Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 26 October 2016

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Darwinek (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Prague Declaration moved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Prague_Declaration_on_European_Conscience_and_Communism

February 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ZZArch  10:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust Obfuscation

Hello Tataral. An admin now deleted the article without explanation or evaluation of the opinions expressed in the discussion. You are the nominator. Would you mind if I redirect the title to Dovid_Katz#Double_Genocide_debate? I think that redirect is entirely justified and you seem to agree on that. Thanks in advance for your response. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to a redirect, although asking the admin who closed the discussion might be a good idea. Tataral (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked the deleting admin. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attacks.

Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism please use the talk page instead of edit warring. Also read WP:VAND good faith edits are not vandalism and saying such can be construed as a personal attack Darkness Shines (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm reverting obvious vandalism and clear BLP violations. Tataral (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I only saw the edit summary whilst or RC patrol, I had not noticed this "German revisionist authors" which as you say is almost certainly a BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. The problem with his edit is partially accusing two individuals of being "revisionist" (none of their articles say they are), and partly deleting material for no reason. His claim of others deleting material is also largely incorrect. Tataral (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

de:Joachim Gauck

Do not talk to someone beinig named after a vegetable. de:Benutzer:Rosenkohl de:Rosenkohl (Brussels sprout. http://www.tvacres.com/plants_vegetables_pumpkin.htm--Däädaa (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice work

Ahoy :) Good work on the Putin article keeping it balanced. Much appreciated! Malick78 (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Tataral (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just reverted Grey's mass changes from yesterday too. I left a comment on the talk page, so please add any thoughts if you feel like it. Malick78 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nice to see you back! Malick78 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Putinism

Category:Putinism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vladimir Putin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 13:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop mass reverting

by those mass reverts you are disrupting my work on the article. I seriously intend to improve it, and have time for it now. By blind mass reverts you destroy multiple additions and improvements made by me. Basically you prohibit me from making any change to the article - nobody have given you a right to act in such way. If you disagree with deletion of some stuff than put that specific stuff back with a reasonable explanation, discuss it on talk page, and do not remove all edits of other users who are seriously engaged in the work on the article. Please do make self-revert and address the specific points of your concern in future. GreyHood 01:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are the one making controversial mass removals of stable text despite being told by multiple editors to discuss and obtain consensus first. You cannot enforce your opinion. There is no other way of undoing your unilateral mass removals than restoring the previous version. If you don't want other editors to undo your changes, then stop making unilateral mass removals of text you know there is no agreement on. Tataral (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "]". Thank you! EarwigBot  17:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Association of Christian Democratic Students

The article Association of Christian Democratic Students has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent references and no substantial claim of notability

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deb (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism signatories

Category:Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism signatories, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Putin

Please watch out for WP:3RR. You're entirely welcome to argue at the talk page to change consensus.

It doesn't help to call everyone Putin stooges. Just before you arrived today, I inserted info to support that he has staged photo-ops, instead of removing that assertion as requested at talk. And just before that, I declined to include his Forbes ranking in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:95.199.18.90&redirect=no Not really sure what edit you are talking about... Nothingbutmeat (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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 Misplaced Pages 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) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Tom Rapoport

As it stands, the article contains numerous errors and biased assertions. I have carefully corrected these. If you chose to specify or add relevant information, I would urge you to give sources and to justify your changes. Merely undoing my corrections by calling them „unhelpful deletions“ must be considered vandalism.

Ingeborg Rapoport

see Tom Rapoport above; same holds here. I had corrected many errors, improper wordings etc. If you whish to contribute to the article, please specify your reasons in detail.

Added after your second "undo" of my corrections: What is so hard to understand in requesting to substatiate your undos? Please bear the 3RR in mind Misplaced Pages:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule! This is already the second time. Please let's avoid bringing this issue to the attention of the administrators (which could result in you being blocked from editing.) Instead, I would again urge you to point out your specific criticism to my changes. Feel free to give your points below. Should you not be able to substantiate your "undo" action within the next 24 hours, I'll again undo your changes, which will unevitably bring us to 3RR.

For a brand new account with an apparent conflict of interest who is only interested in two close relatives, your talk of 3RR and other Misplaced Pages initialisms is quite surprising. However, that rule applies to edits within a 24-hour period, and it certainly doesn't apply to edits that undo plain vandalism such as unjustified mass removal of sourced content. You will soon enough find yourself blocked if you continue with your mass deletions of sourced material from that article that you don't like. Your claims about Degkwitz not having been a Nazi Party member and so on are plainly wrong, he was in fact even a participant in the Beer Hall Putsch, which I easily discovered when looking into this today, and the claim seems reliably sourced in the article as well. Other than that, I don't need to point out "specific criticism" to your mass removal of sourced content, because I'm not the editor mass deleting sourced content without any good reason, and replacing it with a POV hagiography. --Tataral (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Now we're talking content. First off, I never denied Degkwitz being a NSDAP member. Let me clarify:

The original text was changed because it contained numerous errors and was politically biased. For example, it is incorrect that Ingeborg Rapoport was a “communist functionary”. A functionary would be a person who performs political work as a profession or at least as a part time job. Rapoport was a professor for pediatrics and never occupied a political function. Second, her husband was never “offered a position at the Weizmann Institute of Sciences in Israel”. Then, as hinted, the statements about her thesis advisor Rudolph Degkwitz are incorrect: He (Degkwitz) was not imprisoned for opposing childhood euthanasia. This was my point about one of the articles wrongs. Here's another: R.'s son Tom Rapoport was never fired as the original article suggested. And so on. So, what exactly is your talk of "mass removal" referring to?

Let me also state that being "brandnew" to[REDACTED] has no effect whatsoever on 3RR. You are permanently undoing my changes whitout giving propoer justification while I have corrected and clarified the article. Please either clarify your undo-actions point by point or refrain from undoing my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Jonathan Cohen (talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what 3RR is about. If the information about Degkwitz's ambiguous relationship with the Nazis could be worded in a more precise way, I don't object to that, but your edits also included removal of many sourced statements for no obvious reason. Specifically, the claim about the Weizmann Institute cites a source which says that "Eine angebotene Stelle am Weizmann-Institut in Rehovot in Israel hatte er als Internationalist und Gegner des Zionismus abgelehnt." So why is this claim about him having been offered a position at the Weizmann Institute and having turned it down due to his opposition to Zionism wrong? Regarding "functionary", perhaps there is a better word, but there is no doubt that she was a prominent figure of the East German establishment/regime/academia. Also, your edits included numerous removals of other sourced information, e.g. about her views on East Germany. You also changed "they attributed (not finding employment in Austria) to pressure by the American government" to "probably due to pressure by the American government" as if this opinion was somehow an undisputed fact. --Tataral (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Let’s see what we've got here. We have four points, three of which go in favor of my corrections, while one awaits clarification. In particular you concede that (1) R. was first and foremost not a political functionary but a pediatrician, (2) the information about Degkwitz needed clarification and (3) R.’s son Tom Rapoport has not been fired from his job. The last point (4) of an offer to R.s husband at the Weizman-Institute is still in question. I have sent a letter to H. Mikosch, one co-autor of the linked pdf, asking him to elaborate on his sources.

Given the 3:1 ratio of arguments I revert the text to my version. I will, however, keep the Weizman-passage until the issue gets settled.

And let’s keep things straight. The very reason Ingeborg Rapoport is listed in Misplaced Pages at all, is because she was (1) a pioneer of pediatrics, (2) she is (afaik) the oldest person in the world to recieve a regular Ph.D. and maybe (3) also because of her husband SM Rapoport, who was a famous blood-researcher himself.

If you, for whatever reasons, find her political views worth mentioning (which I for one don’t, but nevertheless) - noone keeps you from summarizing these in a separate chapter. But mixing the main text body with your own political views, using a great deal of politically tainted vocabulary and plain wrong assertions is just not acceptable. I have done my best to delete the judgemental, non-objective phrases and false information. I have, in other words, tried to objectify the text. It is nothing short of vandalism if you keep undoing my work without proper justification.David Jonathan Cohen (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If you have any particular objections to the text, you need to raise them on the talk page instead of reverting/mass deleting thousands of characters and replacing the article with a biased hagiography. "She fought for social justice" is not a neutral way to describe a (prominent) member of the East German communist party (one of the most repressive totalitarian parties in Europe), for starters. The attempt to portray her as just someone who was denied a medical degree and finally got it is misleading, considering that she was a very prominent member of East German academia for decades and also received much higher qualifications than a doctorate there. Her life's work is her work in East German academia, and the article clearly should focus on that. Also, she has herself clearly actively participated in debate on East Germany and defended the system, and her views should be addressed adequately. --Tataral (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

(D'accord with your proposal. Copied the discussion over to the talk page of the article.) David Jonathan Cohen (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Mass reverting the text to an old version is not the way to go about it if you want to suggest changes. For example, you reintroduce communist functionary instead of professor which I changed it to previously in the infobox. You also continue to reintroduce many POV statements such as "probably due to pressure by the American government" (speculation), to delete sourced material on her views on East Germany, and generally to downplay her life and career in East Germany. "Corrected the injustice" is not the sort of wording we use in Misplaced Pages articles (see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view; in this context the wording is particularly inappropriate because the regime she served and was a part of did exactly the same thing at its regime-controlled universities, namely denying people degrees and study opportunities over who e.g. their parents were). Also, Misplaced Pages doesn't list names of children who are not notable, only names of notable children. --Tataral (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

German Presidents / Jens Böhrnsen

Dear Tataral,

1.) I just wanted to harmonize the titles of the german presidents (Federal Republic), because they should all be adressed with the same title. "President of Germany" is difficult because of german separation (there was a President of the GDR, Wilhelm Pieck) and possible confusion with the Presidents of the "Weimar Republic", "President of West-Germany" is simply wrong, because that title never existet and wouldn´t apply to the presidents since 1990. "President of the Federal Republic of Germany" is imho perfect, because it doesn´t allow confusion with the President of the GDR and is still accurate today. But if you have a better proposition, please tell me! "Federal President of Germany" would be correct, too, if you like that more.

2.) Jens Böhrnsen was never President (of the FRoG), he was President of the Bundesrat and was as such entitled to fulfill the President´s duties during a vacancy of the office of President. Article 57 of the Basic Law doesn´t say that the President of the Bundesrat fills the office of President as such, he (or she) only becomes (acting) head of state as President of the Bundesrat.

Yours Alector89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alektor89 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits because you have started adding numbers to articles on German politicians, without consensus and against a long-standing practice here on the English Misplaced Pages, according to which German politicians are not numbered (the same is true for many other countries, such numbering being a mainly American phenomenon). Also, many of the numbers you introduced are blatantly wrong, for example the claim that Olaf Scholz ‎was the "14th" first mayor of Hamburg, which he was not, which is clearly evident from the List of mayors of Hamburg. --Tataral (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Crimea annexation RfC

I've opened an RfC on Talk: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on the question

"Should the information about opinion polls, currently in the subsection Crimean public opinion be moved into the subsection Crimean status referendum?"

As you recently edited this talk page, I thought you might like to share your views. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Austrian presidential election, 2016

On 24 May 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Austrian presidential election, 2016, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Monuments

I would rather not be involved too much in this dispute because this is a user who (a) has significant POV , (b) ready to edit war to infinity (they already violated 3RR rule on one or two pages), and (c) spends 24/7 on the project. WP:FUCK. Maybe community will sort this out at some point. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Press conference of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on EU referendum and Scottish independence on 24 June 2016.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Press conference of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on EU referendum and Scottish independence on 24 June 2016.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  Sandstein  15:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Reality

For the record, my views on governments and parliaments having the final authority on any law or military action in or from their country is fact, nothing more, nothing less. In any event if you have any evidence that Tony Blair (or anyone else for that matter) has lied, mislead and committed any crime then supply it. Otherwise it's just hot air! CliffordJones (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a project to write an encyclopedia, based on how the world is perceived by mainstream reliable sources, not based on private beliefs with no basis in that. Your private belief that international law doesn't exist – a belief certainly not shared by the UK government or parliament, or indeed any relevant authority or credible source in the UK – is of no interest to Misplaced Pages. --Tataral (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as it was the UK Parliament that voted to take part in the war you are trying to discredit as illegal, and they all knew it had no international backing at the time (which is well documented now and was even so at the time), yet believed they still had the right to partake in and voted to do so via their democratic process (thus proving it to be much more than my private belief), it is obvious that your thoughts are or were not shared by the majority of them at the time the decision was taken. As a result it is your agenda that goes against this documented fact that has no interest to credible organisations who provide information, such as Misplaced Pages CliffordJones (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Racial century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Race (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) 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Frauke Petry

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Gerry1214 (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Your recent editing history at Frauke Petry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump RfC

Because you commented in the straw poll !vote, I invite you to comment on the new RfC on Talk:Donald Trump. I apologize for any inconvenience in "re-voting". Your past input is appreciated. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)