User talk:Dorftrottel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:53, 24 March 2007

Welcome!

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Kncyu38/Archive/Archive-Nov2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Archived sections are listed at the section index, and here is a list of all archive pages.

Hello, Dorftrottel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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. Again, welcome!

My RfA (RevRagnarok)

I was going to wait until after the completion of my RfA to thank you for taking the time to contribute your concerns. However, what you wrote on Kntrabssi's talk page seemed like it could be construed as a personal attack if I weren't being civil about it. I would like you to please clarify the, "childish attitude on display at RevRagnarok's user page is testimony to immaturity I do not like to see in any user, let alone an admin." - Childish because you don't agree with what I stand for? Or do you simply consider the usage of userboxes in general as childish? Or because as a 31YO, I like animated television shows? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than cite his user page, do you have any evidence that this editor has actually POV pushed? Rklawton 03:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's funny is that the only people protesting to the user boxes on his page are the people affected by it. Has he ever shown a single example of editing which shows him to not be NPOV? I could easily choose to vote Oppose to all people who have red hair or are Republicans, but it doesn't do anything but come off as childish on my part. If you can give a legitmate reason using his editing history and contributions to Wikipedia to support your claim of POV, then you will be justified and will probably win over the Neutral crowd. If not, it sounds like you are just voting Oppose because you are upset about his views. Kntrabssi 08:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied each on their page. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't "let this go" because the whole RfA process has become an absolute joke. These kind of things, like judging a person's ability to do administrative processes based on his userboxes is exactly what the RfA process should 'NOT' entail. If we can't conscientiously seperate our feelings towards a user and our feelings towards how he will help Wikipedia, then we have no business voting. If you are offended, you are not obligated to vote. Your vote does nothing but harm him. Kntrabssi 17:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Twigg

Dear Kncyu38 - Both you and I have now reverted a series of attempts to delete a paragraph from this article - the user(s) having the IP addresses 90.192.249.2, 90.192.249.246, and 90.192.249.772 - Ii assume therefore from the same person. When this first happened I left a note at the talk page containing the standard stage 1 comment on a deletion. I see that you did something similar. As this is now looking like a concerted attack on the information concerned (which is supported by a citation from BBC News), could you advise me on how we might stop it?. thanks - --Smerus 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I have just put in a request for semi-protection - as it's the first time I've done this, could you look it over and see if I've done it right? (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). Best regards --Smerus 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo again - yet another person (or rather almost certainly the same person using a different IP address) has taken to blanking the paragraph in question. Do we take this back for semi-protection again or should I just notify User:ReyBrujo do you think? --Smerus 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ta btw re werdnabot - I am trying it set to 21 days as I don't have that much traffic--Smerus 17:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help keep sources relevant

Chris Lawson needs to be stopped from perpetrating this myth on the Red Baron page about Jewish ancesry. I'm not the first to mention this there. All I want is to keep it honest, please help me! He even called the other guy anti-semitic for no reason. Obviously some sort of bias. How can I protect this, I don't want to check it everyday if I can help it. Can you contact him? Thanks! JohnHistory 06:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]

follow up

I am the one trying to be a proffesional here! I am open minded, but give me something to work with! It's Chris Lawson, calling others anti-semites and me a quack, etc that you should direct that comment too. All I want is the truth. You say you are all about the sources, but in this case the weakest of sources, the weakest of quotes, does nothing to bother you??? I pasted the discussion here b/c I have the feeling it may get deleted by someone. I have read other moderators mention doing Google searches, Google isn't a good source, but it is indicative often times especially with someone as famous as the Red Baron when nothing comes up. That's all that I was saying, no evidence for Jewish ancestry. You do what you think is right, that's all I ask. If you don't want to support my desire for real sources and high standards then that is your choice. I have no desire for a "trench war". Just some basic scholarship standards is all I ask. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnHistory (talk • contribs) 08:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have any diffs? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like with George washington, and Ghenghis Khan, I have many books but none that say they weren't jewish b/c there's no evidence that they were. The same with the Baron. They talk about his family (no jews) his religion (christianity not judaism). Why would they bother to mention that. How would that go? "Oh, btw he wasn't jewish......" It's the very fact that all these detailed historys of this man who died ~90 yrs ago don't mention him being jewish that is the evidence. It would have been common knowledge, and included otherwise. It's very twisted to make me prove he wasn't jewish, you should have to prove he was. JohnHistory 08:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]

In refernce to your "diffs" question, yes, the other guy contesting this Jewish ancestry error in an earlier thread on the same Baron discussion article made his points to Chris Lawson in a civlized way and Lawson accused him of being anti-semitic, then he said, in reference to me in my discussion thread there, that "any quack can make a post/edit on wikipedia", clearly implying that I'm a quack. JohnHistory 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory 08:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]

I bought the book so I obviously care about this, and wikipedia. I will do what you said, and hopefully you will respect this and honor my work as i take this extra step to help the article. We should not fight each other, our goal should be the same. Truth! JohnHistory 09:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]

-It's 5:30 in the morning here, II'm having trouble figuring out how to do the diffs properly? I will try to do that tomorrow. Here is the other part you couldn't find that you wanted the Diffs for where he accuses the other guy of being anti-semitic: (remember the quote from his source says the Baron would have been killed) BTW, alot of people object to the source there, not just me. At least 3 or so people I think have already objected to it. Chris is the one who comes across as close minded, I think.

"Nevertheless - what does Jewish ancestry mean? (by the way the definition that Jews are a race is a definition the Nazis used - this may be true in some aspects, but it is also posible that it was a religios thing with Richthofen and in this case if he or his parents changed the religion, the fact is not worth mentioning) Did he had a Jewish Grandma? Or was it even further ancestry. Then why don't you say in every third article about a person from Isralel that he/she had partial German ancestry? This would also be true - because there was much intermarriage in history. If the Jewish ancestry is further away than to his Grandparents this "fact" should be deleted fast. And for sure forums are no source - but you have also be careful with books. There are also books existing which denial of Holocaust and nearly no one would take that serios. You should think about he fact that the book was writen short after the war and that the only sentence stated is wrong or at the least tentential (Richthofen would not for sure have been killed by the Nazis if he had only partial Jewish ancestry and had been a "Volk"-hero - in his case they would most likely tried to cover up his ancestry - there are many examples for this).86.56.0.113 09:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article claim anything about the Nazis' intentions to kill him had he survived the war. I have no idea where you're getting that straw man argument from, but your anti-Semitic tone is not appreciated.--chris.lawson 12:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)"

-I mean here we have a 50 + year old book that isn't even about The Red Baron, that doesn't even state that he was jewish explicitly, possibly infers it from the books title, provides no proof, and b/c of this we have now changed the Baron's ethnicity. Come on. JohnHistory 09:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory (going to bed, Diffs is too complicated won't give up though but the previous quotes should do it for you, I think? talk later, man. Were on the same side.[reply]

Did the e-mail thing, check it tomorrow more then likely. Fading fast into never ever land.....JohnHistory 10:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]

...Also, being from Prussia the book might say he was part Polish, Slav etc and that would fit the non-aryan quote too. JohnHistory 10:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC) JohnHistory[reply]

Concerns expressed about my RfA

Replied on the RfA page. As I noted there, I don't see the argument as one of Richthofen's Jewish ancestry, but rather whether or not the cited source is reliable. I have no way of evaluating the source either way, but absent an equally reliable source saying that particular book is not to be trusted, it seems prudent to err on the side of what can be cited. If someone can cite a source (not just personal original research and/or a single post on an Internet forum) that shows why the book is not reliable, I'm quite happy for it to be removed as a source (and its claims to be retracted).--chris.lawson 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your note

Thanks for taking the time to leave me the note about the note I left at the Clawson-RFA, which led me to tone it down a bit. Yes, there are others who have expressed their concerns, and I wouldn't dream about trying to argue them out of those views. Indeed, I'm rethinking my !vote in light of the concerns they raise. But in the case of JohnHistory, this account is fairly obviously a trolling sockpuppet, and that is very, very harmful for the community. semper fictilis 13:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right about him not being a sock. Or he could be faking ignorance of markup and policy. His first edits were on Talk pages, not editing articles; he certainly knew where to find WP:RFA and knew what issues to bring up there ("oppose per concerns raised by …" is wiki-speak). And when he then goes on to say "I have found Lawson to disregard others…" he shows himself to be someone with a history with Lawson. (I was here months before I knew that admins existed, much less how they were created; JH finds his way there within his first 24 hours? I'm not sure.) Now, as I said, I don't know at this point whether I'm going to change my !vote or not. But JohnHistory is probably not a complete newby. semper fictilis 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

admin

Thanks for your message. No, I'm not an admin, and it might be more efficient to block my own vandals. But I think I need a little more process experience before investigating it further. semper fictilis 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP, AIV, and whatnot

Hi Kncyu38. Yeah, after I wrote that comment on RFPP I decided that someone who made such edits as the IP probably needs time to calm down. Wish I had thought of that before I wrote the comment... Xiner (talk, email) 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful in editing

While I know it was probably an innocent mistake, please be more careful when editing. One of your recent edits [1] removed three AfD debates from the log page. I have restored the deleted debates. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Leuko 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How embarassing! Replied on your page. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverting vandalism

Hello, Dorftrottel! Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Cheers! zero » 22.03.07 02:02:51

Replied on your talk page. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: question

Hey. The way that I add my warnings to pages is via a button added by WP:TWINKLE that speeds up warnings a lot. It automatically adds that text to warnings (though it can be removed if wanted). So I'm not sure how you would get it without using twinkle. That said, twinkle is a great tool and also speeds up reverting by adding a rollback button, so I recommend giving it a try if you haven't already! Good luck! Will (aka Wimt) 00:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Happy to be able to assist! Will (aka Wimt) 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's never a shortage of that! Will (aka Wimt) 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah sorry for beating you - I've had way too much practice! In order to revert with twinkle, you need to view the 'diff' of the last edit, and a very obvious set of rollback buttons will appear. You can view the last diff by clicking on the 'last' button at the top of any page. Will (aka Wimt) 01:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Right, I'm off to sleep now. It's gone 1am here. Enjoy your new tools! Will (aka Wimt) 01:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony5429 2

Hi. I was taking a leak when you notified me.

I think we need to do something about these hopeless candidates requesting adminship. It demoralises them to receive such a negative outcome. We ought to have some way of politely removing the RfA before it gets ugly. A good percentage of these candidates stop editing with a couple of days. - Richard Cavell 02:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One (admittedly big) step may be to abolish self-noms, as most of those end unsuccessful, anyway. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may well be a big step. An alternative is simply to provide an arbitrary cutoff of, say, 500 edits. That way the candidate who has fewer than that number will feel frustrated by the policy rather than by community opposition . - Richard Cavell 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any centralised location for discussion. Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship often canvasses the subject. I think that any policy that is created would merely be an extension of WP:SNOW and would be conservative. - Richard Cavell 04:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In response to your comment refering to my post on Clawson's talk page I'll just draw your attention to this post by you:

"We can safely assume that your RfA is going to succeed. But I hope you're not going to just sit this out, I'd very much appreciate any comment or explanation you may have regarding the concerns I brought up, as would most certainly all other users interested in your RfA. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)"

Since his RfA clearly did not succeed, I read this as your being biased in any dealings with Clawson. If you would read what I wrote on his talk page, you would realize that there were no personal attacks. What there WAS however, was critisim about his childish manner and tantrums. This is not a personal attack, this is legitimate critisim. In the future, if you find it necessary to post comments that make you feel better on my talk page, I'd appreciate it if you could at least feign some level of neutrality. Chairman Meow 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what can I say? I'm inclined to believe that one of the reasons Clawson's RfA failed, which at the time I posted above comment to his talk page had a tally of 30 supports to 3 opposes, is the diffs that made myself change from neutral to tentative oppose to, finally, firmly oppose and which I provided in the RfA, as you can easily see. Regarding your comment at Clawson's talk page [2]: "your arrogant tone and hostile approach", "your extremely childish behavior", "Absuridity steming mainly from your vitrolic and immature posts" are certainly uncivil, and depending on the sensitivity of the user on the receiving end, may well be construed as a personal attack. Regarding my neutrality, I hope you are aware that there those users who wanted to prominently cite Ziff as to the Jewish ancestry of Richthofen they (wrongly) thought it proved. Then there are JohnHistory and you (and maybe some others I forgot) who want the article censored. And their are really fine and soft-spoken users like Colincbn and Kusma (and Mackensen and The Rambling Man), who are actually willing to compromise for the sake of consensus. I only ever edited the article because JohnHistory asked me for help, as you can read above. I am so neutral regarding Richthofen, I almost don't care at all, except for correct application of policy and some willingness to civilly work together with others, which you and JohnHistory have yet to show first signs of. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs)

I apologize if I've caused you any consternation; but having said that , please don't lump me into any group or side within the debate, you don't know if I stand with what User John has said or not. I merely came across this debate while looking through the administration proceedings and after reading it I simply had to chuckle bc it seems like the most childish thing. Sources aside..what I'm primarily refering to is the speed at which this catapulted into an edit war. It is simply obvious to me, and anyone else who neutrally comes upon this edit war, that there is a significant amount of things NOT being said behind the scenes and secret agendas being pushed that have contributed to the extreme anger on the page. Chairman Meow 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question & Comment

I'm still having trouble with where/how to label changes in articles, why I make them, etc. I'm persistant, curious, and will probably figure it out although a little help would help. This exercise of learning the in and outs of Wikipedia is much like an information science class, thus why I enjoy it so much. Thanks >Wedudley 13:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)<[reply]

Replied on your talk page. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much Has Been Learned

Just a note to thank you for your help in improving the article: William E. Dudley. It seems all hurdles have been jumped for this small piece of Wikipedia, is there a way to attract a larger peer review, if needed? I guess I'm thinking such a garish label could be damaging to my various careers, so is better resolved or changed to a label attracting peer review (either way). >Wedudley 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)<[reply]

I didn't actually help, but thanks anyway. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.

I guess what I really needed was to understand the deletion process better. I thought you had a hand in the final decision. I guess it's more a matter of time. . .>Wedudley 01:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)<[reply]

IE-FF

Wow, that looks amazing! Thanks for the pointer!--Xnuala (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MvR Debate

I regret to have to say this, but I feel that if this debate gets much more heated (people are already using terms like "edit war" and "agenda") we might need to do a request for comment or some other procedure to bring in uninterested third parties. As I am fairly ignorant of the appropriate channels one must go through for that kind of thing I was hoping you might be able to help. I am not sure whether the current situation warrants such a measure yet but it seems to be heading in that direction. Thanks for your time. Colincbn 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your last minute change of heart concerning my unsuccessful RfA. I am disappointed that I was judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Hopefully I can convince you next time around. But until that time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't play games on wiki

I think it is time for you to move on. Please don't be a hypocrit about the civil policy. Also please watch your words when commenting about other people, and your "doubts" about them such as with Chairman Meow. I will report for herrasment if this continues.

you aren't making any sense. You know how long I waited to edit that. Your a hyporcrit for not critizing the guy calling me scum. Shows your bias. JohnHistory 09:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]

The fact that you critize me and talk about me being blocked for saying truthfully that this guy is lying about me deleting anything here, which you can check. and the fact that you say nothing to him after he calls me "aryan scum" , etc. Show your bias, and that you are out to get me. I'm sure now, you will go back and comment on that, to cover yourself, but that was not your first impulse your impulse was to critize me for responding in a controlled way to such a personal attack. You will be blocked if you continue to herass me like this. JohnHistory 09:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]

Your Herassment, and Bias

I'm serious, if you keep this up I'm going to bust you for herassment!!!! You know responding to the real uncivil act, the real personal attack by someone else against me, that wasn't your first impulse. No, your first impulse is to herass me for responding in truthful controlled way. I am a human afterall. I am in now way owning any article, I instead wait and discuss. Please do not slander me, nor make flase accusations, nor be a hyporcrit, or herass me. JohnHistory 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]

Waiting patiently, logically debating, and reaching consensus is in no way "owning the article" by me. In fact I'm doing the opposite. You know how long I waited to edit. Do not make false accusastion and slander against me, please refresh yourself with the civil policy on wiki. We both know that you and I have a history, and that we don't particularly like each other. I know how uncivil your capable of being, I have experienced it first hand. So please keep that out of Wiki, and stop herassing me! JohnHistory 09:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 Thank you for your last minute change of heart concerning my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RevRagnarok|unsuccessful RfA]]. I am disappointed that I was judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Hopefully I can convince you next time around. But until that time, edit on! :) &mdash; <span style="text-decoration: none;">[[User:RevRagnarok|<font color="#696969">RevRagnarok</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:RevRagnarok |Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/RevRagnarok|Contrib]]</sup></span> 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
+== Please don't play games on wiki ==
+I think it is time for you to move on.  Please don't be a hypocrit about the civil policy.  Also please watch your words when commenting about other people, and your "doubts" about them such as with Chairman Meow.  I will report for herrasment if this continues.
+you aren't making any sense. You know how long I waited to edit that.  Your a hyporcrit for not critizing the guy calling me scum.  Shows your bias. [[User:JohnHistory|JohnHistory]] 09:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
+The fact that you critize me and talk about me being blocked for saying truthfully that this guy is lying about me deleting anything here, which you can check. and the fact that you say nothing to him after he calls me "aryan scum" , etc. Show your bias, and that you are out to get me. I'm sure now, you will go back and comment on that, to cover yourself, but that was not your first impulse your impulse was to critize me for responding in a controlled way to such a personal attack. You will be blocked if you continue to herass me like this.  [[User:JohnHistory|JohnHistory]] 09:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
+== Your Herassment, and Bias ==
+I'm serious, if you keep this up I'm going to bust you for herassment!!!! You know responding to the real uncivil act, the real personal attack by someone else against me, that wasn't your first impulse. No, your first impulse is to herass me for responding in truthful controlled way.  I am a human afterall.   I am in now way owning any article, I instead wait and discuss.  Please do not slander me, nor make flase accusations, nor be a hyporcrit, or herass me.  [[User:JohnHistory|JohnHistory]] 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
+Waiting patiently, logically debating, and reaching consensus is in no way "owning the article" by me. In fact I'm doing the opposite. You know how long I waited to edit. Do not make false accusastion and slander against me, please refresh yourself with the civil policy on wiki. We both know that you and I have a history, and that we don't particularly like each other. I know how uncivil your capable of being, I have experienced it first hand. So please keep that out of Wiki, and stop herassing me!  [[User:JohnHistory|JohnHistory]] 09:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory