User talk:Sca/Archive04

; Archives
	Archive 1 (2-5-2005- 10-7-2005)
	Archive 2 (10-7-2005 - 08-23-2006)
	Archive 3 (8-23-2006 - 7-27-2007)

Your user page

... appears quite distorted in my web browser (Firefox). Maybe you want to change the formatting, and/or put some stuff into sub pages? -- Matthead ^discuß! O 05:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my SeaMonkey also has problems with it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here... --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are still following the issue, but I have revived the discussion of "Subjects of the Russian Federation" as I think you are right in your original point. Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_subjects_of_Russia#.22Subject.22

Best, William (William MacDougall 10:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

Re: Elections

I would think so. Why do you ask? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could I'd have voted for Tusk. Hope that answers your question. What about you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bessarabian Germans

Hi, I was interested in contributing to this article, but unfortunately I have very little extra information to add to it (it seems that already someone pretty diligent has done a good job, which is hard to improve). In fact it is a news to me that many Bessarabian Germans emigrated to the US, that it was a mass migration rather than isolated cases. I know that Bukovinain Germans did, and that they have 1 or 2 strong associations in the US, also somewhere in the midwest. But I thought these were favored by the fact that the emigration from former Austria-Hungary was easier than from the former Russian Empire. If/when I'll run across related info, I'll take notice and will add it, but let me rather not promiss and do than vice versa. If you need help with Romanian or Russian, or anything related to the topic, feel free to live a message on my talk page, or email me. I am also very curious to learn more.:Dc76\^talk 17:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Sca! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bonapartist?

Yes, I suppose it is extremely strange that one can admire both Napoleon and Kant. But for what exact reason would you find it strange? I suppose there are many people like me who like them both. Napoleon was an ingenious commander and Kant was an excellent philosopher. Two traits that I find extremely admirable. :-) --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is no doubt true that Napoleon lead many people to their deaths, but why is it that we should persecute only Napoleon. Past commanders like: Suvorov, Alexander the Great, The Duke of Wellington, and Hitler led thousands to their deaths. War is extremely capable of killing bright young men that happen to be stuck in it.

To Beethoven, who happened to be a German, he would seem like an enemy of mankind and God, but to the French, he was the adored and admired leader of the First French Empire. There are many controversies and opinions of people.

Hitler admired Napoleon. So do many others. He is the very founder of the modern art of war. Again, there are many differing opinions, as there will be for every man who leaves his mark in history.

--Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Remember the Red River Valley"

Thank you for your kind comments. I replied on the article talk page. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Polish

No, not at all - if I remember correctly it's just a WP:BABEL-userbox: {{Babel|en|pl-0}}. My Polish is non-existent, but I managed to update a date of birth for a minor UK TV actress - the Polish article was just a stub, so it was more straightforward than it could have been!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Of course, I should have checked first, but having done so now that's exactly what it is. I used "en" for "native English speaker", and you can add in other langauges depending on your proficiency. I gather you know German, so add that in too! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your question regarding Churchill

It would appear Churchill said no such thing. Historian Richard Langworth comments on the matter. Ray^Talk 16:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fairness of vanity

Indeed. But featured user? Featured user page? Featured user page on the Main Page? It appears everyone has a different way of phrasing it which seems to throw open many possibilities. Featured user would be my choice if we must have one. Image is not everything. A person may have no user page whatsoever but have 100,000 edits, 500 DYKs, 100 GAs, 50 FAs and 25 TFAs. Now that person would be one deserving of some recognition. But putting them on a platform and/or having them on the Main Page where they would be an open target for vandals? No. --can dle •wicke 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit the main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazareee (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Hemingway memorial

HI, sorry I missed your message on the Ernest Hemingway talkpage and have been too busy to check email for a few days. To upload your own work use this page and follow the instructions. I believe it will automatically insert information once you've filled the required fields. If you have difficulty, leave a message on the my user talkpage and I'll have a look. In the line called "Destination filename" I'd suggest inserting an easy name such as ErnestHemingway_memorial, or something along those lines. Thanks for the offer. I'd wanted one of the grave, but one of the memorial would be fine as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My New Design for the Main page

Hello,

I hereby submit a New Design for the English wikipedia. Please visitMy New Design for the Main page to see my Design for the main page. I'm not a Computer engineer but only a student currently in year 10. If theWikipedia Community likes my Design then can't we think about a change to the Designof Main page? Could you Please comment about it in the Talk page ofMy New Design for the Main page. Thank you. --Njavallil ...Talk 2 Me 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you! —David Levy 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, point taken. Sorry. Sca (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It's a minor issue. ;) —David Levy 18:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, the issue becomes less minor when you ignore the above advice and perform controversial edits with the "minor" checkbox ticked (and without even including a summary). Please stop. —David Levy 22:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider reopening a discussion to which one is party, where said discussion was closed arbitrarily and without warning, to be by any means a reprehensible action, and certainly not one that should be immediately and cursorily reverted. Kevin McE (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My objection, as noted above, was that Sca abused the "minor" checkbox (after being politely warned not to) when reverting a contested change without explanation.

I'm not a fan of closing active, open-ended discussions, but the above isn't an appropriate response to a good-faith, non-test edit. —David Levy 16:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of the minor edit button is not grounds for reverting an edit in such a cursory manner: responding with sympathy on the talk page of the person to whom it happened seemed an entirely appropriate response. Kevin McE (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How was my response "cursory"? I, unlike Sca, carefully supplied an edit summary (and then elaborated on this talk page).

Reopening a closed discussion generally is controversial, but if Sca wishes to do so without ~~hiding the act behind a~~ using the "minor" label (as though Tone's closure amounted to vandalism) and ideally with an edit summary, I won't object. —David Levy 17:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory in that it gave no indication of thoughtfulness as to whether it was proper to re-open the discussion; your edit note gave the impression that inappropriate use of the minor edit button in and of itself justified reverting Sca's re-opening of the discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your reformatting. That's fine too. I've restored Sca's comment. —David Levy 18:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David, please understand that I was not "hiding the act behind a 'minor' label." Rather, I mistakenly thought that a revert was considered a minor edit — probably, because I almost never revert anything. Indeed, I can't think of another instance when I have during five-plus years on Wiki.

In the future I shall be more cautious with the "minor" label. I ask that in the future you assume good faith on my part, and refrain from impugning my motives with incautious language like "hiding the act." Thank you. Sca (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a poor choice of words on my part. I intended to refer to the end result, not your motives.

This section's first message clearly conveys that "a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute" and "the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled 'minor'."

It also links to Help:Minor edit, which explains that "editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes", "logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display minor edits" and "reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances."

So regardless of your intent, you treated Tone's closure as vandalism and obfuscated the nature of your reversion.

Please read Help:Minor edit to improve your understanding of the topic. Thank you. —David Levy 23:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on the Berlin page

Hi - since you edited the Berlin page within the last couple months, I'm writing to ask if you'd like to weigh in on a current content dispute that has resulted in a request for comment. The issue, simply, is whether the Berlin article should include an image of the "Buddy Bears" or not. Thanks for your time, Sindinero (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Hemingway memorial

Funny, but that's a task I completely forgot about and then remembered a few days ago. I meant to send you mail - I couldn't upload because you needed to release the rights to the pic. Don't worry about the formatting - I'll dump one of the blue boxes and fiddle with it a bit. Thanks so much. The next time you're up there, we could use a pic of his grave, which is very simple, if you feel like a side trip to the cemetery. And if you're driving through Hailey, I'd love to have a pic of the Ezra Pound house. Not to burden you too much or anything like that. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Dziękuję

YW :) Are you planning to write it? I'd be happy to review it for DYK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is: "are you planning to start an article on the topic of Bombing of Germany"? I'd like to help with it, it is a major subject that should have its own Wiki article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Too bright!

True, but I am not sure what shade of red would be better. You are welcome to experiment if you want :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NP Pacific.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NP Pacific.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Königsberg

Talking is always good. I assume you refer to the edits at [1], can you give me specifics of what I should be concerned with? Honestly, as he is rewriting unreferenced text without references, I don't care that much - unless anyone cites references, this entire text might as well be removed entirely, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lindsay Lohan

I'm unsure what you're trying to achieve here. Quoting from WP:TALK, which is clear on this: "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people." As for the specific issues you brought up, compared to most featured articles (which represent the standard all articles should strive for) the Lindsay Lohan article is actually on the short side. As for the level of the detail, this is something editors have continually been working on and discussed previously on the talk page. Like I said in my edit summary, if you have any suggestions regarding that, you are welcome to post them on the talk page. Siawase (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lindsay Lohan

Make whatever change you feel obligated to make without disturbing the comment from Status. Don't insert text in the middle of his statement. Don't reformat his statement. Don't interrupt his statement with anything. Add your text, and only your text, in a place where it is clearly your signed text.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I misread your edit, and thought you had done it again.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events

Hello, Sca. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ferdinand Lassalle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture wins again?

Feel free to join in the discussion (1) of articles nominated for featured status, at WP:FAC; and /or (2) of featured articles nominated for an appearance on the main page, at WP:TFAR. If you want to propose a change to the rules to create a class of articles that cannot be featured, or a class of featured articles that cannot appear on the main page, please do so, but you will need good arguments. Meanwhile, as you are a Bob Dylan fan, I hope that Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 28, 2013 is more to your liking, and as someone interested in the middle ages, you might be more interested in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 16, 2013 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 1, 2013. No-one is going to like every article that appears at TFA, but we do our best to ensure a variety of topics and countries are represented - and that includes modern music. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé

Thanks for commenting on its great length. I put it into GAR, and someone wants to close it, but I'd like it kept open. Tell us what you think of it now here.--Aichik (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German Navy

Hi,

I noticed you changed Kriegsmarine to German Navy in a number of U-boat articles. So far the consensus here seems to be to use Kriegsmarine for the World War II-era German navy and German Navy for the current organisation post-unification. So, if you would stop making any more such changes, it would be much appreciated. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sca, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Unblock

I've unblocked you; I think there was a danger of the appearance of the blocking tool being used here to gain an advantage in a discussion, which we're not supposed to do. However ... please don't use an IP account or other account to give the appearance of being two people engaged in a discussion, if you did that. Now that you're back on board ... I'd like to put you to work, because this isn't the first time we've had a problem with people misunderstanding each other's position on use of the word "Nazi" ... in particular, Germans tend to have a different view on appropriate use of the word than Americans do. If you can help us get clarification on this issue, either here or on the German Wikipedia, that would be fantastic. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied from my talk page] This baseless and mean-spirited accusation appears to be an act of petty vindictiveness by User:MarcusBritish because I strongly opposed his viewpoint at [[2]].

In nine years on Wikipedia, I have never edited from any platform other than my own registered user name. This is personal attack on me, completely undeserved and apparently a reflection of POV nationalism on the part of User:MarcusBritish, whose home page features a large RAF roundel. I PROTEST — but thank you for lifting the restrictions imposed by User:MarcusBritish. Sca (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, happy to help. Marcus didn't block you, King of Hearts did, and he was just using the sockpuppet tools and following the procedures they use over there ... there was no vindictiveness and bias in what he did. As for the other participants in the discussion ... basically, admins aren't in charge of policing behavior, unless it gets so outrageous that it's harming the encyclopedia, and it appears that admins have no alternative but to step in. (And, we have fewer active admins these days ... but that's a topic for another page!) Anyway ... glad you're still on board. I'd love to hear from a variety of academic writers on current use and misuse of the word "Nazi", and I appreciated the work you did showing that many sources don't use the word in certain cases ... but we're just getting started, there's a lot more to do before everyone is convinced. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Idaho

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Idaho, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about Idaho.

--BDD (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German Navy, again

I notice you made a series of changes to about half-a-dozen U-boat pages following the closure of the MILHIST discussion on this subject.
I don’t know where you got the idea from, but most of the changes exceed the limits set by that discussion in some way. If the term “Nazi German” is not to be used, that does not warrant deleting the link to the article on the state in question. So I have replaced the links (as at U-881, etc). Nor was the change to the U-530 page warranted; nor those to U-1235, U-548, U-546, or U-864: I have reverted those, as well.
Also (at U-81) the change to the rank, from Oberleutnant to “Senior Lt” is probably original research; we have a page on the rank, and "Oblt" is a recognized abbreviation, so we’d be better off using them, instead. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please use: [Kriegsmarine]→(Kriegsmarine), [Nazi Germany|German] [Kriegsmarine|Navy]→(German Navy), "or" [Nazi Germany|German] [Kriegsmarine]→(German Kriegsmarine). Preferably, not the latter. Thanks.--IIIraute (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this:

To take your last point first, Sca, the conclusion of the MILHIST discussion was to discontinue using the term “Nazi Germany”: Of the nine U-boat pages you edited, five of them caused no offence at all in this regard, while the other four required the deletion of just one word: yet you chose to delete both the terms and the links on all nine pages to substitute your own chosen expression. So if anyone is “trying to circumvent the conclusion of the discussion”, it isn’t me.

As far as preferring Navy to Kriegsmarine, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, but several contributors did, so you have no moral high ground on that score; and Illraute's engram only shows that the term Kriegsmarine is, if anything, increasing in general usage and is hardly less common now than German Navy. And you’ll note my edits to restore the links you deleted didn’t remove the term Navy, they simply linked to the correct article for the particular Navy referred to.

Also, you may not see the point of linking, but they are there not only “to increase readers' understanding of the topic”. but also “to help the reader find related information”. A page on a warship of the German Navy in World War II that didn’t provide links to the articles on the state, or the navy, or the conflict referred to, because the editor felt they "served no purpose", would be deficient IMO, and in the opinion of several other of the MILHIST contributors. So I put them back.

As for the Oblt, here's a Google search for the term, with about a quarter of a million hits, so it’s recognizable to someone, at least. And it really doesn’t matter whether you speak German or not: My edit provided a link to an explanation (should it be needed) and followed the advice on Abbreviations by giving the term in full with the abbreviation in brackets (and, BTW, a full stop) in the first instance, before using it thereafter; did yours? I think we serve English readers better that way than by making up terms (like “Sr. Lt.”) which are likely to be opaque to everybody, not just editors focused on military history, or German speakers. Xyl 54 (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've replied to Illraute's comments at my talkpage on his. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recent discussion, I will henceforth use "German Navy (Kriegsmarine)" in all references to the German Navy in WWII. With the "Kriegswmarine" link, any readers who wish to know more about the military force at issue can do so via the link. Sca (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a clear separation of Kriegsmarine from Reichsmarine, Kaiserliche Marine or Bundesmarine, the use of War Navy would be more correct as Marine itself is translated Navy. In de:Wiki haben wir ein ähnliches Problem, dass viele Leute Army nach Armee übersetzen. Ist möglich, in den meisten Fällen ist aber der Begriff Heer gemeint. Mit War Navy spezifizierst du, es ist die deutlichste Benennung. (Sorry for using German but as Sca says on his User page he is a good German speaker I wanted to show what I mean as clear as possible.) --Bomzibar (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per "German Navy (Kriegsmarine)", you are, of course, entitled to use that format on any U-boat/German warship articles you care to create: What you are not entitled to do is to put your chosen format in place of an existing format which is as good, or better, simply to satisfy your personal preference.

Changes to existing versions of articles need to be improvements, not to further a particular agenda. And, per WP:CONSENSUS, they need to be acceptable to everybody else on the project. It is up to you to demonstrate how your change is, in fact, an improvement.

I have again reverted your changes to U-81 (1941), U-548, U-549, U-881 and U-1235, per WP:BRD, and fixed the others;

Your insistence on making these changes contrary to consensus, and to the outcomes of the MILHIST discussion, is becoming edit warring. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oblt

I have already pointed out to you the guidelines on original research, and on the presentation of abbreviations. Yet you have, again, added the term "Senior Lt" to examples of the rank of Oberleutnant (Oblt.)
I have corrected these, (here, and here) per MOS; and, to be clear, an Oberleutnant is not a senior rank at all; it is rated OF-1 on the NATO comparison scale, equivalent to Lt.jg (USN) or Sub-Lieutenant (RN). (It isn’t even a good translation; "senior" is älter, not ober)
Please do not make the same mistake yet again. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The academic world does not support Wiki's usages in this regard. Bah! Sca (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]