User talk:KarlMathiessen

Your welcome to post a request here
iVGWq4gj8Ky%

Hi!
So you are German? Thats cool!

-Alienfreak4life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienfreak4life (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"
Regarding your edits to Germany, you may want to check WP:CRYSTAL, which says that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." - if you're questioning the reference, that's fine, and open to debate, but simply reverting the edits on the basis that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" does not reflect current policy. --McGeddon (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I´m rather questioning the method and many variables of the reference. KarlMathiessen (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Germany FAR
nominated Germany for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert
Please explain this edit, preferably on the talk page of that article. If no explanation is forthcoming, I intend to revert, as you've undone a lot of work by several different editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate every useful addition or update to the article Nikkimaria and I guess it was in good faith. I don´t want to appear to straight forward, but the massive deletion, restructuring of an FA article, would (by some measures) be already called vandalism. I assume the edits are related to the recently put up review. I commented on the review page. In any case, if one of the highest decorated articles is going to experience a total relaunch this has to be discussed first. Greetings KarlMathiessen (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it would not by any measure be called vandalism, as vandalism is by definition a bad-faith action, and you yourself admit that this was in good faith. You are correct in your assumption, but I would point out that if this "one of the highest decorated articles" does not experience major editing and restructuring, it will soon no longer be highly decorated. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is missing several references. It would surely improve the credibility if more could be added. The layout though was stable and a logic illustration. It even was used as a role-model-template for other articles. I havent checked if it was you that deleted half the images. If not please take my apologies. Nevertheless the old illustration is needed and valuable. KarlMathiessen (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Germany
You have pasted a lot of old text back in that had been deleted in order to make this article shorter, as it is far too long. In doing so, you have undone a lot of work by me and others, for instance in my case you have restored old versions of references that were not properly presented and which I had spent ages correcting. I have reverted your latest edits and would refer you to the talk page. As noted there by several editors, the overall requirement is to make the article shorter and less detailed, and to put the detail instead into the separate sub-articles (described under each section as "main article") if it is not already there. -- Alarics (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see you have not been one of those, who transfered content from the main article into subarticles. KarlMathiessen (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just starting to do when you did your bulk revert, so then I stopped until interested editors have collectively agreed on what to do on the talk page. My main complaint here, though, is that you restored a lot of poorly presented references which I had already corrected. -- Alarics (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I restored significant content that seems to maintain the previous quality. I restored significant illustration, yes. Some few references that came along with text have been restored, these refs seem accurate. KarlMathiessen (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You owe me an apology for the untrue accusations you have made against me. I never insisted on including Adolf Hitler in the introduction. What I added was "It became a totalitarian dictatorship in 1933; under this regime it started World War II in 1939 and was defeated in 1945." You deleted my edit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germany/Archive_16#why_no_mention_of_Nazi_Germany_in_the_header.3F The current wording is a compromise reading "The Weimar Republic was proclaimed in 1918, followed by the Third Reich in 1933. The latter period was marked by a dictatorship and the initiation of World War II in 1939." which I find satisfactory, and you have no reason to suggest that I am going to try and change it later. It is completely unacceptable on the English Wikipedia to make accusations like this against other editors, and if you do any more of this I shall have no option but to take the matter to a higher level.


 * You have absolutely no grounds for accusing me of being anti-German. You would withdraw this baseless and insulting claim if you had any honour at all. You know nothing about my views. I am in fact in private life very pro-German, but neither anti nor pro has any place in Wikipedia, which strives to be neutral. I am thinking of making a formal complaint against you about this. You need to very sharply revise your manner of behaving on here. -- Alarics (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
I've indefinitely blocked your account for sockpuppetry based on evidence detailed at Sockpuppet investigations/Lear 21. Using multiple accounts to make it look like separate people are involved, in this case to push the consensus in a given direction, is not allowed. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)