User talk:Nightbeast/archive1

Archive1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Nightbeast/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 00:36, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ele9699

If this dispute with Ele9699 is likely to continue, and you feel that he is using sock puppets, there are many options open to you. I suggest you refer the matter to the Association of Members' Advocates; as a last resort, you can request arbitration from the Arbitration Committee. I shall advise Ele9699 to do the same. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 21:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you are contacting me since I am the Coordinator of the Association of Members Advocates I must inform you that we are not mediators. If you need an advocate please contact the AMA members that are currently accepting new cases or post your information on the request for assistance page at the Association's AMA pages. Good luck. — © Alex756 01:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Serious game

Nightbeast, I've had cordial relationships with most Wikipedians I've come in contact with. Occasionally I've bumped heads with someone else, but almost always those conflicts have been resolved, peacefully. You are the one exception. When trying to resolve the issue of serious games and America's Army, we have gotten absolutely nowhere. When you respond to me, you often launch into incoherant rants that I nor almost anyone else can follow.

I gave up on America's Army figuring you weren't going to budge, depsite the fact that every serious game expert states that America's Army is the world's most successful serious game. It doesn't really matter if you like the idea of serious games or America's Army or not. But you've objected to even a NPOV statement such as "Serious games experts credit AA as the world's most successful serious game." I've listed sources, but you continued your stonewalling and so I gave up (I'm not getting paid to do this, after all).

But now you've reverted my mention of it on the serious games article. Please, I'd like to get this issue resolved. Can you, in a single sentence, state your objection to mentioning AA as a serious game? If you launch again into a rambling rant, we won't get anywhere. Can you state your objection in a single sentence? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:59, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, NightBeAsT. As long as AA mentions it being a serious game, I'll probably stay away from any of your other AA edits. :-)

If you feel the definition is out of whack, please make the edits or discuss them here first if you feel so inclined. The definition of an SG is kind of murky right now, so I wouldn't be surprised if many people are confused by or have different opinions about what constitutes a serious game. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Frage

Hallo Nightbeast, darf ich dich fragen für wen oder wieso du den Song auf deine Benutzerseite gestellt hattest, du würdest mit eine großen Gefallen tun mir unbekannterweise das zu sagen.

Germany

"This is not to be summarized if you want a fair proportion of the history section" Can you explain what this edit summary means, please? We have a history of Germany article, the main article shouldn't be cluttered up. --Golbez 18:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The existing version didn't mention why the revolution happened either; just that other revolutions were occurring. However, the way you put it, is better than the way the article did it. I deleted him because the article is about Germany, not him. What a single politician does - unless massively shaping the state, as Bismarck and Hitler did - is not needed for a SUMMARY of German history, and based on the short mention, he doesn't seem nearly as central as Bismarck or Hitler. I'll look at the changes again and take your comments into consideration. And wonder all you want about my treatment of the Third Reich section, I wonder why you said it that way, why not just say what you're wondering outright, hm? --Golbez 18:49, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, based on your assessment that Metternich is major, I'll put him back in. As for the rest, I'm not quite sure what you're saying; a quotation from a book is not a copyright violation if properly sourced. However, I don't see room in that section for any quotes. --Golbez 20:27, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see the point; personally, I don't care what some book says the proportion should be. I'll trust your description of it and take that into consideration, as I have all of your other edits. However, in my opinion, proportion is irrelevant; all that matters is content. So it's probably better if you don't upload it. --Golbez 21:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

German history

Hallo. Bezüglich deiner Nachricht von gestern. Ich begrüße es ausdrücklich, daß du dir die Mühe gemacht hast, das Stück über die Märzrevolution von 1848 hinzuzufügen, weil damit eine Lücke geschlossen worden ist in der Zeit zwischen der Auflösung des Heiligen Römischen Reiches und der Reichsgründung 1871. Andererseits bin ich in der Tat der Meinung, daß deine Fassung zu viele Einzelheiten enthält. Es macht nichts, wenn der Zusammenhang fehlt, ein paar Daten über die wichtigsten geschichtlichen Ereignisse sind genug. Hintergründe und Zusammenhänge können anderswo erörtert werden. Und die wichtigsten Ereignisse in der Zeit zwischen dem Wiener Kongreß und der Reichsgründung sind nun mal, in dieser Reihenfolge: das von national-liberalen Burschenschaften organisierte Wartburgfest 1817, die Karlsbader Dekrete von 1819, die Gründung des Zollvereins 1834, die Märzrevolution 1848, die Einberufung der Frankfurter Nationalversammlung in der Paulskirche, das Scheitern der Revolution, die Ernennung Bismarcks zum preußischen Ministerpräsidenten 1862, und die drei Kriege die zur deutschen Einheit führten. Zu erwähnen wäre da auch noch die Gründung des Norddeutschen Bundes 1867. Das alles kann kurz und knapp erwähnt werden, ohne daß man sich in Details verliert. - Heimdal 12:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Accusations

Your assumption of my alleged nationalist bias are completely missed. And it's not me who is pedantic here, I'm only enforcing the rule and adopting the interpretation used by other esteemed contributors (for instance User:Chris 73). If you want to question the interpretation, you should contact him. If you question the vote itself, please leave your protest at the Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion. Halibu tt 17:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

(Response [1].NightBeAsT)

Indeed, your accusations are completely missed. I'm not obsessed with Poland, I simply know the most on its history and that's why most of my contributions are related to the history of Poland. On the other hand I barely ever contribute to topics I have no idea on. If that's nationalism, then the article on nationalism must be changed. Also, for me (that's what my user page says) Warsaw is the best place under the sun, just like my girlfriend is the most beautiful woman ever born. Please read my remarks for what they are and not for what you think they might be. By saying that I love my city (which, accidentially, seems to be in Poland), I'm not stating that Poland is better than other countries. I'm merely stating that for me that place is the best under a sun. User pages are for personal oppinions, do not confuse that with contribution to various articles. Also, if saying that my GF is the best is chauvinism, then the respective article should be changed as well..

As to Chris- no, I'm not kidding. Numerous people saw the danger of such a vote before it was even started, yet they were ignored. Then Chris started adding German names (Germanic language names to be exact) to all articles linking to Gdansk, Szczecin and so on. We asked him to reconsider, we asked him several times to propose some more reasonable interpretation of the voting - yet to no effect. Please read the Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion and Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice for details. However, to no effect. And since both User:Chris 73 and User:John Kenney are admins, they were able to enforce their views on the voting. If that is how wikipedia works, then why should we adopt double standards? If the results of that voting apply to the page on Amber or Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, then why not to Phidias?

Halibu tt 18:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nazi Architecture

Hello,

I posted the Category:Nazi architecture to German Architects. Several of the architects on that page influenced Nazi architecture and several of the German Architects mentioned are Nazi architects so I think the Category:Nazi architecture is relevant. Please read the Nazi architecture entry for more information.

By posting this category I am not stating ALL of the members of the German Architect list participated in Hitler's Nazi Architecture program.

I would appreciate a Message from you, as I am happy to discuss the matter further.

Cordially,

Endurance 7 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2005

Hi - I must have missed something but I failed to pick up the reference in The Calgary Herald article to Wikipedia and I am not sure then how you determine that Wikipedia was the press source. Regards--AYArktos 23:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Resonse [2].NightBeAsT)

Dispute about Anti-Polonism

Pls stop to pushing German POV on the Anti-Polonism article - your behavior prove the Anti-Polish sentiment amongs Germans. Thx--Witkacy 21:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Response [3].NightBeAsT)

Take a look on the provided articles of Wprost - dear Nightbeast i understand a little bit German, so i know how much Anti-Polish the German media and "a lot" of Germans are. Die dummen polacken bekommen alles mit. --Witkacy 22:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Response [4].NightBeAsT)

Ok, so you ignoring Polish sources... then go ahead with your German POV-pushing, the discussion (and vandalism of German users) of the article says more about German Anti-Polonism, than the whole article itself. Polen-Paule 22:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's avoid accusations and start dialogue. Alx-pl 22:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Response [5].NightBeAsT)

America's Army

Hey Nightbeast, I just wanted to congratulate you on getting past the dispute on America's Army and becoming a productive contributor. Andre (talk) 21:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

(Response [6].NightBeAsT)