User talk:Zickzack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Greetings![edit]

Moin Moin, Zickzack, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay, both here at the English version as well as at the German edition. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

You may also be interested in the Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board, a useful community resource. Again, welcome! Tschüß! Olessi 15:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Stanislaw Lem[edit]

Good articles typically only have their talk pages added to the Good Articles category, the category is added automatically by the {{GA}} template. This is just to prevent category bloat in the article space. There is a program that goes through the GA category every so often and makes sure that the articles referenced are added to the WP:GA list and counted, so even though the talk page is the only one with the category template, the article is still counted. Phidauex 15:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Decimation[edit]

Although decimation means 'to reduce by one tenth' in Latin, in English it simply means to 'destroy', so your edit in replacing 'decimate' with 'destroy' was redundant. Ameise -- chat 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I read more than one writer who considered the use of "decimating" for "inflecting severe losses" as bad. Further, a decimated army might still exist. And the coalition army mentioned did not exist anymore - it was effectively destroyed. -- Zz 16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Destroyed can also be used colloquially to mean something that is 'terribly damaged' -- you might want 'obliterated'. Ameise -- chat 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Polish Jews or Galician Jews[edit]

Category:Polish Jews and Category:Galician Jews include persons who (or his parents) were born in Poland or Galicia (Austria-Hungary, Poland/Ukraine), and they or their ancestors had affillation with Jewish religion, ethnicity or culture. For example, count Walenty Potocki who converted to Judaism (Ger Tzedek of Vilna) there is in Category:Polish Jews.

By the way, Stanisław Lem was an atheist. -- Mibelz 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The question is his extent of Judaism not whether he practiced the religion. Having a Jewish grandparent in Poland is not noteworthy, however, whats relevant is if an immediate parent was Jewish. In that case, it is ok to list him as such. 141.211.195.186 23:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

You placed {{cleanup|February 2007}} tag at the top of Culture of Kraków with the edit summary that said: (The weblinks must be moved to a special paragraph, for a start). — I’d like you to let me know what you meant by that. Please, give me an example. --Poeticbent  talk  18:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You're not helping by pasting tags without being descriptive about your intentions. You're just making-work. --Poeticbent  talk  22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A wikilink is something that links to something inside wiki, e.g. Wikipedia. A weblink is something that links to something on the web, e.g. Wikipedia. Weblinks should not be inserted into to the main body of an article. It is better to collect them in a special paragraph. -- Zz 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Saxons in medieval Southeastern Europe[edit]

Did you even read the perfectly referenced paragraph you erased? It has nothing to do with the Transylvanian Saxons, which were in Romania, and which have an article. You should have notified me before removing the paragraph; I've reinserted it now. I'm perfectly aware that the "Saxons" in Southeastern Europe may not have been actually Saxons, but still, they were definitely called that way and the information is valuable to the article. You can edit the paragraph to indicate they may have been of other Germanic tribes (and just called "Saxons") if you want, but don't remove valuable info. TodorBozhinov 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to Talk:Saxons#Paragraph about Saxons in medieval Southeastern Europe. Your article was heavily referenced, yes, which is to be lauded. However, the sources were not that good. -- Zz 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd already read your message on the talk page, and that's why I was writing actually. Saxons in Southeastern Europe were a different thing from the Transylvanian Saxons. I already said why I think the article shouldn't be about the tribe, but about all uses covered by the name "Saxons". This means we need a summary paragraph of "Transylvanian Saxons" too. Of course, in the intro we should clarify that some uses of the name may not correctly correspond to tribal origin. I know my sources may have flaws, but that's with all sources basically... Oh, and sorry if I sounded somehow rude, I was in a somewhat filthy mood :) TodorBozhinov 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Overlapping articles[edit]

From WP:MERGE and WP:CFORK to {{main}}/{{details}}/{{further}}.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice concerning Nazis?[edit]

Regarding this comment of yours; The text says why it is prejudice followed by a revert of my edit.

This is what the text says;

However, also Germans had to endure their share of prejudice, this was particularly evident in the post-war expulsion of not only Nazi but also non-Nazi Germans from their homes in Eastern Europe.

— Wikipedia article on Germans.

Germans were respondsible for millions and millions of pointless deaths in Eastern Europe. One of the factors was the image that Slavs were inferior (clearly prejudice) but to claim that those Eastern European countries were just as prejudiced (which escentially what it says "but the Germans also...") when they kicked out those Germans (of whom we all know many colaborated with the other invading Germans) is not quite equal. Like I said. Prejudice is the wrong word here. Rex 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what you do is reification. There is no such beast as the Germans, the Jews, and so on. Generalizing from some or even quite a lot of Germans to the Germans as such - any age, women and children included -, and justifying expulsions which caused the death of one or two million of them because these expulsions were not based on prejudice, but on knowledge, is - among many other things - a logical fallacy. -- Zz 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: The easiest proof is that Germans who were anti-Nazis were expelled, too. Even under the newly formed communist regimes, it did not help to have been a communist all your life. The article says that somewhat less clearly.
If you want to argue against prejudice, you have a point when you say that ethnic cleansing and the wish to take over German property were the reason - with anti-German prejudice being just a means to an end.

I'd love to see you say the same thing to a holocaust surviver. remember a Polish wikipedian who noted that he increasingly met Germans who had the idea that "the Nazis" were the only "bad guys", and that the overal majority of the Germans was forced to execute their will. I get the feeling you 're one of them. Point remains, the Germans had no scientific or historical evidence that the Slavs were inferior to them, yet the there's no denying the Germans were instrumental in both of the biggest military conflicts the world ever saw, as well as the worlds greatest ethnic/racial "cleansing". "Prejudice" doesn't cover it.Rex 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You change topics. The anti-Slav feelings were an extremely rude and violent prejudice. Point conceded as it was never challenged in the first place. As for your repeating of the Germans, you sound like one of the guys who claim the Jews own the press. Same fallacy, same mistake.
As for holocaust survivor, my Grandfather was Jewish. My father was persecuted, My family name is Jewish. I can tell you sincerely that I reflect their opinions here. Have you got anything of substance to add? -- Zz 21:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal situations or opinion is irrelevant and OR. You simply can't call the expulsion of Germans prejudiced after the horrors of World War II.Rex 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal situation is irrelevant? - you asked me if I would say the same thing to a holocaust survivor. I called your bluff by pointing out that I do come from a family of holocaust survivors. And they have a keen eye on the workings of prejudice. By the way, you want to read what constitutes Original Research.
I know you have an opinion and refuse to be confused by facts, but as long as you are blaming the Germans, you are doing exactly what Germans did in order to further disgusting goals. -- Zz 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal situation is irrelevant because it can't be checked. You say your partly Jewish and the (grand)son of a holocaust survivor, but you might as wel be the owner of Stormfront.org. Hence I don't see this as a valid argument. I'm not blaming anyone. "Blaming" implies being the cause yourself but are attacking others because of it. This is not the case here. Unless you're going to make my day and deny the Germans weren't the engine behind the holocaust...Rex 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You live in denial. You were refuted by a fact that went beyond your imagination. You do not have to believe me, but your assertion that it can't be checked is among your many false claims. If challenged, you will back try to back it up with other not so clever claims, but making it up as you go is no way of leading a discussion. Further, if you want to insinuate in any way that I lie about these things, leave my discussion page.
No, it was not the Germans. My father was not one of the perpetrators of the holocaust, nor was it my grandfather. Nor was it about any under the age of, say, 16. Nor was it the communists, and so on. Nor were the Dutch as such guilty of being a master race in the colonies and doing their kind of genocidial policies towards the indigenous people, even though many Dutch indulged in these things.
The simple reasons that there is no such thing as the Germans, or the Dutch, or the Jews. It is a well known fallacy, known to be worse then overgeneralizing. Read up on logic. But I bet you understood it a long time ago, you just do not like its consequences. -- Zz 21:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not hide behind semantics. Of course there were "the Germans" and "the Jews". Find a book on WWII that doesn't have a line saying "the Jews" and I'll give you a million dollars. On May 10 "the Germans" invaded the Low Countries. The Germans did. Not a list of German soldiers, no, the Germans. I would never deny the atrocities commited by my fellow Dutchmen in Indonesia (though Im resented by your use of "masterrace" and "genocide" in the context of the Dutch East Indies) with these kind of things you go for the majority. The majority of the Germans, constituates "the Germans". Simple as that and theres no denying the majority of the Germans were or supported the nazis.Rex 22:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not hide behing semantics? - it is about semantics, all the time. Yes, language has general terms like the Germans, the Jews, the Dutch. The point is that you are not free in assigning attributes and passing judgment on this abstract term - especially when you turn back from the general term to the individuals it is supposed to denote.
Go, find a book from said period saying certain things were not a prejudice against the Jews, but that the judgment in question came from experience because it applied to a majority of Jews. And I will you show you an antisemitic text. Same for your argument that there was no prejudice against the Germans. Exactly what the Nazis (another general term) said about the Jews. The point is not just that their (claimed) experience is wrong, the whole approach is foul play - reification.
But you got that a long time ago. It just shatters too many things you need for your world view. Unless something worthwhile comes, EOD for me. -- Zz 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S: I know the Dutch never cleaned up their brand of genocidial past. They could learn from the Germans.

No its a German bias saying that the Germans had "their fair share" of prejudice after the war. It's a total outrage, because if they'd had "their fair share" there wouldn't be many elderly Germans today. As for your claims on Dutch genocide. Let me remind you that genocide means one commits himself to the destruction of national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Which the Dutch never did. As for the Germans cleaning up their genocidial past ... you're not refering to the ovens are you?Rex 22:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One or two million Germans were killed in the expulsions from Eastern Europe after 1945. Didn't you know this? It was mentioned already, but you refuse to cope with facts. As for the definition of genocide, read the UN definition. In both cases, a little knowledge would go a long way for you. The Dutch policy in the colonies was not exactly aimed at the cultural or even physical survival of some of the peoples there, in case you never knew this. And even if this is news to you, show the inquiries into the Dutch atrocities and subsequent convictions in court. Such things happened in Germany, on the other hand.
You have given up trying logical and factual arguments. And since you are so rude as to say As for the Germans cleaning up their genocidial past ... you're not refering to the ovens are you? leave my page, or you will face consequences. After this, I reserve the last word for me. -- Zz 22:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you knew anything about the Dutch colonial policy, you'd know that it was characterised by an intrest, above all, for profit. Not the spreading of the Dutch culture or extermination of peoples for the sake of Dutch expansion, as opposed to Generalplan Ost. Modern estimates are 500,000 deaths, not 1 or 2 million people. When you read the background section you'll hopefully see that prejudice is a weasel word. The definition I used for genocide was the UN definition. As for the oven-remark, welldeserved I reckon given the insulting suggestion of a Dutch genocide.Rex 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism was widespread. The Netherlands were no exception. And there were racist motives behind almost any form of colonialism in the 20th century. The existence of profit as a main goal does not contradict this (actually, with the connection to Calvinism and a Christian mission, they go hand in hand). The inability to deal with your past shows.
You did not use the UN definition of genocide, or you would have known that it includes the extermination of a culture. And lastly, learn to read. I said Dutch genocidial policies, not a Dutch genocide. These policy led to the death of only half a million, no more than in Ruanda, after all - but every culture has its own form of revisionism. There were more. You still have not dealt with your past.
I will delete further comments by you from my page. -- Zz 10:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Further comments deleted, as announced. If you want to ask about my other edits, do it in, say, a month when you have calmed down. I do not like people wallowing in being called devils, and I have a dislike against history as written by Hollywood. -- Zz 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Rex[edit]

Lieber ZZ, mE handelt es sich bei Rex um einen gemeingefährlichen Deutschenhasser, der seine ganze Energie darauf setzt, Deutsche pauschal zu diskreditieren. An einer ernsthaften Sachdiskussion ist er dagegen nicht interessiert, weshalb es auch keinen Sinn macht, mit Fakten und Logik zu argumentieren. Insoweit habe ich es schon lange aufgegeben, mich mit diesem Herrn auseinanderzusetzen und es freut mich, dass offenbar auch Du inzwischen zu dieser Erkenntnis gelangt bist, worin ich Dich nur bestärken kann! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.0.85.223 (talkcontribs)

Immerhin schreibt er nicht aus der Deckung der Anonymität. Du solltest von ihm lernen. -- Zz 12:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ach, ja? Dann sag mir doch mal, was Du über seine Person mehr weißt als über die meine (abgesehen davon, dass er sich Rex nennt). Jedenfalls finde ich, anonym sind wir hier alle und meine IP kann man ebenso sperren, falls ich mich nicht benehmen sollte. Aus diesem Grund bewerte ich Leute hier auch weniger danach, ob sie angemeldet sind oder nicht, sondern eher danach, was sie hier zum besten geben (und soweit es das angeht, entschuldige bitte, möchte ich nun weiß Gott nichts von Rex lernen). Du solltest darüber mal nachdenken. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.1.60 (talkcontribs) 01:40, 1 June 2007

Wikipedia ist wie vieles andere im Netz eine Gemeinschaft, in der der Ruf, den man hat, eine wesentliche Rolle spielt. Sicher ist es richtig, dass man bei Sachargumenten nicht auf die Person gucken soll, aber Deinen Sachbeitrag vermag ich nicht zu erkennen.
Wenn ich will, kann ich IPs schneller wechseln als meine Socken. Eine IP ist noch unter einem Wegwerfaccount angesiedelt. So spricht es auch Bände, dass Du Dir nicht einmal die Mühe machst, Deine Beiträge zu signieren. Unter diesen Umständen ist mir ein Rex Germanus lieber, der mit offenem Visier streitet. Mal abgesehen davon zeigt die Tatsache, dass Du über ihn lästerst, wie viel mehr man über ihn als über Dich weiß. Sollten weitere Beiträge von Dir kommen, denen as an Form und Inhalt mangelt, werde ich sie ebenfalls löschen. -- Zz 10:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Zunächst vielen Dank für Deine prompte Antwort. Ich muss allerdings sagen, ich habe nicht den Eindruck, dass meine Replik inhaltslos ist. Ganz im Gegenteil, ich bin doch auf Deine Aussage eingegangen und habe dezidiert Stellung bezogen. Im übrigen handelt es sich doch auch um Deine "Talkseite", so dass man nicht notwendigerweise nur über Sachthemen reden muss. Egal, was ich eigentlich abschließend sagen will, ist, Du hast im Kern recht, man sollte die jeweils einschlägigen Spielregeln beachten, was vorliegend heißt, man meldet sich als User an. Dies habe ich bislang nicht getan, da ich nur über meinen Firmencomputer Zugang zum www hatte und es mir nicht ratsam erschien, mich über diese IP anzumelden. Da ich nun aber (vorliegende IP) auch privat online sein kann, besteht damit eigentlich kein Grund mehr anonym zu schreiben. Ich werde mich daher zeitnah anmelden und mich dann noch einmal melden. Grüße und so long, (62.143.1.60 12:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Et voilà! Nun mit "offenem Visier"? Ich finde ja immer noch nicht, aber nun regelkonform und - Du hast recht - irgendwie besser! Weiterhin frohes editieren und nix fur ungut!

ps: Nenne es "lästern", aber Rex ist wirklich ein schwieriger Charakter. So soll er nichtsdestrotz und selbstverständlich schreiben, was er will. Ich habe es nur aus den o.g. Gründen irgendwann aufgegeben, mit ihm zu diskutieren. (Harmanus van B 15:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Sarmatae[edit]

Check the talk. or if you give up the dispute clean the {original research}

You inserted in the art. 24.13.244.169 16:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nasz? I answered that already. -- Zz 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
you may debate it, if you have still objection Talk:Sarmatians#Genetics Nasz 01:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hilfe[edit]

So, das hast Du nun davon: Könntest Du mir bitte kurz sagen, wie ich, wie Du, die von mir gesprochenen Sprachen auf meiner Seite installieren kann? Vielen Dank! (Harmanus van B 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Am einfachsten guckst Du Dir den Text meiner Nutzerseite an. Aber bitte nichts ändern. Du trägst in die Schablone \{\{Babel|de|en-3|nds-1|la-1\}\} nach dem Babel einfach die Sprachen ein, und wie gut Du sie beherrschst. Die meisten Wikipedianer überschätzen sich da übrigens. -- Zz 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Baedeker Blitz[edit]

Please see Talk:Baedeker Blitz#Source for the title Baedeker raids --Philip Baird Shearer 15:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Coat of arms of Germany.svg

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


--Zeitgespenst (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice of discussion[edit]

Hi - just to let you know that a tag you placed on an article is being discussed here. Now there is some active interest in the issue you raised, it would be nice if you could add any further comments or suggestions there. Best wishes! Knepflerle (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hex[edit]

I added a reference for the part you edited. Even though you were not the one who raised the issue, could see if it is sufficient and then remove the tag (I could have done this) ? Could you also make the reference more neatly inserted like with brackets and everything (I could have done this but I can take me a lot of time to read through mediawiki doc whereas you might already know the how-to (in case you don't, well sorry for inconvenience^^))? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halladba (talkcontribs) 00:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See my answer here. -- Zz (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of Stanisław Lem[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Stanisław Lem/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

White Serbs[edit]

Hi, I regularly monitor articles in Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles and noticed that on 13 January you left a note on Talk: White Serbs indicating your intent to nominate the article for deletion after a week. Is it still your intent to do so? —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and nominated it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Serbs. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Picts[edit]

I've reverted your edit, which removed the picture from the Picts article. Please see the article discussion page. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stefan Zwieg[edit]

Hi. I have declined your speedy on this, as redirects are cheap and this is not an unlikely typo. The only relevant speedy criterion is WP:CSD#R3 "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers", but this is five years old and not implausible. WP:CSD goes on to say "However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Griggs[edit]

He was 'God' for only 91 minutes. Diff Inserted @ 10:57, 21 April 2011. Face-grin.svg - 220.101 talk\Contribs 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks -- Zz (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:MMA[edit]

Uffizi Florence Wrestlers 1.png Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you haven't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.

Kevlar (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Old Church Slavonic[edit]

Yes, it did have an infinitive. The infinitive forms can be identified by the inflectional suffix -ti (Cyrillic: -ти). --123.3.240.230 (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Zz (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

splitting Tib Bsm[edit]

Hi, Zickzack. You've helped with the Tib Bsm article in the past. If you have a moment, would you like to check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibetan_Buddhism.

I've proposed something there that would involve work for me but would improve the Tib Bsm article immensely in my opinion. It's turned out to be contentious. I have something coming up in the new year that would make it hard for me to devote the time to this then, so it is now or never. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Moonsell (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Seit wann ist es erlaubt wegen ethnischer Befangenheit Artikel zu moderieren.[edit]

Wieder ein Nazi.

Deine Propaganda, insbesondere gegen Slawen (Sorben), geht etwas zuweit. Du wirst gemeldet wegen absichtlicher Löschung von Beiträgen wegen fehlender Argumente, bzw. Argumente die an ethnischer Befangenheit gegen andere Völker gründen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.70.204 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

Hello, Zickzack. In the future, please be careful not to edit war, as you did here; while you did the right thing in pointing the other editor to the talk page, next time don't revert so much. If they refuse to discuss, just report them on the relevant noticeboard (such as WP:AN3)). Regards, m.o.p 15:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, noted. By the way, since you have blocked the other guy for several days, is it ok to re-revert the article, or is there something wrong with that? -- Zz (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
You shouldn't unless there's talk page consensus favoring that revision or you've got strong sources to back up the change you're making. m.o.p 03:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The change follows directly from the definition of the scope in the article, as given in the lead. I have pointed that out on the talk page, and there was not any objection in months. -- Zz (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yopie[edit]

Hello, Yopie is very known Czech wiki propagandist and no sense to talk to him. Straight complain to him on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Noticeboards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit on Saccharomyces pastorianus[edit]

Hi Zickzack; I'm not sure I understand what you were doing with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saccharomyces_pastorianus&diff=596909463&oldid=590960119 , since your edit summary suggested that it was unsourced (it had Casey listed as a source of the information in two different places). Casey was listed in the references section, but not the 1996 or 1990 articles. However, a quick googling turned up at least the titles of the articles referenced, which I have added to the article. Perhaps a simple citation needed tag or manual correction of the citations would have been better than just removing the whole paragraph because the existing citations weren't in the correct format? Thanks for your help. Neil916 (Talk) 21:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. The removal was not accidental. As I have stated, the claim came from articles which were not sourced. You have corrected that in the meantime. I still find the wording somewhat dubious (and would not mind e.g. the original wording as given by the source to be included in the reference), but frankly, I hope that neither you nor me will lose a night of sleep because of that. -- Zz (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)