User talk:IIIraute/Archive 2

asmallworld
no source on this page is reliable, it is all advertising as indicated by the wikipedia box at the top of the page, and the fact that each citation just links to quotes from the owners and other financially interested parties. critical information about the website exists in many forms - one of my sources was the independent, a british newspaper - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/asmallworld-nestl-heir-patrick-liotardvogt-a-jetrosexual-website-and-a-3m-dispute-9084223.html - what makes this less reliable than any other source cited?
 * Faceplant2020, I can and will help you to write a "controversies" section - but not with the current sources you have provided, as they are not suitable per WP:RS, and I think we can do better (the "The Independent" source is ok) - also, please stop your edit warring. No hard feelings! --IIIraute (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * IIIraute Sure, help me write it. No hard feeling, but I don't understand why you keep adding the fluff about the celebrities - which is linked to citation from a blog, and that doesn't mention any of the type of members listed on the wikipedia.  I will keep deleting it because that is just advertising and has no cited basis from any source.  Also the member card is linked to an advertising video, and the card is not claimed in that video to grant access to anything specific so it will be deleted.  Please let me know what source you need to show that they promised all members a vacation (that was linked to a CNBC source which is actually cited elsewhere in the site, but that you left up.  The fact that the hotel will not be full open until 2015 is cited across the internet, I don't  know why the government website of the nation of St. Kitts is not acceptable, or travelocity, how else can you prove a hotel is not open?  I will restore my change and you should feel free to edit them NOT DELETE them, to a manner you feel is consistent with wikipedia citing, please look at the the actual citations throughout that page.  I think that in general they are not linking to any non-neutral independent sources, just to asmallworld company officials PR teams. I am curious to see what changes you will make. No hard feelings.  Thanks! --Faceplant2020 (talk)  31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * IIIraute - I think most of the changes you just made are fine, I will let you know for a fact that there is no complimentary car service and the world's finest clubs membership now costs and additional $200. I have emails from asmallworld confirming these facts, how does one cite to emails from the company?  Also, if you state that asmallworld complaints need citations, but complaint websites aren't good sources, what are? Just looking to do this in a professional way, thanks! (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC))


 * Mostlyoksorta, you can not use emails from the company as a source. Please hava a look at Identifying reliable sources. Keep in touch! --IIIraute (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

listen homie and by homie I mean IIIraute I'm not the one who blanks sections, deletes the most recent material, and I never said I have two accounts, I said I know another person I was working with. If you feel like spending your time propping up some semi-elitist internet scam, I sure hope your getting paid for it. I am glad you can also quote an elitist English order, congrats on your French. You are the best Sherlock Holmes on Wikipedia. So feel free to continue trying to delete a section on a Gender Discrimination case that is pending in a federal court. I am sure that helps you sleep at night. Just cause you are self proclaimed high wizard of wikipedia or whatever you think you are doesn't mean I haven't put up valid current sources of relevant material. So go back to playing with your magic want and quoting semi-extinct cults of England. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyoksorta (talk • contribs)


 * Whaddya think of the IP address spamming this page for asmallworld? As the nice neutral one maybe you can help clean it up? I think I'm worn out of battling about a stupid webpage :) (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC))
 * Mostlyoksorta, thank you for your message. Somehow the page disappeared from my watchlist. I'll keep an eye on it. --IIIraute (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Angela Merkel". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 18:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! The thread is "asmallworld(Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC))

DRNs "Angela Merkel" and "asmallworld"
Hi, I am a DRN volunteer. Do you have a brief summary of your position for the following disputes: --Bejnar (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard see DRN: Summary of dispute by IIIraute
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard see DRN: Summary of dispute by IIIraute

Hi, I am a DRN volunteer. Discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard is now open. Please respond to my question. --Bejnar (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bejnar, I would like to reply, but DRN is now closed? Looking at the result, does that mean that I am allowed to reinsert the "invitation only" part that was removed from the first sentence of the lead? --IIIraute (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. That means that you were correct that it is by invitation only, but that it does not belong in the first sentence of the lead. Take a look at the current "Member-vetting process" section and see what you think.  Also the two paragraphs that were deleted for lack of verification can be restored if a reliable source is available.  If the information is non-controversial, a cite to organizational materials can be sufficient.  See Reliable sources.  If there is a dispute about a source for a particular piece of info, it can be vetted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Bejnar (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Bejnar, although you just confirmed "that it is by invitation only", and the article does state "To join, one must receive an invitation from an existing member, or an invitation from from the governing board after filing an application to be considered for membership", and there are reliable sources, auch as the company itself, two books that were published in 2014, and a New York Post article from 23. April 2014, that do state that the network is "invitation-only" - see: Melanie Chan, Virtual Reality: Representations in Contemporary Media, A & C Black, 2014, p. 91 Felicia A. Huppert,Cary L. Cooper, Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide, Interventions and Policies to Enhance Wellbeing, John Wiley & Sons, 2014, p. 523,  I am not "allowed" to reinsert the "invitation-only" part to the lead? Why did you close the DRN 2 1/2 hours after you did notify me to respond to your question.  I am referring to the "invitation-only" in the first sentence, that was removed: "ASMALLWORLD (ASW) is a paid-subscription invitation-only social network, which relaunched in the spring of 2013 as a private international travel and social club, with a peer-recommended and verified user base capped membership at 250,000 members." What's wrong with this sentence?--IIIraute (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing is wrong with that sentence, the problem is that it gives it undue emphasis, which the compromise sentence does not. There is no need for the use of the term "invitation-only" in the lead.  "Exclusive" is a fine term and gives the reader a good understanding of the nature of the social network. The term "invitation-only" obviously misleads some readers. And the issue is fully covered by the compromise sentence in the text, which avoids the confusion problem. --Bejnar (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Bejnar, it does not give undue emphasis - it just states what it is - and the word "exclusive" also isn't used in the lead yet. The user who want's the "invitation only" removed has failed to provide a single source that does not involve WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH claims; telling me I am not "allowed" to use pre-October 2013 WP:RS, because of some facebook posting, that actually isn't an acceptable source. Why don't you have a look at some more sources that were published since October 2013: The New York Times: "The invitation-only site..." The Hindu: "Sabine Heller is the CEO of the by-invitation-only social community A Small World (ASW)."  New York Post: "ASMALLWORLD, an invitation-only site for business people and socialites..."  Business Standard: "...by invitation-only online community A Small World (ASW)"  Grazia: "As an invitation only site, their member-vetted community..." --IIIraute (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is that membership is by invitation only and that those words do not mean the same thing to everyone, hence the more involved presentation. I suggested the use of the word "exclusive" as more descriptive, and less subject to nikpicking and confusion.  Arguing with each other about sources does not appear to be helpful.  Think about why the reader might be confused, and what would help him.  Don't think that you have to have any particular wording.  Just wording that you and others can live with, albeit not perfect. --Bejnar (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice - Germany/German Related Topics
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC))

Discretionary sanctions notification
.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This is being posted on the advice dispensed here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What Eastern European topic have I edited? --IIIraute (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Angela Merkel for starters. Quite a number of others (like all your edit warring about Gdansk/Danzig (single example out of many many .Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Didn't know that Angela Merkel was Eastern European - I always thought she was German; i.e. the chancellor of Germany. That says a lot about you - thinking that Germany does belong to Eastern Europe. ...oh, and a two year old diff - nice! --IIIraute (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. ...also this edit was appropriate - see: Talk:Gdansk/Vote --IIIraute (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously her grandfather was Polish, and that's what the dispute concerns. You might want to put the wikilawyering on ice for now. Anyway, notice given.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ludwig Kazmierczak was a German citizen born in Posen, German Empire in 1896. (In 1793, Posen came under the control of Prussia. With Prussia, the province became part of the united German Empire in 1871.) He changed his name to Kasner and died in Berlin. I think this notice rather applies to you --IIIraute (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to asmallworld, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Mostlyoksorta (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

To Mostlyoksorta and IIIRaute (crossposted)
I have fully protected asmallworld, as an alternative to blocking both of you for edit warring. I'm sorry you didn't get more professional help to resolve your differences at DRN, but it is what it is. I strongly advise you to work it out for yourselves on the article talkpage. Alternatively, ask some user who you both respect to help you with the conflict. (I'm not available; the article is just too uninteresting to me, and I have too much on IRL.) You may not indeed have to ask anybody; as long as you keep it on article talk, where it belongs, others may spontaneously appear to help. (Or to hinder, but let's hope that doesn't happen.) I strongly urge you to stay off each other's talkpages; nothing but escalation can come from quarrelling there, or from posting further ridiculous templates on each other. I can't forbid you to post on each other's talk, but I ask you not to, and I will regard any further unhelpful posts on the other person's talkpage as disruptive.

I'll cheerfully unprotect the article once you've resolved your differences, but not before. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC).

European literature
Hi IIIraute. You are mistaken; the article European literature was not merged; it was moved to List of European literatures. Quite a bit of content was cut in, which someone with interest in this topic should check over and see if anything worthwhile has been lost. I suggest you reverse, as it's the incorrect place to request page protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Diannaa, thank you for your message. The point is that there were two articles and now one of them doesn't exist anymore and I am sure that such a "move" needs a proposal, or consensus, especially when on one of the articles a current dispute is going on. --IIIraute (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there were not two articles. There was one article, European literature, which was moved to a new title, List of European literatures. If you object to the move, what you should do is say so at the article talk page and open a discussion to try to get consensus to move it back. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, I thought there were two articles, like the European cuisine and the List of European cuisines article, Kutsuit was edit warring about, here - my mistake. Also, the article was not just moved - lots of referenced content was removed, and the article that could have become a great article on "European literature", now is a geographical "list" to the literatures of all European countries. And now I am the one who has to fight it out - well done! --IIIraute (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how the content of such an article would be different from the article we already have on the subject, Western literature. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, Western literature also includes American, Australian, Brazilian, Canadian literatures, etc. From the point of view of literary history, there is a difference. --IIIraute (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, since we already have an article on European literature, that is called Western literature - don't you agree that "European literature" should redirect to the article of "Western literature" - I'd be very grateful, if you could fix that. Thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on where the redirect should go. This change does not require an administrator. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Weimar
Please look at a map. "City centre" is highly misleading. I was there yesterday, it's not in the centre of however you want to call the place. (I would tend to translate "city" to "Großstadt", a friend - whom I told of the dispute", called Weimar "verschlafenes Nest". I am willing to learn what you would term a town and what not.) In Weimar, official signs call the building Schloss, Residenzschloss, Stadtschloss, Schlossmuseum, I took photos. The current thüringer schlösser tage event prints
 * stadt
 * schloss weimar

More later, church on Pentecost first, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gerda Arendt, I know that you've been there yesterday - you have mentioned it before. I know Weimar pretty well myself - I taught there. The Stadtschloss is located in the Altstadt; i.e. the city centre of Weimar, see here The city itself is divided in 10 innerurban and 11 suburban districts. The centre is formed by the district Altstadt and the Gründerzeit districts Nordvorstadt in the north, Parkvorstadt in the east and Westvorstadt in the south and west. Later innerurban additions are Südstadt in the south and Schönblick in the southwest. Finally, there are the Plattenbau settlements, constructed during the GDR period, Weststadt and Nordstadt as well as two industrial areas in the north and west. --IIIraute (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why in Weimar Altstadt is translated to "city centre" while other articles say "Old Town" (Heidelberg) or "old town" (Düsseldorf)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't have to translate it; you can also say "Altstadt" or "old town" - yet, in Weimar, the city centre is formed by the district Altstadt and parts of the Gründerzeit districts Nordvorstadt in the north, Parkvorstadt in the east and Westvorstadt in the south and west. The Stadtschloss is located in the district Altstadt; ergo: it is located in the city centre of Weimar. --IIIraute (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ... in case there is a city to start with, which is questioned on the talk ;) - let's concentrate the discussion there. - I live in a town with an Altstadt, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Gerda Arendt, I have no idea what your personal agenda is, or for what other reason you don't want Weimar to be a "city" - however, not any discussion will change the fact that Weimar is one of the Independent cities of Germany, a Kreisfreie Stadt; i.e. a municipal corporation with town privileges of city status. --IIIraute (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I was interested as Weimar was linked from the Main page, Stress on "was". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)