User talk:PaterMcFly

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


Hi PaterMcFly, I could barely resist spelling your name Pater Mc Fly, but I accept your authority to write your own names however you want.

I think we should allow St.Gallen to do so, too.

Check the primary resource

It is the official website of the city. I hope you concur that proper names are not subject of discussion.

In this sense I reverted your AGF edit. Thanks Tang Wenlong (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this website, thanks. They use the form without space, but unfortunatelly, I don't think this can go as primary source in this case. Most newspapers use both spellings, and Duden also suggests to use a space, therefore, as I said: Both are common and can be used interchangeably. It may be a personal preference, but I think the form with space looks more up-to-date nowadays. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Kumiki Gibson[edit]

(Re [1]) Don't worry - you're nowhere close to the limit. Let me know if he does it again. –xenocidic (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the support. This is getting anoying. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: User:, obviously the "opponent" of User:Truthful data has once again stuck the article. I've reverted once again (his version is very biased in the other direction) and leave a warning on the talk page that the next such edit will have consequences. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's it now. While I was away, User:, obviously the "opponent" of User:Truthful data (see history of article), reverted to "his" very biased version. While I was writting a warning to that user and one on the talk page, truthful data reverted back to his (in the opposite direction biased) version again. Either full protect the article (probably in my version, since, if I'm not completelly wrong, that's the least biased - although in general I would not ask a protection on a specific version, but this seems to be a special case) or block both parties for an extended period of time. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and protected your version, not because I endorse it, but because it seems to be the one with the least BLP concerns. I'm going to engage another admin who is more experienced in these things to take a look and see if I've acted appropriately. –xenocidic (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
That's probably the best thing to do. I have basically no knowledge about the subject too, and the article is definitelly not the best anyway, so some rewritting would be a good thing anyway. At least that dumb edit-warring is over now. Maybe one of the involved warriors will even come down and start discussing? Hope against hope... --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you do me a favour and look at what Keeper wrote here and do the needful? I'm at work and don't have time to do this. If you can. Cheers, –xenocidic (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, give me a few minutes. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Joel Kass[edit]

It might help but the offer might be turned down... apparently Ryan Beta doesn't get the concept of leaving content in place until it's rewritten. If it's just one user they usually won't protect it. Maybe a stronger warning, or maybe admin will give him a little time out. RainbowOfLight Talk 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted[edit]

Wikipedia Rollback.png

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! –xeno (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Von der Dur[edit]

Hello! I don`t know have did you come to me, but I can ashur you, that the family Von der Dur exists and it is not a fake. If you have a wish to email some members of this family or want to personaly talk to them, I can give you adresses, because they live here in Slovenia. I wish that you remove your comment on discussion of slovenian user: Andrejj. I haven`t wrote the german article about the Von der Dur family and other, because I can`t even speak German. I speak just English, which is also not very good- as you can see. I can ashur you that the Slovenian-originall article about the family Von der Dur and also Sophie von Mecklenburg-Schwerin, are true, although you doubt. They were not very famous, but I thought it would be good and interesting to make public my work-the descendents of Von der Dur family asked and payed me to research all their family history. And it was very hard to do it, so please respect my work and do not write comments about things, that your are not shur if they are so as you wrote. Although you insulted the family with your dobut, I can understand it, because the family wasn´t really famous in the history and some people didn` even heard about it. I hope you understand and you will remove your comment and some day visit the Slovenian-Austrian family von der Dur. :) --Karel S. 14:50, 21.9.2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC).

I was only forwarding the case from user de:Benutzer:Ernst Egerland who found the fakes on dewiki. It is true that there's probably no link between the user who wrote the questioned articles on dewiki and you, but the articles in question seem quite similar. Also, in my opinion, the articles on slwiki are also basically unsourced. I didn't state that your articles are fake, but that there's a probability that this is so, due to the events that occured over on de. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you had to have your reasons to doubt also about the slovenian article of the Von der Dur family. Maybe someone translated my work and added some things, that weren`t true-I really don`t know. I agree with you, that our wikipedia is very unsourced. That`s true, but I can`t understand how can anyone say that an article is a fake, because he did never heard about it or read about it. He just didn`t find any facts about the article on the net and then made it a fake-because it is not mentioned anywhere, just in Wikipedia. I think that is not enough big reason to make an article a "fake". I hope you understand now, that the family is true, that also its history on Slovenian Wikipedia is true and that there is not even 1% of fake in it. I can tell you also, that one of the members of the Von der Dur family is writting a book about their family, based on my researches. About the german wikipedia: I don`t know what was written in the german article of Von der Dur family- I haven`t seen it. If you thought it wasn`t good enough or maybe fake it is probably good that you have deleted it. Karel S. 19:40, 21. september 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Trust is good, proofs are better". If you can bring forth your sources, I may believe you, otherwise I don't know. For instance: Where was (or will) this book be published? Is it already available? Where? Where did you get the images from? Where they published elsewhere, too? And yes, I do believe that if something is only mentioned in wikipedia, not on any other website nor in any book, that it could be a fake. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, proofs are better. My sources aren`t websites it is from old books and in there were all births, mariagges in the Von der Dur family and those books are in Slovenia, but I would just lose my time to tell you all about those books and institutions, because you don˙t even know them, not even Slovenia. A lot of the published history was the still existing corespondence of the Countess Ana von Krane to her mother Ana Georgine. Ana von Krane was researchig the family tree and history of the family in Vienna and Graz-she was married to Baron Franz von der Dur/Vandur. And that letters and researches stayed in hands of their daughter, still alive Baroness Marie Knuplež von der Dur, Countess von Krane. She posesses the corespondence and a part of old photos, that are published in Wikipedia. Other photos and facts are in museums in Maribor and Murska Sobota. About the book-It is still not available. The grandson of Baroness Marie just began with its writting and I don`t believe it would be published this year, because some things must to be better researched and that takes a lot of time. The book will be published in Slovenia, but I don`t where. I hope you now believe me, but if you are still not shur about it I can`t help you anymore. I told you all I know. Karel S. 22:00, 22. September 2008 (UTC)

I Never asked for any online sources. The articles in question seem to have none of these sources mentioned (as far as I can tell). Even old books can be specified in an appropriate "Sources" paragraph. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you didn`t ask me for any online sources, I just told you that for information. There are sources mentioned on the most important page-on page, where the family is describe through the beginning till today. All other articles about the members of the family are from that sources and also some others, but it think that it is enough if the sources are mentioned on the page Von der Dur. Those books are in Slovevnia mentioned as: Urbarji-I don`t know how to translate that-there are list of noble and some other important people in Slovenia, their posession. Other books are in other big churches and archives in Maribor:Skofijski urad. There are facts about the family, births,marriages and a lot of other stuf. But those people, which are specially described are mentioned not just in Urbar, church archives but in old corespondence, as I told you yesterday. Karel S. 19:00, 23. September 2008 (UTC)

That basically sounds reasonable. Since I can neither read the article nor verify any of the given sources, I'll leave the judgement to Andrejj. This is wikipedia, and questioning the truthfulness of an article is always allowed (and needed) if there can be doubt about it, it helps this project move forward. Don't see this as criticism but instead as a help, how to improve the work you do. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of redirects[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PaterMcFly. You have new messages at Pie4all88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PaterMcFly. You have new messages at Pie4all88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Made me laugh[edit]

I love your edit summary here it made me laugh. BigDuncTalk 18:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I don't get the point really. Maybe I'm lacking something that isn't obvious for someone not natively talking english...? --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
You really ought use full protection for stuff like that. –xeno (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 :-) --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Now are you getting us lol BigDuncTalk 18:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I'm just trying to imagine how that "semi"-protection would work. Only getting half of the children? Or maybe half a child? o_O --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The STDs without the children? or vice-versa =] –xeno (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
If you find the "device" that allows getting Children without these, you'll probably get this...--PaterMcFly (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Xeno, would you please step by here? There's some backlog and some quite nasty vandals around. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, looks like I missed the party. –xeno (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, some where just blocked while I was typing. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Nice job, reverting that user who added that blog link I reverted him using Twinkle... but you were quite faster, nulling my edit. -- A talk/contribs 21:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi Str1977

Could you please explain the {clearify me} here? What is unclear to you? I agree that we need more sources for all of this, but as far as I see, there are very few studies about this topic at all. There seems to have been one older german study, but for that one, I find only press releases about it, not the source and not even the date of when it was done. So this american study is probably the best we can get after all. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 09:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think my edit was quite clear. As you yourself said that the study (which is a dead link, BTW) gives only the present situation (and I will not speculate about the reliability of a lone survey). Furthermore, it suggests that there are only two choices: pyjamas or naked. How was pyjama defined in the study - in a narrow or in a wider sense? All these questions need answering before we can take this as a basis for that "have become less popular" statement. Str1977 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Err... That is strange. For me, the link works just fine. Can you access this link? The survey is then at the big link about one page down. And no, the survey doesn't give only the two options. I can quote the relevant question (all others are about sexuality in general)

56. What do you usually wear when you are sleeping at night?

Who Nothing/nude Underwear Nightgown/Pajamas Shorts/t-shirt Sweatshirt/sweatpants Something else No op.
All 22 16 34 23 1 2 1
Men 31 31 13 21 1 3 1
Women 14 2 55 25 2 1 1
I never said that this would support the claim that pyjamas have become less popular, but it gives some hints, at least when compared to that other german study. And from my personal view, I think the data are quite surprising (I would have expected pajamas to be at around 80-90%) --PaterMcFly talk contribs 17:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That link now works for me.
The table explains better what the options were and how pyjamas were defined (special gown for the night, not worn during day) - though "something else still leaves questions open (but due to the small percentage hardly relevant).
You never said that this would support the claim but that after all is the issue. If there's no support for the claim it has to go. We cannot simply base it on the abc survey, nor can we compare an abc survey from america with an earlier german study/suvey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Str1977 (talkcontribs)
I have updated the article accordingly. What do you think? --PaterMcFly talk contribs 08:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The link now works for me.
The table gives all figures.
However, I am not sure regarding the sentence "For women, the study doesn't give very clear indications, because nightgowns are counted among the same option" - who says this? Doesn't this make things for men unclear too, as nightgowns are a traditional sleeping attire for men too (preceding the pyjama) - and I don't think it makes it unclear for women either. Str1977 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Another thing we must note is that the survey is only a US survey! Str1977 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right, it's not very clear from the data. But I think it's quite certain that nowadays, the number of men actually wearing nightgowns is quite small, in contrast to women. At least that's what I've seen in different other places, too. Maybe we should find another source supporting this claim. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 10:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Rehabilitation in der deutschen Wikipedia[edit]

Hallo PaterMcFly,

erstmal ein frohes neues Jahr(zehnt) nachträglich. Zur Sperre in der deutschen Wikipedia: Kann ich wenigstens darauf hoffen, zum 01. Januar 2016 wieder entsperrt zu werden? Also, nur in der deutschen Wikipedia auf ewig gesperrt zu werden, während ich in der englischen Wikipedia konstruktive Beiträge machen kann kommt mit der Zeit eher absurd daher. Wegen einem Ausraster gleich die Höchsstrafe zu erhalten ist doch übertrieben. Ich hab mal gesehen, dass ein gewisser User:Bertram nach schlimmerem Vergehen rehabilitiert wurde. Hoffe auf eine Antwort von dir. -- Anhänger der Aufklärung 2.0 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wenigstens die Usergemeinde in der deutschen Wikipedia kann man abstimmen lassen, ob meinem Entsperrwunsch stattgegeben werden kann. Wenn die Mehrheit ablehnt, dann okay. Bleibt mir keine andere Wahl als die nächste Zeit außen vor zu bleiben. Geht das mit der Abstimmung? Ihr redet ja sonst gern von Demokratie, könnt es nicht leiden, wenn man sich Namen gibt, die Zustimmung zu Diktatoren suggerieren (also Pinochet für einen Massenmörder zu halten erfordert aber eine teleologische Neudefinition des Begriffes "Massenmörder" --> er hat den Befehl zu sowas gegeben, aber selbst Hand angelegt hat er nicht), aber handelt fast schon wie Diktatoren. Ich fühlte mich teils an chinesische Zustände erinnert, als ich wegen meinem frühreren Nutzernamen unbeschränkt(!) gesperrt wurde. Wegen einer Bagatelle ewig gesperrt. Wahrscheinlich werden dann auch noch die gesperrt, die sich "CDU-Hasser" oder "SPD-Gegner" nennen (also, was gegen die Bundestagsparteien (außer "die Linke") zu sagen geht nicht, die sind sakrosankt). Nur die PBC und andere dubiose Kleinst- und Atomparteien darf man kritisieren....Und die Gründe von Kh08 oder wie er auch immer heißen mag sind ja wirklich nicht ganz zutreffend. POV hab ich nicht begangen, und nicht alle meine Beiträge waren unsinnige Bearbeitungen. Lässt sich die unbeschränkte Sperre nicht wenigstens in eine 2000-stündige Sperre umwandeln? Müsste doch möglich sein. Und wenn du meine Beiträge in der englischen Wikipedia anschaust, dann wirst du sehen, dass diese frei von grobem Unsinn sind. Nun ja, wollte mich halt mal noch mal zu der zweiten Sperre äußern (die erste war wegen einer Lappalie). -- Anhänger der Aufklärung 2.0 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... Ich weiss ehrlich gesagt nicht so genau, was da abgelaufen ist. Zuletzt hast du jedenfalls (ohne einen für mich ersichtlichen Grund) andere Benutzer grob beleidigt. Dass du da bei der Vorgeschichte unbeschränkt bekommst, wundert mich dann hingegen nicht. Wenn du mir erklärst, was das mit diesen Beleidigungen auf sich hatte, könnte ich evtl. eine Sperrprüfung für dich beantragen. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 21:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Ich hatte da Jahresartikel "2033" und "2045" angelegt. Bei beiden Artikeln war die Löschbegründung "Dummfug". Für mich war es eine stillose Art, einen SLA zu begründen und solch eine "Begründung" verstößt gegen die Löschregeln der (deutschen) Wikipedia. Da war mit der Kragen geplatzt. Um eine sofortige Entsperrung geht es mir auch nicht mehr. Sehe ja ein, dass meine Entgleisung unangebracht war. Ich finde nur diese ewige Sperre etwas hart. Ich bitte um eine Umwandlung der Sperrfrist von "unbeschränkt" auf 2000 bis 5000 Stunden. Da habe ich wenigstens die Aussicht wieder zugelassen zu werden. Eine sofortige Entsperrung sehe bei meinem Vergehen unangebracht, das sehe ich ein. (Das wären etwa 83 Tage und 8 Stunden bis 208 Tage und 8 Stunden Sperrzeit anstatt Sperre bis zum Tag des jüngsten Gerichts.) Das müsste technisch machbar sein. -- Anhänger der Aufklärung 2.0 (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hinweis: Ich habe mich aus praktischen Gründen umbenannt, nicht, um die Sperre in der deutschen Wikipedia zu umgehen, sondern, um Umlaute im Namen zu vermeiden. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Natürlich werde ich trotz der Umbenennung abwarten, ob die Sperrfrist entschärft wird. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Werde sehen, was ich tun kann, kann aber im Moment etwas dauern. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Wirst du dann auch einen Link zu der entsprechenden Diskussion angeben? Damit ich verfolgen kann, wie der Stand der Dinge sein wird. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Sicher. Beachte auch diese Meldung. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 09:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ich weiß was gemeint ist, aber ich fühle mich trotzdem geschmeichelt als "Socke" bezeichnet zu werden. Also so sehe ich bestimmt nicht aus: [2]-- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Deine Sperrprüfung findet hier statt. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallo PaterMcFly, ich habe die Diskussion verfolgt und muss sehen, dass es keinen Aussicht auf Erfolg hat. Ich fühle mich wirklich in der Annahme bestätigt, dass in der deutschen Wikipedia nur linke politisch korrekte Meinungen erlaubt sind (ein Anhänger des Rechtskonservatismus bin ich nicht). Äußert man sich mal nicht-links, ist man gleich ein Sperrkandidar. Dann darf ich auch noch lesen, dass ihr in der deutschen Wikipedia mich in der englischen sperren wollt (eher um mir eins auszuwischen), obwohl ich in der englischen Wikipedia kein Fehlverhalten begangen habe. Ich habe wirklich vorgehabt, mich bei Nephiliskos zu entschuldigen und so. Aber nein, das geht nicht. Und was Massenmörder Pinochet angeht: Ich habe mit dem einen Statement ausgeführt, dass es problematisch ist, Pinochet, als Massenmörder zu bezeichnen, da er wohl kaum mit eigener Hand diese Morde begangen haben kann, die ja unbestreitbar existiert haben. Was ich nicht bezweifle, ist, dass er diese in Auftrag gegeben hat. Aber diese Sicht darf dort offenbar nicht sein. Wegen meiner Sperre dort, habe ich keine Gelegenheit, mich zu der Sache zu äußern. (Rechtsstaatlich ist das schon fragwürdig für eine Seite, die sich demokratisch nennt.) In der off-line-welt wäre sowas ja nicht zulässig, Rechtsbeugung würde vorliegen. Und nochmal zu meiner Reaktion an z. B. Nephiliskos: Ich war stocksauer, eine Löschbegründung "Dummfug" zu lesen, für einen Artikel "2033". Ich habe das nicht erstellt um die deutsche Wikipedia zu ärgern, sondern guten Mutes, da ich die Jahre 2033 und 2045 als symbolisch ansehe. Da jähren sich die Zeit des NS zum 100. mal. Aber gut, es war ungewollt in der Wikipedia. Wie dem auch sei. Damit ich nicht eine Sperre in der englischen Wikipedia befürchten muss, ziehe ich den Entsperr-Antrag mit Wehmut zurück. Um Anstand zu zeigen, wünsche ich der deutschen Wikipedia trotz allen Differenzen viel Erfolg. Möge die Kreativität euch helfen und euren Elan, die deutsche Wikipedia zu einem exzellenten Nachschlagewerk zu machen und das recht kostengünstig für eine breite Masse. Nochmal: Ich ziehe meinen Entsperr-Antrag zurück, damit dort dann Ruhe einkehrt. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Was Demokratie angeht: Eine Demokratie hält auch kontroverse Meinungen aus. Die deutsche Wikipedia hat da wohl noch viel Nachholbedarf in der Hinsicht. Alles andere wäre eine Verhöhnung des Demokratiebegriffs, um mal auf User Winterreise anspielen zu dürfen, der ja offenbar glaubt, Pinochet konnte tausende Leute aus eigener Hand alleine umbringen. Und die Löschung des Abschnitts "Terrorismus als Staatskonzept" unter "17 Jahre Menschenrechtverletzungen" habe ich eher begangen, weil ich dies als Allgemeinplatz angesehen habe. Dass ich da die wesentlichen Abschnitte gelöscht habe, passierte aus Übereifer. Bin der Meinung, dass man Allgemeinplätze nicht unbedingt unter Personenartikel setzen muss. (In der Regel gibt es für solche ja schon eigene Artikel.) Nochmal: Die Morde selber, die unter seiner Regierung zweifellos begangen wurden, bestreite ich nicht. Aber so eine Sicht stößt ja offenbar in der deutschen Wikipedia auf taube Ohren. Natürlich schreibe ich dies auch aus Enttäuschung, aber es gibt schlimmeres. Hier in der englischen wikipedia, habe ich jetzt nichts schlimmes gemacht, weswegen ich einen Sperrantrag hie für völlig aussichtslos halte. Ich habe eine weiße Flagge gezeigt, da sollte man nicht trotzdem noch weiter schießen. Ich hoffe mal, diese Nachrichten erreichen euch drüben. Nochmal, damit es auch eine "Winterreise" versteht: Ich ziehe meinen Antrag auf Entsperrung in der deutschen Wikipedia zurück. "eine wikiweite Sperre, zumindest in der englischsprachigen WP organisieren" müsst ihr dann nicht mehr. Aber lasst mein Konto hier in Ruhe. Ist das jetzt nicht genug, um von euren Ansinnen abzusehen? -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Jetzt verstehe ich auch, warum "Die Winterreise" nicht versteht, ja mich nicht verstehen und sogar ein Sperrkomplott organisieren will. Also "eine wikiweite Sperre, zumindest in der englischsprachigen WP organisieren" will er (Zitat: Benutzer:Die Winterreise) . Nichts gegen ihn persönlich, und respektiere auch seine Meinung. Aber bei so einer Userpage kann ich da nur sagen: Wer so weit links steht, sieht die Welt natürlich rechts stehend. Deswegen hat er auch nicht sehen wollen/können, dass Pinochet nicht aus eigener Hand tausende Morde begangen haben kann. Diktatoren machen sich selten selber ihre Hände schmutzig. (Es wird kaum einer bestreiten können.) Manchmal sagen Symbole mehr als eine Million Worte. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gut, hat sich ja dann von selbst erledigt. Dieses Kapitel kann dann abgehakt werden. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Artikel Imelda Marcos in der deutschen Wiki[edit]

Der Unterabschnitt "ESDA" unter dem Abschnitt "Regierungszeit" ist falsch. Es muss EDSA heißen. (Kann ich als dort gesperrter nicht ändern.) (Darf ich wenigstens von hier aus auf Fehler hinweisen?) -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Klar, gegen Hinweise auf echte Fehler ist nichts einzuwenden. Hier allerdings meine Rückfrage: Was heisst das überhaupt? Die Abschnittsüberschrift an der Stelle nützt so ja sowieso herzlich wenig, da wohl kaum jemand weiss, was es bedeutet. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 23:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC) PS: Ich bin ab sofort im Urlaub und die Reaktionszeit dürfte deutlich länger sein als sonst.

EDSA = Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, eine berühmte Straße in Manila, wo die Demos gegen Marcos stattfanden. Übrigens: Ich werde es nochmal 2014 versuchen mit der Entsperrung. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC) (geändert am Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Wäre ich in der deutschen Wikipedia, hätte ich gern Merdeka Palace in der deutschen Wikipedia eingefügt. Immerhin ist Indonesien eines der größten Staaten der Welt, da wäre es relevant, den indonesischen Präsidentenpalast zu erwähnen. Hoffe mal, dass du andere User dort ermuntern kannst darüber zu schreiben. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talkcontribs) 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Artikel Todesstrafe in der deutschen Wikipedia[edit]

Da steht unter "Vorreiter der Abschaffung" "1989 folgte Kambodscha als erster Staat Asiens". Ich kann mich entsinnen, dass die Philippinen die Todesstrafe 1987 abgeschafft haben. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Artikel "Augusto Pinochet" in der deutschen Wikipedia[edit]

" 17 Jahre Menschenrechtsverletzungen

Staatlicher Terror[edit]

Wie in den meisten autoritären Diktaturen hatte Folter in Chile zwei fundamentale Ziele. Zum einen sollte der Betroffene selbst zum Reden gebracht und von weiterer oppositioneller Arbeit abgehalten werden (soweit er dies vorher überhaupt getan hatte). Zusammen mit politischen Morden und dem Verschwindenlassen von Personen sollten alle Gegner des Regimes systematisch eingeschüchtert und die Zivilgesellschaft und demokratische Basisorganisationen ausgelöscht werden. Die gestürzten Regierungsmitglieder wurden wie Staatsfeinde verfolgt. Pinochet setzte Festnahme, Folterung, Mord oder Verbannung politischer Gegner als Mittel seiner Politik ein. So bildete sich ein vom Terrorismus geprägtes Staatskonzept.

Die „Kommission für Wahrheit und Versöhnung“ (auch unter dem Namen „Kommission Rettig“ bekannt) erwähnte in ihren Aufzeichnungen 2095 Tote und 1102 verschwundene Häftlinge, andere Berichte zählten Hunderte mehr."

Fettgedruckt: Das sind ganz klar Allgemeinplätze, die ja wirklich nicht pinochet-spezifisch sind. Solche Fälle gab es auch unter Francisco Franco, Alfredo Stroessner, Mobutu Sese Seko und vielen anderen. Folter in Chile und Folter im Spanien der Zeit von 1936/1939 bis 1975 hatten bestimmt den gleichen Zweck. Der letzte Satz kann auch ohne Unterpunkt da stehen und wurde in meiner Voreile gelöscht. Ich hoffe mal, dass man das überarbeitet. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Neuer Entsperrantrag[edit]

Hallo PaterMcFly,

wenn du erkennst, dass ich hier in der englischen Wikipedia mich zum einem kooperativen und vernünftigen User entwickelt habe, kann ich dann nicht doch auf eine Begnadigung in der deutschen Wiki hoffen? Nicht unbedingt in drei Monaten, wahrscheinlich sogar erst nächstes Jahr, aber kann ich dann darauf hoffen? Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Artikel "Chung un-chan": Der Premierminister Südkoreas hat nicht das Geburtsjahr 1946, sondern 1948. Info von einem Koreaner in der koreanischen wikipedia. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Gibt's dafür belastbare Quellen? Der englische Artikel enthält jetzt beide Daten (Einleitung und Infobox unterscheiden sich). --PaterMcFly talk contribs 10:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hallo PaterMcfly,

ich habe mich jetzt wirklich zum Guten geändert. Kann ich darauf hoffen, zum 1. März, 2010, 0:00 Uhr entsperrt zu werden? Ewig soll nichts währen... -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nachdem kürzlich deine Range längerfristig gesperrt werden musste? Da musst du wohl noch etwas zuwarten. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 10:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lim Kit Siang[edit]

Hallo PaterMcFly,

denkst du, dass der Artikel über Lim Kit Siang in der deutschen Wikipedia den deutschen Relevanzkriterien genügen wird (und somit eine Chance auf Bestand)? Immerhin gehört der zu den führenden Köpfen in der Oppositionsbewegung in Malaysia (neben Anwar Ibrahim) und dort ist er auch recht bekannt. Was denkst du? -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ja, er ist ja offenbar bereits Mitglied des nationalen Parlaments. Das reicht sowieso locker für Relevanz. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hier -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

offensive name userpage deleted (admin on de wiki)[edit]

Hello. Was that an oversight action? I saw the "log action removed." How'd you see to do that? Do you want to get the user talk? Wow and cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, there was oversight involved, but not by me (I'm "only" sysop on dewiki). I only blocked him indef, deleted and locked his talk page, and then an oversighter removed the log actions because they still contained that name. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 07:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, only now I see that the same happened to your actions here on enwiki, too. Yea, oversighters removed the log entries, because of the offensive name (but they forgot one...). So it's not your fault that you have crossed out logs now ;-) --PaterMcFly talk contribs 07:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hallo: immer gesperrt sein[edit]

Hallo Pater,

ich bitte um unbegrenzte Sperre in der deutschen Wikipedia. Bitte auch den Baustein "Der Benutzer ist auf eigenen Wunsch nicht mehr in der Wikipedia..." hinzuaddieren. Nach der Sperre von Stefan64 steige ich aus. --Abfall-Reiniger (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wegen einer Eintagessperre, die absolut nachvollziehbar ist? Bitte schlaf nochmal drüber. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 16:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


im artikel hier ist die Provinzhaupstadt von Cavite Imus und nicht Trece Martires City. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 12:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi PaterMcFly. I saw you have some knowledge about the fate of images such as this one. Please share your opinion on the Deletion request page on wikicommons. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Submarine cable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This was intended in that case, as actually both meanings apply. It's rather the DAB that should be rather a list than a dissambiguation. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 12:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

F Market & Wharves and E Embarcadero Merger Proposal[edit]

Your input is requested: Talk:F Market & Wharves#F Market & Wharves and E Embarcadero Merger Proposal. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)