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 Lucky 6.9 (talk | contribs) at 03:39, 17 August 2004. 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.)

Fix spelling and grammar
None

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gzornenplatz&oldid=5279558"