User talk:GedempteZuiderdiep

February 2017
Hello, I'm Donner60. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Free City of Danzig Government in Exile— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Free City of Danzig Government in Exile
Hello. I've been undoing your edits to the Free City of Danzig Government in Exile because they were wholly or inadequately explained and the information you were removing was properly cited. For the record, simply because you've "never heard" of something doesn't mean it can't be true. You say that this article was "probably writen by wikipedia vandals", a remark at which I take offense, because I'm the primary author of the article, and is counter to WP:Civil. You suggest that the article "should be deleted". Now, if you truly believe so, you can always nominate the article at Articles for deletion, but please refrain from wiping out swaths of material on the article's page and replacing it with messages of "Please delete this Article at all", as you did here. That kind of disruptive editing can get you kicked off Wikipedia. Also, I think it's relevant to remind you that any Conflict of interest you have concerning the Rat der Danziger should be admitted.

This aside, your proposition that the Rat der Danziger and the activities of W. Richter and those of Ernst F. Kriesner are all separate from one another is of interest. I tried looking for evidence of this while writing the article, but I found little that was definitive (and unfortunately, there's few sources to begin with concerning this relatively obscure topic). Do you have any sources that would support you assertion? I would be most grateful if you could provide nay additional information. Please understand that here at Wikipedia we do want to get things right, but we must be able to WP:VERIFY all content. And please refrain from making content changes to the article unless you have things to back your assertions. In the event there really are multiple organizations claiming to be the successor governments to the original Danzig Senate, that would still probably be of encyclopedic interest and be left in the article, although probably in different sections. I'm interested in continuing this discussion.

Also, seeing as you are new to Wikipedia, you might want to have a look at the Manual of Style. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)