User talk:Lars T.

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Punkmorten 21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think about relative influences. Kraftwerk does have no real influence to up-to-date music. All those mentioned did have real influence. Just think about it if you know about music. --Oldnag85 21:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish films soon enough will have a cmpleted listing in timeline order to it serves a purpoese categories cannot. See List of Argentine films and you will see what will be done. Feel free to create the list of spanish films in timeline order Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal on CIA

Nice catch: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Central_Intelligence_Agency&diff=99715581&oldid=99715499

See: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:71.128.9.116

I was the one who blocked the vandal Reza Aghaei Laghaei before. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Germany

Mozart was born in Salzburg, Austria; his only other home was Vienna. And he never said anything about being German or Austrian, but if he was born and lived all his life (excetping of course the concert tours) in Austria, it's a good bet he was Austrian. — $PЯINGrαgђ 14:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. [1]: "I am an honest German"; "If Germany, my beloved fatherland, of whom you know I am proud, will not accept me, then must I, in the name of God, again make France or England richer by one capable German; — and to the shame of the German nation." Find me one quote by Mozart where he says he's Austrian. Lars T. 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Filbinger

Please do not add incorrect tags to articles, as you did to the Hans Filbinger article (Tagged it as an autobiographic article and therefor possibly violating NPOV policy, however Filbinger is probably the last person to write his own biography on Wikipedia, especially since he is dead). It isn't funny nor clever. Thank you, Poeloq 23:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

In regard to this edit of yours:

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Basedview22 13:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please

I have reverted your last comment to Talk:Hans Filbinger because of the personal attack it contained. Please review WP:NPA before coming back. Note that repeating such behaviour will get you blocked. Thank you very much. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These remarks are completely inappropriate.[2][3] The edit summary is for you to describe your edit, and the talk page is for civil discussion about the content of the article. Name calling has no place here, because it quickly becomes disruptive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to John Kim. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Blahman1985 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to John Kim, you will be blocked from editing. Blahman1985 01:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Kim

I have reverted the article back to the sourced version which original existed, and informed Blahman1985 of our policies against repeated reversions. I'm going to start a thread on the talk page, so even if there are future reversions from Blahman, please continue the discussion on the talk page. Leebo ^T/C 12:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: Please stop edit warring at Transrapid and discuss on talk page instead

See also WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DR, and WP:DE. Thanks. Avb 00:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC) compare to German version and discussion. I tried to find a compromise, maybe it helps. BR --Polentario 13:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) follow-up

Lars, you raised good points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) which has now closed as "keep". I think it's worth having a more general discussion as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs and I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Follow-up. I'm inviting all the AfD participants, both pro and con, to join in with their thoughts on the topic. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA article

Lars, I am not trying to attack personally, and I am rather sure AJR is not attacking you as well. We both are concerned with balance in the CIA article, and to an American and a Briton with some direct exposure to the intelligence world, the article appears to suggest the Agency is principally a covert action organization, and the material under covert action often reads like a POV accusation.

I have changed the heading of "clandestine and covert activities" to "activities by geographic region", so that analysis, intelligence community-wide estimates when CIA was responsible for them, and then clandestine and covert operations. Obviously, successful clandestine (as opposed to covert) activities are not known, but a number of clandestine intelligence collection things have been disclosed, often by informal US-Russian agreement that the topic is of historical value.

The article length is a problem. As you may see from my userpage, or the hierarchy that starts with Intelligence cycle management, the entire field of intelligence is complex, but lends itself to be broken up hierarchically. Geographic articles on activities would be one way to split out smaller articles (with much cross-linking), not forgetting that there will be a good deal of regional and trans-national (e.g., counterproliferation, drug trafficking, counterterrorism) activity.

I have contributed a fair bit of work to the article, both in editing references and flow, and adding sourced new material (e.g., Directorate of Intelligence, Caribbean/Cuba (mostly Missile Crisis), Korea (Korean War), and starting to put material under southeast Asia. Perhaps you will not be as annoyed as when someone who hadn't done many edits or articles was changing your work. It is my hope that the kind of sourcing and detail I put into my additions might be an counterexample to such things as "CIA trained police" or "CIA set up Operation Gladio" with no other context, or where a discussion of questionable activities doesn't pull together the consensus of multiple sources, instead essentially repeating a series of allegations.

Let's try to work together in good faith.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

Per image policy, each use of an image must have its own fair use rationale. In Image:WDR Dachmarke.PNG you removed the second rationale for the second article its used in. Unless your saying it shouldn't be used in the second article, in which case you also need to remove it from that article. MBisanz ^talk 08:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was about 3AM here when I got to that image and I saw that it still had a warning on it [4] and only saw one Template:Logo fur and 2 file links so I assumed the uploader had messed up and came over here to WP:BITE you. Now I see your using 2 different versions of rationaling. I'm not familiar with Template:Logo rationale, but I know Template:Logo fur can be used multiple times for multiple uses of one image. Image:FirstUnionLogo.png is a good example of an image. Although as a reminder, once you correct an image, make sure to pull off the warning, or else it will still be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary on Apple Inc.

Hi Lars, thanks for the help reverting vandalism. However please refrain from using edit summaries like this one which is incivil and inflammatory. Thanks, Gwernol 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler Youth

Hi, why did you delete my contribution on Hitler Youth?
Vinniebar (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Hugo Boss didn't design the HJ uniform. Easy enough? Lars T. (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you think he didn't??? Is it so hard to believe? (Because he DID!)

Vinniebar (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Enough? No: you were wrong! Please learn to use Google, now I had to Google it.

Vinniebar (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving us a source that doesn't say the uniform was designed by Hugo Boss - this should settle it for once and all. If you still don't get it, they were one of the companies that produced uniforms. Lars T. (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

The Automobile-Image in the Economy section has been deleted. Could you consider to put it back. I have no account, that´s why I´m asking. I also think the recently introduced map (Lost territories) in the is not necessary and messes up the section German Empire (1871-1918). Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.3.195 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for CIA contributions

I'm beginning to think the set of articles need to be tuned every six months or so. Believe me, I appreciate your sharp eye catching annoying things that got through.

The Farewell Dossier is part of a larger problem? opportunity? I should have thought of it, but it hadn't registered, even though I know the methodology, that you basically can't measure blast from space. There might be some very special circumstances where you could, but the reality is that earth-based sensors do most of the work.

If they were being figurative and saying there was a large fire that had the thermal effect of a 3KT blast, that is different. Thinking about the thermal sensors, someone might try to estimate blast by measuring the speed of expansion of the fireball, but that gets tricky in several ways.

So, you either found something where a reporter combined random facts incorrectly, or otherwise took liberties. You might or might not find it interesting, but I wrote a first draft of an essay, User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-FactsFromPOV, as part of discussion at Folantin's userspace. The discussion is trying to find ways to reduce POV and focus more on fact, and one of the challenges is how to get useful material when all available sources have POVs.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Farewell Dossier - or rather the Thomas C. Reed story of the CIA reaction

My problem isn't with Farewell Dossier, and I can easily believe the CIA reacted the way described - but the anecdote as told by Reed in his book, quoted by Safire and taken for a fact by just about any media outlet out there without any fact checking just seems to me like the prototype of an Urban Myth. And what really irks me about it is that I had to search hard to find a story that even doubted that it happened exactly like this. Everybody takes it as proof that the CIA is extremely clever or ruthless, but nobody asks for a second source. Well, I found one article where a KGB veteran said there was a small explosion at the pipeline, but it had nothing to do with any CIA action. And just now this article that calls the story a myth (but has no way to prove it either). Lars T. (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those times that I wonder about better ways to handle WP:OR. Let us say, for example, that there is a news report that Putin is pregnant. Most news media would ignore it, and it's unlikely that anyone would write "Putin is a man and can't get pregnant".

In this case, while a basic knowledge of physics, and perhaps a more advanced knowledge of space-based sensors, would establish the event Urban Myth. An editor could cite sources saying that blast doesn't propagate in vacuum. The same editor could cite the alleged explosion and that it was supposed to have been observed from space. It wouldn't occur to a writer at, say, Aviation Week and Space Technology to point that out, because the readership would immediately see the disconnect. Here, it might even be called WP:OR or WP:SYNTH if those data were simply listed in the article, and left to the reader to see the connection.

When I read the report, I realized I mentally tuned out the "from space", and assumed -- bad thing to do -- that the blast yield information came from the usual trusted sources, seismographs and microbarographs. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ARD-Dachmarke.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ARD-Dachmarke.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don

Heh. I was just about to add Don S. Davis to the recent deaths, noting that it wasn't there. I checked history first to see if it had been previously removed and realized you'd just added it. Thank you. :) MeekSaffron (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Hello Lars, thank you for your courteous revert message. The Manual of Style says: "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text." I often remove date links, based on the last sentence of the MOS. However, this is a pretty minor matter, and I don't propose to edit-war about it. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello Lars T.! --CupPup (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)CupPup--CupPup (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darmstadt

Hi Lars - of course I could have guessed where to find the source for the sister city. But Wikipedia is big, lacks a lot of refs, and I had already spent a lot of time doing other stuff on the article. Thanks for adding the link. Ingolfson (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PRC v USA

Perhaps you could answer my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.46.230 (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jobs criticism

When you are trying to refute a source, please do not use a negative argument. They are against policy, useless and just unencyclopedic. If you have something against the criticism section I suggested, please back it up or the section will be added.JakeH07 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jew Murderer

You can't admit the truth...pity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.33.102 (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler Youth sidebar

Just one question Lars - no argument intended. What is the advantage of the sidebar in Hitler Youth when there was already a horizontal Nazism bar at the bottom of the article? - Xufanc (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late Happy New Year Lars

Maybe you want to support this: EU inclusion in lists. Would be much appreciated. Even a short comment helps to keep the longterm established versions like this one [5]. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to German occupation of Czechoslovakia appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Yopie 20:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Yopie 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. I just saw your comment to User talk:Sambot and have fixed the bug you found. Many thanks for spotting it! Best wishes, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to German occupation of Czechoslovakia‎‎, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yopie 19:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, that the Government of Czechoslovakia‎‎ is not a reliable source. Lars T. (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haider

I'd like the Haider article to be one of those few articles on Wikipedia that don't suck. In addition to being accurate and NPOV, that means that it shouldn't contain redundant material. I don't see why you're so defensive of a careless edit that you didn't even make. WillOakland (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect "vandalism" revert

Your reversion here [6] identified the removal of the refimprove tag as "vandalism". Even if it were incorrect, removing a two year old tag of this sort is a good faith error and not vandalism. And, in this case, it was entirely appropriate to remove it. Please remember WP:AGF and don't label things as vandalism which might be good faith attempts to improve an article. Tb (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to protest your continuous use of vandalism reversions. Flagging an edit as vandalism implies ill intent on the part of the editor. You have also deleted my comment in which I stated just that.

My intent is not to degrade your (or any) Wikipedia page, but to inform you that your actions are inappropriate. Please stop reverting substantive comments.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion needed

Hi, I see that you have been doing some editing on List of countries by military expenditures and I would like your second opinion regarding a couple of reverts I did. In the past few days there has been a few edits by the same IP, ([7]), my main reasons for reverting those changes are simply because the source for the US[8] disagrees with the 'official'[9] US government publish budget. I also the IP does not seem whilling to use the talk page. Other values, such as China and so on, come from the same 'estimate'. Can you please have a look at the references given and tell me if you agree with my reverting. Thanks FFMG (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison (name)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Alison (name). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 18:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted PirateSmackK's action above. I'll leave a note on his Talk page. Yintaɳ 20:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn;t know famous==WP:N; I thought famous means well known and the title of the section there was "Famous peop.." not "Notable people...". PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Armstrong GAR notice

Neil Armstrong has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kulturkampf

You may have disagreed with my edit but you had no basis for marking it as vandalism. Moreover, you claim it is POV when in fact the current lead is actually POV and ignores the info in the article that the Kulturkampf was anti-Catholic and involved a state intrusion upon internal Church matters.Mamalujo (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

$666.66 at Apple Inc.

Hi! In case you didn't know, we have a policy against the arbitrary inclusion of prices. I have heard of the $666.66 price tag before, meaning it is somewhat notable, so I left it in. But I just wanted to give you a heads up that it may be challenged in the future. Cheers, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell do you think you are??

You think you can just swan into the Bryant article and restore some unsubstantiated nonsense which has no citations? Honestly, do something productive with your life. Wikipedia spreads unsubstantiated lies and people like you are the problem. Wikipedia is used by the general public without realising the kind of imbeciles who edit it. You are not a fit or proper person, sir. Realist01 (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be better for all concerned if you simply left the project, after you apologise for reverting me without due cause. Realist01 (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, "Realist01" has been blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contested changes

Hey there! You wanted to talk about the change to Medieval Warm period article. It was changed for consistency. Over at List of time periods you can ctrl+F "period" and see that every single one, except for one (Period of Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms the period is uncapitilized. One of them I had requested changed (Migration period) but other than that I only had to change this one.

"Period" shouldn't be capitilized as far as I can tell as it isn't part of the "title". Kind of how you wouldn't title an article "Harry Potter Characters", but instead "Harry Potter characters".

The "Warm" part.. however... I am unsure of. There is Early modern period to perhaps base off of, but I'm unsure if the "modern" is part of the title. If "Warm" is part of the title, like Potter is to Harry, then it should stay capitilized. If it isn't then de-cap it. I'll leave that up to you to either de-cap or keep warm as capitilized but I'm pretty sure, unless it's unique, that the period part should be in small-caps. Avalik (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is where I am supposed to reply... :) I have no idea what an RFC is, but I doubt I mind. And yes... I noticed most Age's and Era's were capitilized and maybe it would be best instead for all "periods" to be capitilized as well (I'd even considered that)... the majority of them were small caps though, so I just wanted consistency at least until the meantime. Perhaps at that RFC thingy you could also inquire about the inconsistency between era/age and period - ask if all the others should be capitilized as well? Avalik (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. :)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey stick controversy

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Hockey stick controversy, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 11:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Apple Inc.

Please do not accuse me of vandalism without any apparent or even remotely plausible reason as you did here. My edit is consistent with the Manual of Style (see Wikipedia:Lead section#Title variants, or Wikipedia:Stop bolding everything for a concise summary). Thank you. --78.34.240.197 (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I assume this happened by mistake? --78.34.240.197 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ok, look. You have now twice reverted a MOS-conforming edit of mine as vandalism. Are you even aware what "vandalism" means? Vandalism means that a given edit is not only unhelpful, but a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. My edit makes the article conform to the Manual of Style (see above) and it most definitely and obviously is not vandalism. For some undiscernible reason you're accusing me of assuming ownership of that article on top of that. What's the issue here? --78.34.240.197 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) (Wir können uns ggf. selbstverständlich auch auf Deutsch verständigen. --78.34.240.197 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The IP appears to be right here... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to German occupation of Czechoslovakia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --ja_62 (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the same applied yesterday to the criticism of Apple article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch time?

I notice you've been keeping an eye on the article List of German cognates with English and your opinion on it would be useful.

I created this article over a year ago to get some of these massive unsourced and partially incorrect tables off the main German language article. In over a year since then not a single source has been added. The only contributor to the original lists and the new article is the IP editor in the 95.11?.*.* range, and these sorts of contributions from them [10] [11] [12] [13] are painfully and obviously incorrect - there are doubtless many other errors in the text.

I believe that after over a year of decline, it's time to take this article to WP:AFD - would you agree? Knepflerle (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

purge

Back on your talk page so soon! Just to let you know thhat I noticed you'd interacted with this user previously at Hesse and that he'd blanked your greetings. Looking through his other contributions, he has made quite a few other page-moves and a lot of unjustified ß-purging from other articles. I've reverted the moves for now and asked him to go via WP:RM in future to present the evidence that the ß-less spelling is more common, but I think it's worth keeping an occasional eye on his contributions if he returns. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, what's up. Please explain a remark you made on my talk page? Revan ltrl (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get lost, nutcase. Lars T. (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please don't use sockpuppets. Prettyplease, with icing on top. Lars T. (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wp:npa

I am unsure who this was directed at, but please remove it mark nutley (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Hockey stick controversy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. this edit Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You point out the personal attack made against you and I will see if a warning is needed. I have simply given you a warning for what you said. You have to learn that other people's actions do not excuse the sort of comment you made. Polargeo (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you have removed. That in no way excuses your comment. Even had it been a tit for tat response of yours of equal measure, which it does not seem to be to me, your comment would still deserve a warning. Please be more polite. Polargeo (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I must give you a gentle warning that removing FG's talkpage comment yourself was not a clever thing to do. I will leave it at that. Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Criticism of Apple Inc.

Please stop nominating this article for deletion. [14] [15] If you have an issue with the article or a specific edit, please discuss it on the talk page.

--Gyrobo (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Marwa El-Sherbini/archive1

You are invited to join the discussion here. Mootros (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Conduct warning

I have tried several times [16], [17], [18] to reach a resolution with you regarding your dispute over content on Criticism of Apple Inc. If you continue making intimations about the motives of other editors as you have at [19], [20], [21] and [22], I will report your conduct.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Gyrobo#May 2010.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go see a Psychiatrist. Lars T. (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature scales

I'm curious as to why you changed the temperature scales on Heligoland from Celsius and Fahrenheit to Kelvin and Rankine. All other temperature measurements in the article are in Celsius → Fahrenheit, the original value was in Celsius, and you forgot convert it to Kelvin by adding 273 -- you only changed the units.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Kalisalz

You changed "potash salt" to just "potash": [23]. I think I saw somewhere that the correct English term for Kalisalz is potash salt. I'm no expert in mining industry, so I don't really know. Are you sure your version is correct? How can we reliably resolve this dispute? Tropical wind (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motherland restored

motherland I do not know why and for what reason it was combined. It was never discussed so I restored it. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carl Carlton (German musician)

The article Carl Carlton (German musician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, notability therefore unclear

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Apple Inc. neutrality

If you have an issue with the way any specific part of the article is written, please discuss it on the talk page. Adding a tag to the page claiming weasel words and npov while making assertions that lack examples doesn't help rectify any issues with the article.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article German occupation of Czechoslovakia, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yopie (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to stop undoing vandalism just because the vandal has friends in high places. Lars T. (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

I have no doubt that the Treaty of Rome is of importance to the history of Germany, but that is a reason to discuss it, not a reason to slam a non-free image into the article. We have a very strict policy on the use of non-free content; it may only be used when it adds significantly to the article, not merely when the subject of the picture happens to be of significance to the subject of the article. I am not going to revert your edit, as it is possible that the picture is actually in the public domain, but please have some respect for our policies on non-free content in the future... J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Germany FAR

I have nominated Germany for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hesse

Are you from the state of Hesse? The article needs a lot of attention. More references sre needed. The sections on culture, economy and politics needs to be expanded. Sections for education, sports and demographics are needed. Maybe a small photo gallery would look good too. A good place to start referencing is the state's official page. Kingjeff (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carl Carlton (German musician)

The article Carl Carlton (German musician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unref blp; I couldn't establish thath e meets WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]