Talk:Neo-Nazism

Militant Neo Nazi in Frankonia.

A militant neo nazi in frankonia. ITS ALL IT IS. Sorry if you dont want neo nazi's in frankonia but their just is. So stop slandering my work or I will request that wikipedia deletd the image as I dont know how it even became on here! [[[User:Usurpsynapse|Usurpsynapse]] 18:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)]

Why would we care exactly where the person is? Why would we refer to the area by the name used on the Middle Ages? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankonia is always Frankonia to me as a rose is a rose ANYWHERE you go in the world. Middle Ages? Hmm... Come here... Alot of signs that say "Franken"! Why do we have our own dialect? You sir are as bad as Stalin. Usurpsynapse 22:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So a nazi took a photo of himself and uploaded it to wikipedia? ROFL. --P4k 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of that? If so we should remove it. If not we should remove that silly caption. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well User:Usurpsynapse claims that the person in the photo is his friend here but I guess we don't have to believe him. The image page was created by Usurpsynapse but doesn't contain any more information about where the picture came from.--P4k 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw if you want an image of a Nazi (well, a National Bolshevik Party member) which claims to be a self-portrait there's one here. Part of my reason for suspecting that this is a self-portrait or a picture of one of the photographer's friends is just that that seems to often be the case with Wikipedia pictures of non-famous people in private environments (eg this one and this one). If the subject or one of his friends didn't take the picture, who did? --P4k 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If I took and posted a picture of a building, maybe claiming it to be a historical landmark, would other editors seek to rename it, "A building some Wikipedia editor took a picture of"? Yes, that would be an accurate caption, but it doesn't help the reader understand the reason for the photograph. I suppose if we doubt that the guy really is a neo-Nazi in Germany we could say something like "Purported neo-Nazi posing with rifle". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering we don't know anything about its provenance, I'm not certain there is a reason for the photograph. I mean it's really arresting but it doesn't actually tell the reader anything. FWIW the original Wikimedia commons page doesn't say anything about the guy's nationality (or anything else). The caption I wrote was obviously obnoxious but it's a moot point now. --P4k 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The text now reads:

• A militant neo-Nazi holding a rifle.

Which is harmless. Isn't "militant" redundant with "neo-Nazi"? Are there non-militant neo-Nazis? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Croatia - latest changes

As to the anonymous contribution - it depicts the latest events in Croatia and it is fully referenced. However, I removed

a) blockquotes from the English language references due to the fact that those references are short and online accessible;

b) blockquotes from the Croatian references (the original texts and their translations) - due to the fact that the same references are online accessible and the other foreign language references here, are not quoted then translated - so, what I did - is for the sake of the section coherency and readability.

--NovaNova 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why did you reverse those improvements and re-add block quotes and unnecessary extra text in footnotes? And why did you re-introduce grammar and spelling mistakes to the section? Substandard English grammar makes the article look unprofessional. And why do you keep making edit notes that don't actually represent the changes you have made? It's very frustrating to see necessary language and formatting corrections be repeatedly destroyed, and to see edit notes that don't even come close to accurately describing what has been done.Spylab 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, be civilised - support your 'grammar' alteration by quoting the English grammar rules, avoid selling the text mutilations as grammar corrections. Also, do not edit the text referenced in the language (Serbo-Croatian) you cannot read and understand. Acquire a valid and sufficient knowledge of the subject you are trying to discuss!--NovaNova 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's very obvious that neither you, nor the anonymous IP editor care about proper grammar, spelling, formatting or neutrality, so I added tags to point out that fact instead of causing an edit war with destructive and counterproductive editors who don't understand Wikipedia guidelines. As it stands, the Croatia section is very unprofessional and doesn't come near to meeting encyclopedic standards. Spylab 11:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to demonstrate an effective knowledge of the subject - in order to support your claims. As advised - be civil and avoid tutoring others about profesionalism (this is an amateurs encyclopaedia), standards, and rules. Profesionalism requires a valid and verifiable knowledge which you obviously lack.--72.75.18.173 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)