changes.—Random832 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you there? You stated "No major alterations without consent." but you haven't explained how any change that was made to it is a "major alteration".—Random832 21:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unrelated information

Hello. You have added this to the article Centennial Hall: "Built in 1913 in the German city of Breslau which was given to Poland in 1945 as Wrocław," Please explain how the historic fact relates to the structure. For now I have removed this. Regards, LMB (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The historic fact relates to the structure like the historic fact that the Giza pyramid complex was built by ancient Egyptians, not modern day Arabs. For the first 3 decades of its existence, the hall was in Germany, and it earned it reputation in that time, not after others inherited it. -- Matthead  DisOuß   23:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

RM

I would recommend you to read this WP:RM. Very carefully. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 01:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Repatriation/Expulsion

Since you commented my post, and you are German, I decided to write to you. I guess that many Germans are not aware of one fact. Real Polish government in London (not Communist puppets) and Polish nation were never asked if they wanted to absorb former Eastern Germany (Stettin, Breslau etc.). I mid-1940s Polish public opinion was in favor of expansion towards west, including Oppeln, Allenstein, Danzig or Stolp in Pommern. Nobody thought about Stettin, hardly anybody thought about Breslau. Tymek (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I removed your sourced material because it is already included in Cieszyn Silesia article, better worded and longer. It belongs more to the article about the region as this identity remained active also after the fall of the Duchy. I also think that current Polish map is better, as it is newer, more precise and better to read. Same applies for the coat of arms. - Darwinek (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for violating the conditions of the Digwuren general restriction here (see here for full explanation). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Maelgwnbot (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matthead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I had no chance to participate in both cases started by Piotrus, and got blocked for doing what others before me did: editing in the closed 3RR case. See more below, as diffs seem not to work within this template.

Decline reason:

Block is fair enough. To me this looks as though you were deliberately trying to fan the flames here, which is exactly what the arbitrators are trying to prevent with that remedy; moreoever, some of your other recent comments have been less than civil, to say the least. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I had no chance to participate in both cases originating from a content dispute at Duchies of Silesia, an article I edited only once. Please look at the later history of that article, and how I perceived it. This is not an isolated case, as many articles on the single duchies are concerned, mainly started by Piotrus under Polish names, even when they were not part of Poland for centuries before getting dissolved, and well-known under different names in English. After I made a incivil comment on Piotrus' talk page, Piotrus started the "Another Eastern European flamer" AE case against me, with Ioeth adding me to the list as noticed above, before I could respond, while two other editors voiced their opinion there. Again: I was not noticed about the case against me, only about the verdict.

Then, Piotrus started a 3RR case regarding the Duchies of Silesia itself. After that page was closed, several editors edited the closed case. About an hour before I added my single post there, Piotrus wrote "Bah. There is always the cabal to blame" in response to an ambiguous comment by Henq (seems Piotrus believes he was meant?). I then notified User talk:Ioeth, which he says was received after my review of the 3RR case and decision to issue User:Matthead a 24 hour block. So, again a verdict before somebody listened to me, third time in less than 24 hours? Even though Ioeth asked Piotrus to refactor as "Dr. Dan took some offense" (Piotrus did refactor the archived case [38] and notified Ioeth), Ioeth stated that no one has been able to provide examples of blatant incivility, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith by either User:Piotrus or User:Molobo. Well, Piotrus was subject of several cases, RfC, ArbCom, and what not, while Molobo had been blocked for a year.

My accounts at en and de-Wikis are about 4 years old, I had edited as IP before. Only two years ago, since encountering "Mikolaj Kopernik" rather than Nicolaus Copernicus, I got more and more concerned about the POV pushing I perceived, and occasionally lost temper in fighting them. For example, the article on Grüssau Abbey, which is far away from Poland, but close to where I live in Germany, currently starts with "Krzeszów Abbey (in German Abtei Grüssau) is a house of the Benedictine Order in Bad Wimpfen in Baden-Württemberg, Germany. The community was formerly located at Krzeszów, Silesia (ger. Grüssau), and previously in the Emaus Abbey in Prague." I've found out about that while editing German Wikipedia [39]. I did not touch the en article, though. What would happen if I change the intro, and others would revert me, until I lose my temper and get blocked? Would any admin check the validity of my case against the claims of my opponents first? I doubt this very much judging from experience (note: fails to AGF against admins in a request to unblock, proving he is beyond hope), and have to say that verifying content seems to be of lower importance than enforcing policies, which is a very sad thing to say about any encyclopedia.

Judging from experience: As I remember, my very first block was part of the Molobo case, the second one 3RR with a confirmed sockpuppeteer, the third from a user banned now AFAIK, and my hitherto last one was in connection with Piotrus who did 3RR, and then was succeed by someone coming from a wikibreak to continue reverting to Piotrus version, which I found very odd to say the least. Having witnessed many such cases now for over two years, even without participating, I lost temper once again, and frankly, the fault for that is not 100% on my side. Recently, User:Darwinek was resysopped, for reasons I, and others, do not understand.

So, while Piotrus is kindly asked to refactor something which apparently is only perceived as offensive by Dr. Dan, but not Ioeth himself, I'm getting AE-listed and blocked by Ioeth without Ioeth contacting me before. As I see now, Ioeth just happened to put two more names on the AE list, now 6 of 9 were added by Ioeth, "made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator". I wonder what an "uninvolved administrator" is, and if not some more names should be added to the AE list? Do other admins approve of the "serial additions" by Ioeth, or is that too much to ask for? -- Matthead  DisOuß   17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)