User talk:Cretino

Speedy deletion of Ted Navarro

A tag has been placed on Ted Navarro requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Lumpkin. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Gwernol 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Ted Navarro. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contribs) (Review)} 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Battles of Narvik. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 12:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler

~~Your quotations are total fabrications, and if you actually believe them, then you don't belong here. Accordingly, I will make sure you are never able to edit here again.~~ --Rodhull andemu 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that some of them may be real, however I was unable to check that since you didn't provide references. Even so, their wholesale use breaches our policies of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and they should not be replaced without balancing material. Accordingly, I have unblocked you. --Rodhull andemu 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bull is on your side. --Cretino (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. In addition, please note that as per the terms of the article probation on articles related to Barack Obama, these articles are under 1-revert rule. If you insist on adding this content, please discuss it first on the Talk page. Continued attempts to add this material without discussion is likely to result in a block --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katzen haifisch

Do you happen to know anything about them? Answers are welcome. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemoves

Please do not move articles to new titles when there is a concensus on the current title. If you disagree, start a discussion on the talkpage _before_ moving any article. I have reverted your move on Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany and restored the original title. Bjelleklang - talk 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease making controversial page moves as you did to Nazi Germany. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nazi Germany, you will be blocked from editing. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We go by reliable sources and the terminology that is commonly used in those sources. If you have reliable, independent (i.e., not Neonazi propaganda) sources showing that this regime was most commonly referred to as something other than "Nazi Germany", cite them. If not, go spew your hatred somewhere else. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Rosenbaum: Explicar a Hitler : La búsqueda de los orígenes de su maldad, Siglo XXI Editores (Mexiko), 1999, Seite 179. «A veces se attribuye a Heiden el haber popularizado la palabra 'nazi'. En sus primeros tiempos, los Nacional-socialistas eran conocidos por la abreviatura convencional 'naso', hasta que Heiden, según se dice, empezó a usar en sus artículos 'nazi', que en la jerga popular de Baviera significaba 'bobo' o 'simple'» --Cretino (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That source says nothing about whether the regime was most commonly known as "Nazi Germany" (over 3 million Google hits) as opposed to "Nationalsocialist Germany" (34 unique Google hits). NawlinWiki (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's time to make use of the correct term and tell the people. Being wrong in a crowd does not make things right. --Cretino (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is exactly the opposite of one of Wikipedia's core principles, as quoted at Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
This keeps us from having to decide which contributor is "right", or using the "correct term". The "right" term on Wikipedia is the one that's used by reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German American Internees in the United States during WWII

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article German American Internees in the United States during WWII, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? raven1977 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi page moves

Please stop. You are making a drastic number of edits against what appears to be a consensus to keep the Nazi Party page where it is. This may be considered vandalism by some; please wait until a consensus is reached one way or another.-Running On Brains 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawless

Proposed deletion of The Lawless

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Lawless, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

it is a disambig for articles that do not exist.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Nazi chocolate bar bomb, you will be blocked from editing. Tiptoety ^talk 17:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julleuchter categories.

I undid your edit where you deleted categories from the Julleichter article because it belongs in those categories. Please in the future do not delete relevant categories relating to an article.

Category Nazi Germany: The Julleuchter was popularized once again during the Third Reich. They were produced by the SS run Allach Porcelain Company by slave labor in Dachau concentration camp. Then the Julleuchter was then given to all soldiers of the SS.

Category Nazi culture: The Julleuchter was a part of Nazi culture because a great importance was placed on its use by SS soldiers during all celebrations during the year. It was even involved in SS weddings.

Category Nazi mysticism: The Julleuchter is an occult pagan object that Himmler and other Nazis believed had to do with Atlantis. They embraced the Julleichter and encouraged the soldiers of the SS to use it.

Category Nazi Propaganda: Propaganda was created about the Julleuchter in Germanien, SS-Leitheft, and Celebrations of the SS Family.Nicholasweed (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I had to undo your edit on the "Julleuchter" article. You deleted relevant categories without even stating a reason or discussing it here on your talk page, my talk page, or even the article’s talk page.Nicholasweed (talk) 14:17, 06 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]