Jump to content

User talk:Jadger: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 126: Line 126:
:: Wow interesting, evaluating [[user:Piotrus]] "contributions" like these - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilnius_University&diff=85415120&oldid=85114714 removal of referenced information and ref itself], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilnius_University&diff=105593506&oldid=105592532 removal directly referenced formulation], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilnija&diff=103417656&oldid=103392626 situation continues], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilnija&diff=102599391&oldid=102558999 removal of tags placed by mediator] and etc etc. So Piotrus, by your formulation you are vandalizing too, no? It would be additional information to your RFC [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Piotrus]]. [[User:M.K|M.K.]] 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:: Wow interesting, evaluating [[user:Piotrus]] "contributions" like these - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilnius_University&diff=85415120&oldid=85114714 removal of referenced information and ref itself], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilnius_University&diff=105593506&oldid=105592532 removal directly referenced formulation], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilnija&diff=103417656&oldid=103392626 situation continues], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilnija&diff=102599391&oldid=102558999 removal of tags placed by mediator] and etc etc. So Piotrus, by your formulation you are vandalizing too, no? It would be additional information to your RFC [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Piotrus]]. [[User:M.K|M.K.]] 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::: Good luck, M.K. Maybe if you try harder you will finally get a neutral editor to see your point of view. If they are sufficiently out of touch with reality to take your words for granted without following the links and looking at your misdirections in more details. I'd assume sooner or later you will find a naive soul who agrees with you, so don't loose spirit! Seriously, if you continue your slander, you may find Wikipedia has rules against it. Your friend Ghirlandajo did, to his suprise...--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::: Good luck, M.K. Maybe if you try harder you will finally get a neutral editor to see your point of view. If they are sufficiently out of touch with reality to take your words for granted without following the links and looking at your misdirections in more details. I'd assume sooner or later you will find a naive soul who agrees with you, so don't loose spirit! Seriously, if you continue your slander, you may find Wikipedia has rules against it. Your friend Ghirlandajo did, to his suprise...--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: Every time I read Prokonsul's Piotrus (P.P.) such "comments" I am being shocked. P.P. could you elaborate what do you have in mid saying ''try harder you will finally get a neutral editor to see your point of view'' and ''sooner or later you will find a naive soul who agrees with you''. Do [[User:Mikkalai]], the number 8 editor in whole wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FPiotrus&diff=92717418&oldid=92716168 is too "naive soul who agrees with you", because he suggested to suspend your admin power? - ''I suggest to suspend his amdin's rights to give him some time to refresh some basic rules of the game''], or the another admin [[User:JzG]] identified continues P.P. misconducts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=91338838&oldid=91336554 as trolling, JzG is too naive soul??], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=91458262]; or mediator who warned not to push POV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilnija&diff=102518938&oldid=102263362 yet another naive soul?]; or other contributors, who clearly stated that you using Civility issues to deal with your opponents [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_investigation&diff=102158479&oldid=102155443 and yet again another soul??] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_investigation&diff=102333483&oldid=102321636]. Or you going to deny that you removed refs? I ask you a question, because you formulated definition about contributors, who deletes refs, as vandals; you deleted refs too. ''Seriously, if you continue your slander, you may find Wikipedia has rules against it.'' do I hear a threat? I would not be surprised, knowing your long credit of "prognosis" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIrpen&diff=95570385&oldid=95563888]. And btw, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APiotrus&diff=108087264&oldid=108086732 this replay is harassment?]. I urge you to stop accusing contributors of vandalism, harassment etc., and you should apologize [[user:Jadger]] for your causations. [[User:M.K|M.K.]] 11:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC) P.s. [[user:Ghirlandajo]] is present again


:No, it isn't. Vandalism is "''any addition, removal, or change of content made in a <u>'''deliberate attempt''' to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia</u>''" (emphasis added). Of course it's not the removal of a source in general. Therefore you won't find "removing of a source" in the definition at WP:VAND. Statements behind which there is a source can still be inappropriate (doesn't fit the context, unreliable source, assertion that a POV among several different is true etc). Or the statement may not even be based on the source. An extreme hypothetical example: "God exists and his son is Jesus[²]" in the lead section of the article, say, "Salamander". By your definition it would be vandalism to remove it. If you read the edit summary, you'll see that Jadger said he thought that "''that source says nothing about this battle, and nothing about human shields''". Especially in content disputes it is essential to recognise that "apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." Even Space Cadet's strange meddling with Jadger's userpage is not necessarily vandalism. This shouldn't be continued on Jadger's talk page. If you're still not convinced, Piotrus, you can post a thread on the talk page of WP:VAND, which I've now added to my watchlist. [[User:Sciurinæ|Sciurinæ]] 03:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
:No, it isn't. Vandalism is "''any addition, removal, or change of content made in a <u>'''deliberate attempt''' to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia</u>''" (emphasis added). Of course it's not the removal of a source in general. Therefore you won't find "removing of a source" in the definition at WP:VAND. Statements behind which there is a source can still be inappropriate (doesn't fit the context, unreliable source, assertion that a POV among several different is true etc). Or the statement may not even be based on the source. An extreme hypothetical example: "God exists and his son is Jesus[²]" in the lead section of the article, say, "Salamander". By your definition it would be vandalism to remove it. If you read the edit summary, you'll see that Jadger said he thought that "''that source says nothing about this battle, and nothing about human shields''". Especially in content disputes it is essential to recognise that "apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." Even Space Cadet's strange meddling with Jadger's userpage is not necessarily vandalism. This shouldn't be continued on Jadger's talk page. If you're still not convinced, Piotrus, you can post a thread on the talk page of WP:VAND, which I've now added to my watchlist. [[User:Sciurinæ|Sciurinæ]] 03:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:10, 15 February 2007

/Archive 1

Thanks

Thanks for the Christmas wishes, and Happy New Year to you ! --Lysytalk 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayern/Urawa

Actually, "don't delete information unless you can prove it is wrong" is exactly opposite of the Wikipedia policy, (see #2 and #3 at the top of WP:V). Had it been cited correctly, or even mentioned on the FC Bayern Munich article, it would not have been deleted. Thanks for adding the citation. Neier 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... I can't believe this, it was you who cast accusations of revisionim (not toward me yet)? LOL. Observe poor logic of your answer. I did not claim he was Polish, did I (in that case your message and Kaliningrad example could be relevant). Actually, I have more complex views. I indicated that Poles did consider him Polish (as you looked like ingnorant to that). And let me rephrase your post in my talk that basically says Poles (or commies) considered him Pole because he was famous. Terrible as argument.
As for Dzierzon, you may want to realize his self-identification. If this discussion really concerns him and you have some constructive input, let's move to the relevant talk page. Otherwise EOT. --Beaumont (@) 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response to FYI

Frankly, I'm rather disgusted with what's going on at Dzierzon's article. He was a good example of how for many people ethnic origin was not the most important thing, and that being a Poles and Germans could collaborate instead of fighting each other. And now we have the (mostly anonymous) warriors, trying to push that he was German or Polish. How counter-productive and counter-factual. --Lysytalk 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wish anon users were banned from editing articles. This one is particularly frustrating, not only because of the idle debate, but also because it could be such a positive example, that's been turned into a silly warzone instead. What I (and I think you too) am trying to do is to guard the consensus version, but I can see how unstable it is. --Lysytalk 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same for the Recovered Territories. While I'm aware it's far from perfect, I don't want to see it made any worse than it is now, either way. --Lysytalk 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been receiving a lot of hits today. I am having problems keeping up with it because many of my other articles are also getting hit. I know that basics about Nicolaus Copernicus but not enough to fully proof the article. One IP broke a lot of the links by inserting extra brackets. Looks like your last edit cleaned some. Ronbo76 00:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you look at my talkpage, it appears a user who disagreed with one of my reverse edits, may be using multiple IPs or has a sockpuppet. It is the last item called "Link on Copernicus". One person signed it, Andrew, and the other is by an anonymous unsigned IP that I did not leave a citation on. Ronbo76 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a new user, user:Arudra, has begun edits to this article. He is reversing some edits. Ronbo76 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: vandal

I looked at it, and he's been blocked by another admin already. Let me know if you need any help in the future. That Nazi/"you will be watched" summary would have gotten an immediate block from me. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look -- everyone you listed except 131.104.218.46 has been blocked. I can keep an eye on that IP address. FYI, I can't do a Checkuser on logged-in people; only a few people have access to that. (I'm not sure how people could have such disparate IP addresses as 131 and 207, but then again, I'm no expert.) I'll keep an eye on Copernicus as well. --Fang Aili talk 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I am going to make a nice, friendly request that you stay away from Copernicus and anything that vandal touches for a while. No offense intended, you seem to have decided to stayed away from it already but you exceeded 3 reverts on most of the pages. Just wanted to warn you that anymore reverts and you face a possibility of being blocked. Cheers, Philip Gronowski Contribs 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism

I noticed you were reverting added tags {{POV-check}} and {{unreferenced|date=December 2006}} by 207.245.84.70. Although I understand why you did it just take care someone may think you're a vandal, because this is not a vandalism - any editor can express feelings that page needs POV-check and that is unreferenced. Happy editing. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

I created you the userbox This user is interested in Central Europe history hope you'll enjoy it. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recreated it to be more unique {{user Central Europe}}
This user is interested in Central European history.




≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the celtic cross is the best one - neutral and catches whole central europe. See celtic tribes in central europe Image:Celts_800-400BC.PNG green area is tribes around 1000 B.C. It's hard to find something purely related to the central europe region. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 05:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone can think that celtic cross is a neo-nazi symbol, afaik they use svástika and cross must be equilateral. But I changed it to Jan Hus picture, good idea. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 06:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:LUCPOL

I just want to ask you if you would be willing to help me stop User:LUCPOLs wikipedia propagandist and compulsive lieing spree, ive made a report but im not yet finished....here it is User:R9tgokunks\User:LUCPOL-- Hrödberäht 06:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Hi, please don't get me wrong, but I think you might appreciate the notice that this edit is on a verge of personal attack. Or it's unnecessarily aggressive and rude at least. I'm sure you will know it's not my intention to patronize you, but maybe such tone would be better avoided in discussing the already very delicate topic. Cheers. --Lysytalk 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm fine with that but the aggressive tone might aggravate others if this escalates and we would not want another trench war there, would we. I just wanted to make sure you're aware of this. Just consider this a friendly remark, nothing more. Thanks. --Lysytalk 05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Prussia

I think you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Prussia, if you aren't already a patron. -- Hrödberäht 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP templates

When listing user IPs, the following two templates can be useful: Template:IPUser and Template:User5. For IP "86.27.64.149", which was recently listed on WP:AN3RR, the templates would list:

FYI, Olessi 18:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of assistance. IMO, you should tone down your criticism of Tulkolahten at the expulsions page (as he should of you). Rhetoric and personal attacks by either side aren't going to help the situation, but will only make things matters worse. Olessi 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

User:Jadger/draft_expulsions

--Jadger 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jadger/Expulsion

Thanks for the note. I'm travelling, and accessing the net with my mobile, so my activity is quite limited for the next couple of days still. --Lysytalk 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message

I apologize, but I have a lot going on IRL and do not have the energy to get involved in a dispute right now. I suggest you post to an appropriate subpage of WP:AN and someone there will help you. Thanks and good luck, Fang Aili talk 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I did not offend you. In at least two cases you have removed a valid reference and then some more text - claiming it's unreferenced. Well, if it wasn't for your actions the remarks would've been referenced, just like they were before. So, in other words, your actions perfectly fit the definition of vandalism. Whether you feel offended by the word or not is really not of my business, is it. However, if you're not offended by your actions, how come you feel offended when someone calls them by their name?

Anyway, I saw your recent counter-productive spree and I'd like to point out that I did not revert all of your changes. In situations where you did any (I mean any) improvement of the earlier version along with promotion of the other name, I left them as they were. However, in situations where you simply changed a word or two just for the sake of it, I reverted to the stable version. //Halibutt 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:jadger

please, I would like to ask you to stop personally attacking me, as calling my edits "vandalism" does. I am also curious as to what in them constitutes vandalism? is it the removal of POV? or using the same name for an article as the article is titled? or maybe it is the removal of false citations in non-english languages that are represented to say something that they in reality do not?

--Jadger 03:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no - it's more about INSERTING biased POV, false claims, admiration for the FRITZ and his passed away since XIX century state, which shows in ALL your edits, destructive actions whose only purpose is to create chaos, your edit wars, your playing dumb or ignorant (which we both know you're not) whenever convenient etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Happy Valentine's Day! Space Cadet 03:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like it.
]
Friends?
Space Cadet 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it continues

Post another notice on WP:AN/I.--Isotope23 17:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jadger, if your ancestry is from the Palatinate, doesn't mean you can't be Prussian. Being Prussian is about the way you think. My intentions were to make friends with you, but I guess it flew right over head. I took an effort to make that emblem as a sign of Peace, you decided it was an excuse to take aggressive steps towards me (snitching and crying to the admins). Fine! Another reason you should consider yourself Prussian. If you can think of an emblem you would like this time, let me know, because I still want to be friends. I will make a new one, NOT post it on your page but in MY gallery of bumper stickers, where you can take it from, if you like it. Although judging by your recent actions you will probably rat on me again and histerically cry about yet another PA. Either way - Happy Editing - your wanna-be friend Space Cadet 13:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As do many Polish people, you associate Prussian with negative traits. "I took an effort to make that emblem as a sign of Peace, you decided it was an excuse to take aggressive steps towards me (snitching and crying to the admins). Fine! Another reason you should consider yourself Prussian." Please realise that when your actions are open to interpretation, you cannot seriously believe to get a more satisfactory response than you gave to him: "you're playing dumb or ignorant (which we both know you're not)". If you really want to be his friend, just take back comments like that or do you really think anyone would buy that you wanted to be his friend shortly after proclaiming that you disapprove of ALL he does, without having changed your mind? Against this background your alleged attempt to make friends with him appears sarcastic instead of conciliatory. And don't just continue what people certainly perceive as overstepping WP:CIV ("snitching and crying to the admins", "you will probably rat on me again and hysterically cry about yet another PA", "So my analogy kinda went way over your head, huh? I overestimated you, deepest apologies", "so do I have freedom to consider your offensive comments a PA also, and send them to hell, where they came from.", "So stop your drama about me deleting your crap and stuff it", "Get it? I know you do. Now just act like appropriately. Thank you."). Sciurinæ 16:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wanna be his friend AND I don't want to have to take anything back. Unconditonal friendship! Example: he never took back anything he said to me or about me, yet I took the initiative and made the first step towards Peace. Now I'm being chastized for it. Most German people "associate Prussian with negative traits" as does most of the rest of the world AFAIK. Anyway Sciurinæ, my friend, thanks for trying. Space Cadet 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is vandalism: you have removed a reference. Please don't make such edits in the future, or you may be penalized for vandalising Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow interesting, evaluating user:Piotrus "contributions" like these - removal of referenced information and ref itself, removal directly referenced formulation, situation continues, removal of tags placed by mediator and etc etc. So Piotrus, by your formulation you are vandalizing too, no? It would be additional information to your RFC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Piotrus. M.K. 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, M.K. Maybe if you try harder you will finally get a neutral editor to see your point of view. If they are sufficiently out of touch with reality to take your words for granted without following the links and looking at your misdirections in more details. I'd assume sooner or later you will find a naive soul who agrees with you, so don't loose spirit! Seriously, if you continue your slander, you may find Wikipedia has rules against it. Your friend Ghirlandajo did, to his suprise...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I read Prokonsul's Piotrus (P.P.) such "comments" I am being shocked. P.P. could you elaborate what do you have in mid saying try harder you will finally get a neutral editor to see your point of view and sooner or later you will find a naive soul who agrees with you. Do User:Mikkalai, the number 8 editor in whole wikipedia, is too "naive soul who agrees with you", because he suggested to suspend your admin power? - I suggest to suspend his amdin's rights to give him some time to refresh some basic rules of the game, or the another admin User:JzG identified continues P.P. misconducts as trolling, JzG is too naive soul??, [1]; or mediator who warned not to push POV yet another naive soul?; or other contributors, who clearly stated that you using Civility issues to deal with your opponents and yet again another soul?? [2]. Or you going to deny that you removed refs? I ask you a question, because you formulated definition about contributors, who deletes refs, as vandals; you deleted refs too. Seriously, if you continue your slander, you may find Wikipedia has rules against it. do I hear a threat? I would not be surprised, knowing your long credit of "prognosis" [3]. And btw, this replay is harassment?. I urge you to stop accusing contributors of vandalism, harassment etc., and you should apologize user:Jadger for your causations. M.K. 11:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC) P.s. user:Ghirlandajo is present again[reply]
No, it isn't. Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (emphasis added). Of course it's not the removal of a source in general. Therefore you won't find "removing of a source" in the definition at WP:VAND. Statements behind which there is a source can still be inappropriate (doesn't fit the context, unreliable source, assertion that a POV among several different is true etc). Or the statement may not even be based on the source. An extreme hypothetical example: "God exists and his son is Jesus[²]" in the lead section of the article, say, "Salamander". By your definition it would be vandalism to remove it. If you read the edit summary, you'll see that Jadger said he thought that "that source says nothing about this battle, and nothing about human shields". Especially in content disputes it is essential to recognise that "apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." Even Space Cadet's strange meddling with Jadger's userpage is not necessarily vandalism. This shouldn't be continued on Jadger's talk page. If you're still not convinced, Piotrus, you can post a thread on the talk page of WP:VAND, which I've now added to my watchlist. Sciurinæ 03:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Germany

Welcome, Jadger, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

  • The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
  • Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
  • We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

Here are some tasks you can do. Please remove completed tasks from the list.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! -- Kusma (討論) 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]