Jump to content

User talk:Gzornenplatz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aecis (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 26 September 2004 (Vice Presidents). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
  • If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 17:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reply to your question

The quote is not appropriate in an article on George Bush. It is aggressively POV against Bush. The George Bush article (and all Wikipedia articles) is intended to be neutral. Bring it up on the talk page if you think there is a lot of support for this. - Tεxτurε 03:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

dashes vs. hyphens

I noticed the back-and-forth on George W. Bush. While the things the guy used the first time were bad, the second time he used –s, which ought to be okay. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes , it says

  • A single spaced hyphen - actually, there's no real reason to flout the rules of good typesetting in this way. If you come across one of these, please feel free to convert it into your preferred dash style from the above list.

--wwoods 07:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I thought they were the same dashes the first time, as they looked the same, but I see they weren't coded as – before. Gzornenplatz 18:45, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche

Hi, Can you give a source for that info on the "Eurasian Land Bridge" in the Helga Zepp-LaRouche article? There's a LaRouche nutter who is going to challenge it if we don't cite a source. Thanks. AndyL 08:45, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. AndyL 09:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

You see, Im quite reasonable. In fact, I wouldn't even require that the entire paragraph be in the opening; merely a reference to it would have been sufficient. I will leave it alone for now; hopefully, they won't revert your compromise. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Oh, too late -- so sad. They have reverted you. I hope this convinces you that they are intent on reverting things, solely because I advocate the change. There is no ration, reason, or logic to their reverting -- they simply don't like me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

What do you mean with reference? There was a link to the footnote. Would you have preferred something more explicit like "see footnote 1 regarding the use of the short form 'Saddam' in this article"? Why don't you edit the article the way you want it, just to make it clear what exactly the dispute is about? Gzornenplatz 09:24, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

It is clear what I want, thats why you are able to say something like -- "see footnote 1 regarding the use of the short form 'Saddam' in this article"? Its very clear what I want; but even a note like that, is going to be reverted if I try to add it. This has happened on dozens of articles, no matter how much effort I put into making a good edit -- it will be reverted by one of those jerks.

So Im not going to waste a lot of time trying to make the "perfect" edit, until they indicate that they accept my notion of referring directly to the footnote, with some sort of a sentence. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Kuznetsov

Could you show me where these non-LaRouche references to Kuznetsov are? Adam 15:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here, here, or here. Gzornenplatz 15:46, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the signature help

Just dropping by to say thanks. I pulled my hair out on that for awhile, silly of me not to think about that. — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 08:20, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hadhramaut map

I notice that you've suppressed the map, but didn't replace it. A physical-geographical map will be excellent, and a great improvement. Would you please supply one for Maghreb also? Deleting is not the same as editing. Wetman 17:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would say that deleting false or misleading material is part of editing. The map showed the former South Yemen, which, you will have to agree, is not the same as the Hadhramaut. A correct map would be nice, but lacking that it is still better to have no map than a misleading one. Gzornenplatz 20:49, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Frédéric Chopin - I agree it should be deleted for a page move - but just sticking a speedy delete tag on it won't achieve that - you need to explain your reasons on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and then someone will do it for you. Secretlondon 02:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Well done. Lirath Q. Pynnor

accents

What do you mean by 'mistaken accents' in the India page? Agreed there are no accents in pure English. The translation from Hindi/Sanskrit to English is not very simple to pronounce. Based on this, accents were introduced to allow the phrase to be phonetically correct. This can neither be said to be correct nor incorrect as there is no *correct* letter to letter translation. ¶ nichalp 21:13, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

It's just not usually done. "Satyameva Jayate" appears 1,740 times on Google, but the only few hits that spell it "Jayaté" are copies of the Wikipedia article. Gzornenplatz 21:37, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Nauru

The addition you made to History of Nauru seems to be taken verbatim from the site you linked to. But that site has a copyright note. Do you have permission to use that text? Gzornenplatz 01:08, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, this site I linked to is using public domain information from the American State Department. This apparently is where the original Wikipedia article came from as well. I though a link might be useful as I plan on updating this in the future and having a reminder link here would help me to remember to check for updates. Should I annotate the link better? User:Wikilibrarian 13 July 2004
In that case that site is making a false claim of copyright. It would be better to link to the original State Department info. Gzornenplatz 01:21, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
OK, thanks. The State Department site is not as well organized for linking (the history section is buried in the larger county study) but I'll look for a better way to do this. Thanks for the note. User:Wikilibrarian 13 July 2004

Angola

Hi,

Re- Angola, (had to add this here as I was still getting a Spam filter for some reason when I tried to add it to the end)

I agree that there is duplication with Heads of Government and Prime Minister, however the Prime Minister page has text relating to the post of prime minister as well as a list of post-holders, whereas the list of Heads of Government has no such preamble.

I did not want to ride rough-shod over the creator of the Prime Minister's pages work, nor over any perceived or real Wiki-policy which such an edit may have contravened.

best regards --JohnArmagh 04:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The only such pages I have created are Angola, Algeria and Ecuador, the other pages I have done have been totally new lists.

I have no problem with getting a consensus.

The way I see it there should be a simple break-down for each state:-

1. Head of State 2. Head of Government 3. Colonial Heads 4. Rulers of precursor states where appropriate 5. Heads of the various ministerial portfolios as appropriate.

Also there is no standard format for such lists at present, which I think should be addressed. --JohnArmagh 15:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You just created Heads of Government of Chad, but there was already Prime Minister of Chad. You should propose your format somewhere and get more people's input first. Gzornenplatz 16:15, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
You appear to be correct - but I don't take the blame for that - I was going by the list of office-holders which I had thought was comprehensive - the page Prime Minister of Chad is not listed therein.
So, how does one go about asking for a concensus?
--JohnArmagh 16:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Maybe raise the matter on the Wikipedia:Village Pump, or put your proposal on some talk page and link to it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Gzornenplatz 16:43, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

In that case, someone in authority, who is responsible for consistency etc. should be reviewing this list (and any others like it) to ensure it is comprehensive. An incomplete reference list may as well not exist at all. --JohnArmagh 12:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's not how the wiki works. There is no authority responsible for consistency. Anyone, including you, can add to an incomplete list, but no one can ever guarantee that a list of articles is complete. If you don't want to waste your effort, you should check if a subject is already covered, by doing appropriate searches. Gzornenplatz 12:24, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

A favor to ask.

VeryVerily has repeatedly changed the "Popularity" section of George W. Bush against consensus; both you and I have reverted his improper changes. I have contacted VV on his talk page, but I doubt he will listen, and to file a request for comment you need two people to contact the person on their talk page. I'd appreciate it if you would do what I did on VV's talk page, so if he doesn't stop I can file a RfC against him. Thanks, Neutrality 01:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) :)
Done. Gzornenplatz 02:10, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
It seems that I was right, and VV would not listen. Would you sign off on my request for comment (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2)? Thanks. Neutrality 04:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

¡Pangæa!

¡Thanks for moving Pangaea to Pangæa!

I wanted to move Pangaea to Pangæa for months. I was a hesitant to move the article about Pangæa myself because the last time I moved an article, Prepuce to Præpuce, everyone yelled at me. If anyone complains about Pangæa, you have my support.

Ŭalabio 06:02, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)


About Betances

My Wikipedian friend, At first I wrote my articles with accents however I found out that other web sites such as :NatioMaster.com which uses our articles were unable to redirect the articles which so much time and effert have taken me time to write. since my article are written for the english version of Wikipedia and since many Latinos raised in the U.S. do not understand the use of accents, I've decided to eliminate them from my articles making them acessable to everybody. So please my friend do not redirect my articles. Good luck. (User:Marine 69-71)

Well, that's Nationmaster's problem if they can't deal with the redirects. What does it matter to us? Here the redirects work, so the articles are accessible to everybody. Gzornenplatz 06:18, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. I want people from other websites, including NatioMaster enjoy my articles about the acomplishments of my poeple and I hope that you rspect my wishes. I do not interffer with anybody else's work unless it's to add or correct factual information. Take Care, friend (User:Marine 69-71)

The problem is just that it is against the established Wikipedia practice. There must be thousands of articles with accents or other special characters in the title. The policy on this is not likely to be changed. And we should be consistent, don't you think? Gzornenplatz 07:28, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about thousands of articles written with accents but, you're right there are many. I do know that I would have trouble accessing an article whose tittle was written with Russian or German accents. Then again Wikipedia has different versions for other languages. As I explained before, my articles are for the english version of Wikipedia. I've consulted this before with an administrator and there is no problem. I'm only concerned about the articles written by me since I've put in so much time on researching and etc. I know you're reasonable so, let's not make this an issue and let's drop it, O.K?, Friend? Oh yeah, I agree with you about the John Kerry issue. Your friend in Wikipedia. (User:Marine 69-71)

I was talking about the English version - the titles here include accents, including German umlauts. Which administrator told you otherwise? I don't think it's a good idea to make an exception for articles written by you. Your time on researching is not wasted just because Nationmaster doesn't properly redirect those articles. Why would anyone use Nationmaster or another mirror for any length of time anyway? Everyone sooner or later finds the original and then will only use Wikipedia. Gzornenplatz 11:56, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an exception. There are many people who do not use accents in there names. There are diplomas, discharge papers and etc. without accents. If I were to write an article on one of these persons, then I have to accent their names? How many Joses' are there that do not use an accent on thier names? The administrator is AntonioMartin. So, come on let's drop the issue already, O.K? I respect your point of view but, on the other hand I ask that you respect my point of view. Friends? (User:Marine 69-71)

Yes, there are people who do not use accents, and you don't have to accent those people's names. But that doesn't apply to the people you edited, like Muñoz Marín etc. And AntonioMartin just happens to be your son. I can respect your point of view but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Gzornenplatz 13:39, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

STOP your wholesale deletions/reversions!

You need to STOP your wholesale deletions on the John Kerry page. This a controversial topic and you are supposed to discuss this before taking such drastic action! You are causing an edit war and I am going to report you!

Rex071404 12:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry

I've had enough of this. What would you think about filing a RfC? Ambivalenthysteria 12:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And now he's threatened User:Gzornenplatz as well. Ambivalenthysteria 12:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've got Rex ranting on my talk page too. What fun. Gamaliel 21:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I say go for it. Bring it up with RfC and/or ArbCom. Neutrality 21:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For VVAW, I would be satisfied with this (see below)

Rex071404 22:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

File:Kerryrally.jpg
John Kerry speaks at an anti-Vietnam War rally.

From November 12-15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri. It has been reported that at that meeting, a VVAW member proposed that they should assassinate pro-Vietnam War politicians.

Some sources say that this suggestion was immediately shouted down by a large majority. Also, according to some reports, Kerry left the meeting prior to that suggestion being offered and was therefor not present to personally hear the proposal for violence.

On this subject, over the years, Kerry has at various times stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City. He has said that his memory is that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971.

However, the New York Sun reported in a front page article on March 12, 2004 that "Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not remember attending." [1]

Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" [2]

The varying reports on this topic do not make clear precisely what the historical record is and for that reason, th readers are left to drawn their own conclusions about this.

Request for Comment

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rex071404. Ambivalenthysteria 07:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Weimar glossary

1)Why did you remove the Beamte and Angestellte names from the glossary? I think they should belong in the glossary.

2)In the Wikipedia manual of style, the section should read "Related topics" and I guess you have been going around putting "See Also". Should we adhere to the manual of style or has it been changed? Would you let me know? WHEELER 20:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The terms Beamte and Angestellte are in no way particular to Weimar. "See also" seems to be the standard; I see the MoS accepts both, so if you prefer "Related topics" feel free to change it back. Gzornenplatz 20:47, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
If it accepts both I won't change it then. I know that they are not *particular* to the Weimar I included them because when one reads books one runs into these terms because they have to do with the particular political manuverings of the Weimar Republic. I added them for students and for technical information only. I added "von" to the glossary of the Third Reich because it is a common use during that time and many people wouldn't know the normal definition of it. My purpose is the same for those two terms.WHEELER 21:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The glossary should not only be terms specific but general terms that are used alot in that period.WHEELER 21:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, but you might as well run into the terms Beamte or Angestellte in a book about the Nazi or Kaiserreich or Federal Republic periods. The same applies to "von" - I don't see why that should be in the Third Reich glossary but not in the Weimar one. Gzornenplatz 21:36, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
I will add all three back in. A little redundancy is good. The struggle over these blocks of workers was especially prevalent during the Weimar period and their effects on voting. That is why it is, I think, very pertinent to the Weimar period. I have not added Beamte or Angestellte to the Nazi glossary because by then it is over in the Nazi Glechshlaatung (sp) and Volkgemenshaft (sp). (I know I butcher spellings; on talk pages I am not too concerned for sp)WHEELER 22:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response to last comment

Hey, I was away for a while and never replied to your last note on the page, so I'd like to now.

First, I'll note that I tracked down the poll you alluded to that tied Hussein and Bush in the UK; it turns out it was an online poll, which, I hope you will agree, is next to worthless. One should at any rate be suspicious of someone who writes an article purporting to speak for an entire nation. The poll cited in The Guardian is probably much more reliable.

I agree with your claim that "tends to be lower" is not saying much. That's what the rest of the paragraph is for. In fact the very next thing said is "In many parts of the world he is very unpopular". What more do you want? (Even this may go too far, but no matter.) The first sentence introduces the topic; the rest gives the details. The topic sentence should be general enough to cover what follows - and thus should not overstate the general case. If you believe information is being lost by opening this way, could you say how?

The use of relatively is ambiguous in this context. To communicate that you intend both meanings, one must use a construction which communicates this, not one which could mean either.

I explained, I believe, why I removed the link. Protests are not representative and are all but a worthless gauge of local opinion. Indeed, gigantic protests were held in the US in San Francisco, DC, etc., so their existence is irrelevant to the question of relative popularity. VV 08:37, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still think the first sentence is too much of an understatement. Maybe we can just leave it out? Also, the Ipsos/AP poll from 2004 reports that "In Britain, the closest U.S. ally in the war in Iraq, and in Canada, two-thirds had a negative view." That's not "close to evenly divided". You have a point about the protests, but they should be mentioned somewhere in the article, maybe better in the Iraq section. Gzornenplatz 09:25, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
The protests already receive considerable mention in the Iraq section. The study cited in the article says: Canada: 48% fav, 48% unfav; Australia, 45% fav, 49% unfav; UK, 41% fav, 53% unfav. Only the UK could even be plausibly argued not to be close to evenly divided, but to me they all are. Consider how much this data fluctuates, both here and abroad (hence the poll you cited), and this seems the best way to put it. The other versions of the text were pure negativity, which is misleading and poor style. A note about Israel might help too (62%/33%). I don't favor dropping the topic sentence, as it provides for the topic shift that follows. I understand what you're saying about "understatement", but it's surely not a limiting understatement, as would be "is slightly lower" or "is not quite as high". I could certainly live with other wording if it addressed the concerns I raised, but no one has seemed interested in doing that. VV 09:50, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, the protests are adequately mentioned. Looking at all polls together, the balance seems to be negative in Canada and the U.K. I don't think you could find a poll that shows Canada 2/3 favourable, so as to balance the Ipsos/AP poll. See if you find my latest edit acceptable. Gzornenplatz 10:21, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, this looks pretty good. I'm shuffling around the stuff about Israel and adding back the poll link but leaving everything else as is. I hope this is satisfactory to all. VV 11:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey Gz, if you feel that we have reached a fairly satisfying conclusion in our content negotiation, I'd appreciate if you could supplement or alter your comments about me on the RfC page and the like. Despite my hopes, the GWB compromise we found is being heatedly opposed (apparently for procedural reasons). VV 01:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That would be easier if you hadn't started reverting again. Just because the two of us have agreed on a mutually acceptable version doesn't mean the others have to agree with it. We need to find a consensus on the talk page. And until then, why not just let the other version stand. Nothing is achieved by having the page protected all the time. Gzornenplatz 02:48, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
I thought that maybe you felt communication was productive when both sides were listening, which wasn't happening before. I was and am being reverted on the grounds that there's some "consensus" that not one word should be altered, a principle which would stagnate Wikipedia. Of course, polls are not binding, and anyway I was basing my version on Neutrality's, which is as much as such a primitive poll could mandate. Anyway, it's up to you what you want to say and do, but it might be helpful if you counterbalanced some of your previously harsh words now that we've had a chance to talk. I will survive either way, of course. VV 04:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's not meant to be harsh, and I'm not accusing you of violating binding rules, just suggesting that your attempts to force an issue by reverting are not productive. Of course, the section should not be cast in stone because of the poll, but I don't think the others revert you merely on principle, but because they think the other version is better. The discussion should go on on the talk page, but in the meantime you should leave the version that got the widest acceptance in place. Propose your changes, ask for comments, then if no one argues against it, you can implement it, and if people are still reverting you then, you can blame them for refusing discussion. Gzornenplatz 12:57, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

German

Thanks for the corrections to my "German" at Glossary of German WWII military terms. I'll look at it as a free German lesson. Any other suggestions for additions/subtractions? --DanielCD 18:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can't think of any additions at the moment, but if something comes to mind I'll add it. Gzornenplatz 19:26, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

EasyTimeline

EasyTimeline is back now. Cheers, Erik Zachte 16:42, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Art categories

Hi,

I noticed that you have recently been active in editing articles in the visual arts. Can I also encourage you to join the categorisation discussion at Category talk:Art (particularly for a German perspective) -- Solipsist 22:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig

Your recent edit to the first line of Gdansk "(formerly Danzig)" [3] and your comment "(it's not Danzig in English)" are in my personal view sensible. But not everyone will see it that way, as it is a sensitive issue: your edit will be seen as that of a German nationalist, while your comment will be seen as that of a Polish nationalist. So do not be too surprised if you get a reaction from some of the other editors. (My personal view is that it hardly matters what the first line says so long as it helps casual visitors looking for Danzig to know that they are on the correct page when they arrive at Gdansk.) --Henrygb 01:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Staci Greason

Hi. Although your revert was well-meaning, the problem is that we're fighting a vandal who repeatedly adds substubs or overlays valid text with his own substubs. We're trying to make him to be a "User:Michael"-like automatic delete or reversion, but unfortunately, he uses multiple anon IDs, so we can't permanently block a single ID. We just have to keep reverting and redirecting. RickK 18:37, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with RickK. See the Village Pump discussion. These stubs are far from legitimate, and the reasons why they are such are discussed there. Mike H 19:27, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

France and Mauritania

Why did you remove the fact that Moktar Ould Daddah is Charles de Gaulle's son-in-law? I have seen this reported in numerous sources, yet you failed to provide an adequate explanation for your deletion. --Sesel 04:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not a fact. You find a lot of strange claims on the web propagated by people who think if it's somewhere on the web it must be true. Gzornenplatz 05:02, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
How do you know that it is not true? Please provide a SOURCE, as I have for my claim. --Sesel 15:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
All you can provide are obscure webpages of no authority; the burden is not on me to prove them wrong. You won't find a single French page making this claim, even though there is of course lots of detailed material about de Gaulle and his relations available. In short, he had only two daughters, Elisabeth (who married Alain de Boissieu) and Anne (who was mentally handicapped and died at 20, unmarried). But you could have researched this yourself, instead you just copied this claim, never mind that none of your pages even mentions the name of the daughter that Daddah supposedly married. Gzornenplatz 16:25, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

B Movie Bandit

Why do you find it necessary to run around and revert all of those redirects? All you're doing is encouraging the idiot. Tell you what, I'll ask Lucky 6.9 and Mike H to let me know that they're there, and I'll just speedy delete them. How's that? RickK 23:54, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Why would you speedy delete them? There was nothing wrong about the stubs I reverted (all two of them). Redirecting only makes sense if the target page already contains the entire information of the stub. Otherwise, information is lost. That doesn't mean that the user should not be blocked if the net effect of his editing (if it includes overwriting of existing articles etc.) is detrimental. Gzornenplatz 00:08, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

"tends to be lower" is better language

Regarding GWB Rex071404 01:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion

If you want to draw attention to VV's inappropriate reversions on George W. Bush, I’d suggest that you start another Request for Comment, instead of adding to my old one. Neutrality 03:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if that makes a difference, it's the same issue. I guess the next step is arbitration. Gzornenplatz 03:13, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

B=Movie Bandit template

Hi. I created the template as a temporary measure since I and several users feel that cleaning up after this individual after countless unsuccessful attempts at contact is a waste of time. The idea was first suggested by Infrogmation, and it seems that several edits have already been performed on the template, so I don't think that I'm alone in my assertion that the "B-Movie Bandit" is the most bizarre vandal in the history of this site and that well-meaning users shouldn't feel obligated to fix this guy's BS. I respectfully ask that you review the template in its current form and to reconsider your vote. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 06:21, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do what you must, but on my watch partisans will not have free run of the Bush article. I will not yield to bullying, or to blackmail. Be happy, it is still screechingly negative. VV 11:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying those 19 users who voted for Neutrality's version (as opposed to 3 for your version) are all "partisans"? I'm trying to give you a chance here; it's quite likely the Arbitration Commission will put you on "revert parole" at least for the Bush article, and then you will have to yield to that. Gzornenplatz 11:20, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Having problem

I am having a problem with this person 80.133.47.46. He goes around and edits many articles without logging in.

He has changed "White terror" in the Glossary of the Weimar Republic several times. You and me have both corrected this. He continues to change the name of it. I don't know who 80.133.47.46. I think he is an administrator too. I believe that if this person is making this many edits and is really vandalizing sites I think that he needs a talking to, he needs to sign in, and he needs to start acting professionally. This person has also vandalized Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. I believe this person jumps around uses several different names and creates new accounts all the time. Some new account named Pehrs corrected the vandalism in von Kuehnelt. This should not be happening and by an administrator no less. Please help.WHEELER 00:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Substubs

I have been exceedingly patient, but I am becoming a bit upset by your constant reversion of my work. Surely you could do better than simply italicizing the name of the movie in each of these. This block of stubs is even worse than those of the B-Movie Bandit. I respectfully ask that if you wish to revert the redirects to at least expand the postings beyond a single sentence. - Lucky 6.9 03:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agustin Stahl

How are you doing? stop reverting the articles which I wrote. The reason I keep the titles of my articles without accents is so that the english speaking public at which they are directed, and who do not understand the use and comcept of accents, will have access to them. Before doing your reverts try dicussing it first with the person who wrote it. I've already dicussed this with before. I don't mind your corrections, whuch have ben good and I don't mind the accents within the articules but, I want my titles as is. Respect my wishes is all I ask. Thank you. User:Marine 69-71

We have discussed this before. Wikipedia uses accents in titles. You can't change the rules for articles you write. Gzornenplatz 16:14, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing my titles. Stop your harrassment. Get it into your head that this is the "ENGLISH' version. If you go into aq book store and buy a book on Puerto Rico in engish you will see that there are no accents. Is that so hard for you to understand? What is your problem anyway? Where3 does it say in Wikipedia that you "MUST" use accents? Show me where it says that it is a "MUST". I've tried being nice but it seems that you do not respect other peoples wishes. Lets put and end to this. User:Marine 69-71

I protected the articles the way I found them (see the protection policy and m:The Wrong Version). I don't see a clear statement in Wikipedia:Naming conventions that one way or the other is correct, so I think you need to resolve this issue with Marine 69-71 yourself or get more of the community involved in the discussion. --Michael Snow 23:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I said, I tried to resolve this but as you can see from above on this page it is a lost cause. The community has already decided as seen by the fact that surely well over 90% of articles about things that are correctly accented are already at the correct accented titles, and I don't think anyone other than Marine has ever protested that. So it should be up to him to get the community involved if he wants to change that practice. Gzornenplatz 23:20, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Peace Offering

Live is a countinous process of learning. what makes us special as human beings is that we have the capacity of learning from our mistakes. I realize that I overreacted in the accent issue. I would like to offer my hand in Wikipidian friendship and understanding. User:Marine 69-71

Thanks, I'm glad to take it. Sorry if any of my previous comments sounded harsh. Gzornenplatz 00:21, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

No ofense taken. Tell you what, when ever I have a question in regard to putting accents I'll ask you. You're better at it then i'll ever be. Thanks. User:Marine 69-71

Georgiy Gongadze

Dear Wikipedian fellow, I find your latest editing of Georgiy Gongadze page inaccurate. You must be wanted to present another version of spelling his name, which is OK. But you shouldn't delete other versions. Especially considering that Georgiy is much more spread. Furthermore, in this case spelling explanation section (which you've deleted) is vitally needed. I'll revert your edits ASAP. Also asking you to explain your further changes on respective discussion pages. However, thank you for adding Georgiy's patronymic. Best wishes, AlexPU 05:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where is Georgiy much more spread? Google gives "Georgy Gongadze" 3,540; "Georgiy Gongadze" 2,380. Also, Georgy is in general the more common transliteration of that name. I deleted the paragraph because it seemed inaccurate: Georgy is Russian to begin with - the Georgian version of that name would be Giorgi; also note that although in Ukrainian his first name is written Heorhiy, his surname is not changed (see Google again: "Heorhiy Gongadze" 2,240; "Heorhiy Honhadze" 37). In short, I think mentioning the two versions at the beginning is entirely sufficient. Gzornenplatz 05:35, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
Let's agree that we should present all spelling versions mentioned. Among them Georgiy is vital because it's a literal transition from the most spread Ukrainian/Russian version (you wouldn't argue it is much more spread and often used for preparing English texts). Would you make such edit please?
Also note that:
  • Gongadze was a Ukrainian journalist and is a figure of Ukrainian history (not Georgian or English);
  • we should face reality while writing an encyclopedia: BBC or CNN news reports on Gongadze's case (where he is usually Georgiy) have dramatically larger audience that any other Web source;
  • there are many hot and lasting discussions on different pages regarding Google as a statistic source.
Anyway, I don't dispute usage of Georgy and wish to thank you for adding it. Best wishes, AlexPU 12:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RFAr compliment

I like the way that you responded to VV on RFAr. I thought it was very civil and straightforward. Kevin Baas | talk 23:06, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Sorry, Platz, this issue has been discussed, arbitrated, and argued about for ages now. I was just hoping you'll find out for yourself, without me holding your hand. If I appeared rude, I apologise, it was not my intention. Check the Talk pages for Szczecin, Gdansk, Vilnius, Hrodna for starters. My edit is the compromise that arrived from hours of discussion. I don't understand your edit. Go ahead and educate me: what's the logic behind your version? I mean, it appears false to me as those names are also CURRENTLY German names as well. My version, is at least (so it seems) 100% true. Regards. Cadet.

No, they aren't currently German names, as has been demonstrated on Talk:Pila. Please do "hold my hand" and point me to those arbitration results that have established your version as final. Gzornenplatz 02:48, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

B-Movie Bandit decision

Hi. Regarding your reversion of my speedy delete on the latest B-Movie Bandit substub, no less than Jimbo Wales has stated that the articles can be tagged on sight, deleted and the proxy blocked. IMO, simply formatting these is not going to help the situation. I'm taking the liberty of reposting the speedy delete. Normally, I wouldn't do this. However, this person is doing more than just dropping stubs. He's de-contented existing articles as well. I appreciate your concern over the deletion of factual material. That's why I've worked on some of these stubs myself. Might I ask you to please just let these stubs be deleted? Thanks for understanding. - Lucky 6.9 03:52, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand it. What do the stubs with factual material have to do with the de-contenting of other articles by that user? I don't mind if the user is blocked, but as long as he is here we can keep the stubs that are factual. As far as I can see Jimbo Wales has only commented on the matter as an ordinary user. Or has he now made an official decree? Gzornenplatz 04:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

He said to go ahead and tag whatever comes in as a speedy delete. If you really and truly wish to expand them, please feel free. I'd rather see these blown out of the water on sight, but that's only my opinion. What upsets me about the guy/gal is the apparent unwillingness to do the right thing. I agree that a substub is better than nothing, but no one here should feel obligated at this point to either format or expand these things. IMO, "fact" does not necessarily equal "information." A cast list and year of release does not an encyclopedia make. Since the general consensus seems to be to go ahead and tag them for deletion, I'll continue to do so, but please don't let that stop you from expanding the substub if you truly wish to. At their best, they're the seeds of an article. Personally, I'm just sick of these things. - Lucky 6.9 18:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello Gzorenplatz...you removed my addition of Berumen and described it as self-promotion? I am not him and have never met him. Promotion...perhaps....but isn't that what everyone does here....promote their point of view (under the veil of objectivity, of course)?

No. Gzornenplatz 22:20, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

You, sir, are incorrect and, might I say, unjustifiably self-confident and immodest in your views on this as well as many other matters that I have read on this forum. What is more, you are rather vindictive and small-minded, for I note you have been a busy bee. Oh well, I'm out of here. Larry Howard, aka logicmaster.

I think removing these tags is really counterproductive and it aggravates me to no end. Personally, this guy is causing much trouble for me and my work and you're just aiding him. Mike H 18:15, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

How are those stubs causing trouble for your work? You can just ignore them. Gzornenplatz 18:16, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
I work in this section. I've written probably 100 (or more) legitimate articles on soap actors that I'm quite proud of. When I see things like this, it undermines the work I have done, and I feel like I am obligated to clean them up, to bring them up to my other articles. Sure, I don't HAVE to, but let's be honest, would you like someone shitting on things you liked to do? Mike H 18:18, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. First of all, factual stubs are in no way "shitting". How do they undermine your work on different articles? You are not obligated at all at improving them. You're not responsible for the entire section of soap actors. Gzornenplatz 21:01, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hello, again. If you really want to defend these B-Movie Bandit stubs, might I impose on you to please do more than to merely format them? We're no better off with a formatted and useless substub than one that is, well, useless. I agree with Mike H. He's put in too much time trying to clean up after this goon. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 18:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The stubs are not useless, and Mike doesn't have to clean up anything. Gzornenplatz 21:01, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Apparently you're just not choosing to get how I feel about it, so there's no use talking about it anymore. Mike H 21:03, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Please. If you're going to do anything to these, do more than just format them. The "J. Eddie Peck" was speed-deleted once before. The overwhelming consensus is that these stubs are vandalic. We've gone this long without an article on this guy. Would it hurt to wait until a real article comes along? We're not the repository of the sum of the world's knowledge, and garbage like this guy is leaving just plain looks bad. Please, please work with me on this. - Lucky 6.9 00:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Enzo G. Baldoni

Dear Gzorenplatz. I was trying to redirect Enzo Baldoni to Enzo G. Baldoni as I had changed his neme in the Recent deaths list. The motive I did this is because that Enzo Baldoni always signed either with EGB or Enzo G. Baldoni. So it seems proper too me that he islisted under that name. Sure my redirect wasn't successful and I was still figuring out why. So could you please do the redrect or let me get on with it. Tank you and good work Vanderesch 13:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you want to rename a page, use the "Move" function to preserve the history. However, I'm not sure if this should be renamed. Google prefers "Enzo Baldoni" (24,800) to "Enzo G. Baldoni" (653). Gzornenplatz 13:56, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Template

Would you please not alter the templates on Elections and parties. These were designed this way to give direct links to global information on elections/election results and the lists of political parties. Gangulf 14:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why would you have an "election niger" template with links to Niger-unspecific pages? You might as well include a link to the Main Page on that template! It is absolutely unnecessary to have a link from Politics of Niger to a general List of political parties. Gzornenplatz 14:27, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Please stop!

Read this (and see GWB talk) before you revert anymmore:

Uh Consensus means we are supposed to try to understand and agree

It seems that each "vote" or discussion falls into camps divided along the pro-Bush and anti-Bush lines. Is this honest dialog? Is there a real attempt to reach consensus? I feel that Kevin Baas in particular is convinced that Bush (and associates) pro-actively schemed in 2000 to wrongly block African-American voters so as to steal the election. I feel this because KB seems to have an extreme desire to push the "disenfranchised" angle. I also feel that this view of his adds a POV which makes gaining consensus impossible. Question for group: Why are we not allowing both premises to be in the sentences? Why must ONLY the "there was 'disenfranchisment' therefore Bush cheated" angle be emphasized? To me, reaching consensus means respecting each others views and attempting to combine them. I have explained my views to Kevin about this, his response was:

"Alright rex, it doesn't look like this conversation is going anywhere. I have said nothing that can be construed to be the least bit controversial, and I stand by it unperturbed. I have done my best to communicate with you. There is nothing more that can be said. The facts are as they are. So be it. Kevin Baas | talk 06:31, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)" [4].

That does not sound to me like he is actually trying to appreciate and incoporate into the article all view points. The purpose of a poll (not a "vote" - like someone changed the title to) is to find out where we stand, not shout-down dissent. We are supposed to homogonize our views into an acceptable text, not "vote" on who to weed out. I have posted detailed thoughts as to why I feel the term "disenfranchised" ought not to be included (or at the least, not made to be too greatly emphasized). This logic carries over to my concerns about "Validity". Also, I have asked other questions and raised other points above. Collaborative editing requires much dialog. I am talking here, what about the rest of you?

Also please take note of this Edit Smmary [5] by Kevin Bass "Business and political career - put para on consensus, pending resolution of changes via vote on talk page.)". It's clear from this that Kevin's aim is to silence dissenters via a "voting" process rather than try to reach a meeting of the minds. That is not collaboration and any so-called "consensus" reached that way is fraudulent.

Rex071404 16:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

minor point, no one changed the title -- you didn't post a title (I did). - Wolfman
Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimous agreement, sometimes that can't be achieved. You logically can't both include the word 'disenfranchised' and not include it. Looking up, I see that people have dialogued with you quite a bit about it. It's disingenous and unfair to suggest that the other editors have been unwilling to talk (see you last line above. Wolfman 17:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Here is the text of the edit I made just now

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

It is I feel more accurate than the Kevin Bass version, but still incoporates his preferred verbiage, including "The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed". I would be satisified to accept this.

And frankly, this is a big concession from me because it would be more truthful to say:

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. At the request of the Gore campaign, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

Rex071404 17:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although I'm not interested in interfering with this discussion between you two, I would like to point out a minor correction: The version that Rex calls "the Kevin Bass version" (and btw, it's Baas, rather than Bass. people misspell my last name a lot, so it doesn't bother me) was actually written by Neutrality, and got the most votes. The version that I (Kevin Baas) suggested didn't get as many votes, so I don't think that it should be put into the article. Kevin Baas | talk 18:52, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Ruben Gomez Colon

Hey, how you doing? I reverted my version back. What I want to suggest is a merge. Could you do that for me? Or maybe you could suggets the merge. I think that with a merge the article will much better. Let me know, O.K? User: Marine 69-71

Possessive

I felt I responded enough on RFA, so I'll address the possessive issue here. You can move it over to RFA if you wish.

I used to be quite possessive of what I wrote, but I got over that in the very beginning. Now, I feel like I'm one of the few people who knows about my hobby here on Wiki, and at this point, any help I can get (and have received from users like User:Lockeownzj00, User:Johnnyjoe23 or User:ZanderZ) is much appreciated and needed. So, no, I welcome all the help I can get. Cooperation is quite key for a Wiki to work. Mike H 12:58, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. I believe that I've been polite since the get-go but that comment you left about Mike and I on the RFA page is just plain wrong. As I've stated, if you or anyone else is willing to do more than merely format the "entries," please do so. Otherwise, I'll continue to post them as speedy deletes. FYI, this idiot is about to be hard-banned. Also, other admins have speed-deleted these Bandit subs in the past, so why grind Mike for them? He has turned many of these into good, useful articles as have I and countless other users. It's just gotten ridiculous is all. I appeal to you once more to please help us make something real out of these things rather than simply formatting them. If you don't wish to, and I wouldn't blame you, please just let them be wiped out. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 17:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And I maintain that, even if they are not improved, the stubs are better than nothing and there's no reason to delete them. I criticized Mike now because he is up for adminship. I equally criticize existing admins who delete factual stubs against policy. I'm not the only one who has objected to this, and if you know a deletion is controversial, you should put the article on VfD, not add a speedy delete tag. Gzornenplatz 19:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


I am in agreement with Gzornenplatz' above statement. --JohnArmagh 19:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


  • All right, now the gloves are coming off. Sir, you have been nothing but incredibly nasty throughout this exchange. The man who runs this site has even said that these stubs are idiotic and should be deleted. If you want to help, then do more than just format the things! If this was a first-time or short-term problem, you would be absolutely correct and justified in their defense. This has been going on for months on end. These stubs are NOT better than nothing. They are uninformative garbage. You can protest this all you want, but I will continue to post these for speedy deletion if they are no more than formatted. You want to follow protocol? Then make some real articles out of these things. - Lucky 6.9 22:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have been nasty? Looks more like you are. You just have to accept that we disagree on the merit of the stubs. As to the man who runs this site, he may personally agree with you on this but he has explicitly said that he is not giving an order. Gzornenplatz 22:43, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at the notes I've left prior to this one and see how "nasty" I've been. You and I both know that I've been polite. I don't mind agreeing to disagree, but you stepped way over the line including me in your opposition to Mike H's nomination. If you want to fix these damned things, please do. Just do more than format them, or they may never get fixed. That's all I'm asking. Have I reverted any that have been suitably expanded? Of course not. OK, let's go to our corners on this for a minute before it gets ugly. Please? - Lucky 6.9 22:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended you.

Gz

I'm sorry if I offended you. I shouldn't have done that ... I was just a little disappointed at the tone of your writing. I'm sorry. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with my tone. Gzornenplatz 23:39, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

-

You really like trying to kick people while they're down huh? VV 23:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? When you're blocked, you're not supposed to circumvent this, so I reverted you. Gzornenplatz 23:39, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Familiarize yourself with policy before embarking on such enforcement crusades. VV 23:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Kissinger

If you support including the text "and assassination" in the quote in the Kissinger article, please say so on Talk:Henry Kissinger. I think the assassination of Allende is critical to the character of both Kissinger and the quote, however I currently seem to be alone in that belief. Thank you for considering the issue.

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." - Said about Chile prior to the overthrow and assassination of Salvador Allende.

LegCircus 19:11, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Gaspe Peninsula

I'm trying to make the Gaspésie article names first after its most common denomination in English, "Gaspe Peninsula". Can we settle this between us; because we're doing an involuntary edit war here. ;) --Liberlogos 12:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The accent is correct. Moving it to "Gaspe" would be like moving "Jean Chrétien" to "Jean Chretien". Gzornenplatz 12:59, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Thanks for your edit to Dorothy Bush, I was about to make the same one adding Koch to it after seeing her during media coverage of the Republican convention. I was wondering whether you had any information if the Robert Koch she married has any realtion to the Koch family that runs Koch Industries. If so please share, it would be very interesting and certainly worth mentioning. Thanks again. Arminius 23:55, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Are you still willing to press ahead with mediation? If so, do you have any preferences for a mediator?

Kevin Baas has suggested Cimon Avaro, Dante Alighieri, llywch, or moink. Ambi 07:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to mediate the dispute over George W. Bush -- Please Reply at RfM

I am willing to mediate the dispute over George W. Bush listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#VeryVerily_and_Gzornenplatz.2C_Kevin_Baas if I am an acceptable choice.

Although you have already said that you have no preference, please indicate if I am an acceptable choice. If not, please indicate specifically who would be, and we can begin.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:28, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusation

Look, I don't know what your dispute with User:Jor is, and why you feel it has any bearing on me, but if you are so concerned, ask an admin to run an IP/password/whatever check if my word is not enough for you. The "same Tolkienish fantasy stuff" is easily explained: where do you think I know him from? [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 17:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's no certain check for things like that. You can use different passwords and different ISPs. Just explain how Jor saw your message today although he has been inactive for months. Gzornenplatz 17:34, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for your support of my adminship nomination. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 00:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger

Acting in response to a request from User:Stargoat, I've unprotected Henry Kissinger (after mistakenly editing it myself before seeing the protection, though all I did was add links). Just thought I'd notify those who were active on Talk:Henry Kissinger. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:56, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Namibia

Hi, could you tell me please why you removed the flags from my Namibia Wikis? Thanks. PZFUN 17:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They were all the flag of Namibia, not of the regions which the articles were about. Gzornenplatz 17:41, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Libertatis Æquilibritas

It was the same text because I was in the middle of refactoring; I'd given due notice of this on Talk:Anarchist symbolism. There had been extensive discussion. There was no clear consensus either way, but I felt that with the rewritten last paragraph in Libertatis Æquilibritas (which I was in the middle of writing when you reverted me) and the "see also" in Anarchist symbolism this would probably be acceptable. Could you please take a careful look at these and raise any concrete objection to what I did rather than just revert me? -- Jmabel 22:13, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

It's OK now. I didn't know you were going to remove the text from Anarchist symbolism. Gzornenplatz 22:18, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Listen to me, you pompous ass. If you have ANYTHING to say to me, you WILL e-mail it to me directly and NOT post it on a public page. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? - Lucky 6.9 19:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was only responding to a post you made on a public page. Gzornenplatz 19:39, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Bullshit. That article you linked to was my own. I wrote it without realizing that I hadn't signed in. You want to have it out, you e-mail me directly and I'll gladly accomodate you. Put that comment back on the Bandit page and I'll list you on the discussion page so fast your head will spin. I may not give a damn about this site, but I won't allow you to smear me. - Lucky 6.9 19:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article was just an example. Why would I want to have it out? What do you want to list me for? And where did I smear you? Gzornenplatz 19:48, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • I took the fact that you'd listed an original contribution of mine as a smear. That's why I reacted to the comment as strongly as I did. After reading your comment regarding the mystery poster on the same page, I stopped by to apologize for my outburst and to thank you for your comment regarding the sockpuppet's lack of credibility thus far. I hope you'll accept. It is all too easy to forget the human face on the other side of the monitor. - Lucky 6.9 20:16, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's OK. I was mistaken too, I thought the copyright note appeared on all newly-created articles, and I took an article I knew you started to demonstrate it to you. But apparently it occurs on all anon revisions (and since you started Wigwag as an anon this just happened to apply in my example). On the larger issue, I really wish you'd stay and just stop worrying about the "bandit". It's the nature of a wiki that you have to give way on some things where others disagree, no matter how convinced you may be that you're right. Gzornenplatz 20:54, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you're right. This really is nuts. Thanks for trying to help point that out. Take care. - Lucky 6.9 00:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More about Rex

I don't know whether you still have much interest in the Rex071404 arbitration. The committee is now considering the following as one of its proposed findings of fact: "The compaining witnesses in this matter, because of their numerical majority, felt that Rex071404 did not represent a point of view which had a magnitude of importance equal to theirs, despite its societal significance." I got pretty cheesed off at this. The short of it is that we're being unjustly criticized, without even being told that there was a complaint against us. The long of it is here, here and here. It's produced a pretty typical exchange between Rex on one side and Gamaliel and me on the other. I mention all this only because the ArbCom is considering a proposed finding that, IMO, reflects badly on you, so I thought you ought to know about it in case you want to get involved. If you have more will power than I do and can resist the temptation to keep wasting time on this stuff, more power to you! JamesMLane 08:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They are asserting that you felt a certain way. Only you know how you feel, and they have no right to speculate as to your feelings, and esp. not to arbitrarily assert a characterization of them against your will. I would simply say something like "I do not feel this way.", in addition to any other comment you wish to offer, if indeed, this is not the way you feel. Also, I don't think your feelings are relevant to the case, and they should not be part of the judgement. The case concerns actions, not speculations of feelings or motives. Kevin Baas | talk 21:03, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Killian memos

Why do you keep unlinking Free Republic?! -Joseph (Talk) 03:16, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Because it's already linked at first mention. Gzornenplatz 03:18, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Whoops, good call. Sorry. ;) -Joseph (Talk) 03:19, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on my adminship. Jayjg 16:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your false accusation worked. You must feel proud. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 10:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lst27

Do NOT imply anything against my person and do NOT assume that you know me or why I vote the way I do. I know you don't like me. You don't even have to say it isn't true; a person blind and deaf could figure it out. I would like you to lay off. Let us acknowledge the fact that we are just never going to see eye to eye on much of anything and let us go our separate ways. Mike H 05:13, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Island countries

After examining the definitions of island and continent, isn't a continent just a large-scale island? --MerovingianѤTalk 09:47, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Island says: "An island is any piece of land smaller than a continent and larger than a rock, that is completely surrounded by water." Gzornenplatz 11:32, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Négev article

I still don't agree with the decrease in transliterative detail. However, as this time so many more people agree with simple "Negev", I'll not dispute it. I'm telling you directly because (1) you moved the article, and (2) I don't want to encourage IZAK to behave poorly. - Gilgamesh 11:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who is defending bias?

Hi G -- I saw you removed "This bias has no defenders on Wikipedia." from the Wikipedia article. Can you say why you find that indefensible, and who, in fact, defends that bias?

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

People like VeryVerily. Just look at the history of Template:Sep11. In fact, the existence of the "9-11 memorial wiki" itself proves that this bias has many defenders in important places. Gzornenplatz 20:08, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Sep11&action=history ? Looks to me like an edit war between you and a veteran edit warrior over what background to use --not a defense of bias in Wikipedia. If this is an examply of so much bias that it's not possible to say it has no defenders, I'm afraid that I'll need to go to Requests for Comment about this whole section. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It was not about what background to use, but about the inclusion of a link to the POV "memorial wiki" in the template. Gzornenplatz 20:55, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Bioboxes

Why do you keep erasing the biobox from Eugeniusz Bodo article? I like it as it is and with such a great picture the template looks really well. There is no consensus whether the bioboxes should stay or not and that's why I decided not to add any new bioboxes to the articles I created until the matter is resolved. However, I believe that you should equally refrain yourself from deleting the existing ones. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 00:16, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think this matter is plain - infoboxes should be used when there is actual info that lends itself to being presented in box form. But it is not for repeating info that is already in the main text. Gzornenplatz 08:08, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
As you can see in Template talk:Infobox Biography the matter might be plain to you, but it's not to everyone. Please, do me a favour not to erase the infoboxes in my articles. I like them. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 09:05, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
OK, as long as you don't add any new ones. But ultimately this has to be decided, and I don't see a majority in favour of those infoboxes. Gzornenplatz 09:08, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. To be precise I don't see a majority against either... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:11, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Don't remove the infoboxes. You are in the minority as to your opinion that they are "frivolous". -- Netoholic @ 14:59, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

Well, the majority on Talk:Charles Darwin is against them. So at least don't add new ones. Gzornenplatz 15:02, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Bandit blasting

  • You were right about the comment you left under my tirade toward the B-Movie Bandit. However, it was not written out of anger. I wanted to see if I could goad that crazy character into reacting. No luck. You and I have had our past differences, but I'm glad they're behind us. The big difference here is that you and I have had two-way contact unlike the Bandit, whoever or whatever it is. Anyway, thanks for caring enough to comment. - Lucky 6.9 22:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It was quite funny. Next time don't hold back and tell us what you really think about the bandit. He's probably not reading it anyway, or if he is he can't complain when he refuses to talk. Still, that person doesn't seem to be malicious, otherwise he could do more serious things than posting poor stubs. But if he's well-meaning and doesn't talk, it's most likely he somehow edits remotely (through another website or software) and never gets to see his messages. Gzornenplatz 11:36, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Vice Presidents

Before you post anything on my Talk page ;) I won't post any more Vice Presidents on the lists of state leaders. Don't worry. One question though: in your edit summary, you said that only politically relevant state leaders/heads of state ought to be in the lists of state leaders. Do you see Dick Cheney as a "politically relevant" state leader? Because he was part of the Bush/Cheney ticket in 2000, and as such he was elected Vice President. In my view, he should be on the list. What is your view about that? Aecis 14:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gzornenplatz&oldid=6164501"