User talk:Lastdingo

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! McSly (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574929241 your edit] to Anechoic tile may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sonar Coating|publisher=www.uboataces.com|accessdate=17 December 2010}}  cite web|url=http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-135INT.htm|title=C.B. 04051 (76); U 135;Interrogation of

28/32 cm Nebelwerfer 41
Bitte befasse Dich mal mit der Geschichte der Nebeltruppen und der Nebelwerfer und Du wirst Deinen Fehler erkennen. Ist in der Diskussion zu den Werfern oft genug durchdiskutiert. --Denniss (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfug. Ich bin mit der Materie sehr gut vertraut und es gibt absolut NULL Rechtfertigung, die irreführende und schwachsinnige "smoke mortar" Pseudo-Übersetzung zu verwenden. Bitte nimm zur Kenntnis, dass ich eine Quelle für "smoke projector" angegeben habe. Und "Werfer" übersetzt sich mal absolut gar nicht mit "mortar". Sowohl "smoke launcher" als auch "smoke projector" sind sehr gute Übersetzungen wenn denn schon ein Querulant daherkommt und die wörtliche Übersetzung sabotiert. Lastdingo (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wenn du mit Querulant dich meinst.... bei dict.cc ist der Nebelwerfer übrigends gar nicht übersetzt. Wenn du wirklich die Artikel hier und auf de wiki gelsene hättest dann würdest Du den ganzen Zirkus nicht veranstalten. Smoke mortar ist keine Pseudo-Übersetzung sondern stammt aus der Geschichte der Nebeltruppen, der Benutzung von Mörsern/Granatwerfern zum verschießen von Gas- und Rauchgranaten, daher wurden die speziellen Granatwerfer halt Nebelwerfer genannt was aber am Typ (ein Granatwerfer = Mortar) nichts änderte. Wenn du Dein Spiel aber dennoch weitertreiben willst dann informiere ich die Leute der Military History task force und Die können Dir das gerne nochmals auf englisch erklären.--Denniss (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also erstens wird es bei dict.cc übersetzt. Den Link habe ich sogar als REF benutzt: http://www.dict.cc/german-english/Nebelwerfer.html und zweitens ist es irrelevant, wie die Namensgeschichte im Deutschen ist. Die Nebelwerferkategorie sind keine Mörser oder Granatwerfer, nur die nahezu unbekannten frühesten Vertreter waren das. Die "smoke mortar" Übersetzung ist Unsinn. Wer die englishcen Fachbegriffe kennt, der weiß, dass diverse Waffen, die man im Deutshcen als Werfer bezeichnen könnte, als "launcher" oder "projector" bezeichnet werden. Dein festkrallen an einer Übersetzung die maximiert missverständlcih ist - und dann noch als 'beste Übersetzung bezeichnet' ist einfach nur peinlich. Obendrein ist Wikipedia eine Enzyklopädie, die ist nicht dafür gedacht, irreführend zu sein so wie die "smoke mortar" 'Übersetzung' es ist. Nun überlege mal, was deine Schreiberei überhaupt soll - unbedingt Recht haben wollen und dabei irreführenden Blödsinn schreiben? Und ich habe bereits erwähnt, das sich die Materie sehr gut kenne, du hast offensichtlich nciht ml eine Ahnung, wie gut ich diesen Scheiß kenne. Und wenn du die Typen da anrufst wird voraussichtlich nur herauskommen, dass alle drei Übersetzungen genannt werden.Lastdingo (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

T-14
I used most of your work and most of mine, targeting different sections. The article looks much better. You can peer review if you want.

Brovich, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brovich (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 May 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 Wikipedia 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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Jerrycan. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Your recent editing history at Jerrycan 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 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jerrycan.  General Ization  Talk   22:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't unsourced. I included THREE links to other pages on this wikipedia, and their dates are not in question at all. Lastdingo (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Talk:Jerrycan. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Switching your tactics to abuse of other editors is not furthering your case. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:REICHSTAG may be of relevance here. You're making faster progress towards it than Roosevelt with a wheelchair full of jerrycans. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A statement of fact or of the obvious is not abuse. Everyone here should be more concerned about factual correctness and the avoidance of disinformation than feelings. There are seven billion people out there. One or two having unpleasant feelings is no excuse for disinforming readers of wikipedia. I have seen organisations that were more concerned about 'atmosphere' than about doing a good job; the poor quality of their output did reflect their attitude all-too clearly. I make one point very clear: If that disinformation on the jerrycan article doesn't get corrected wikipedia will lose me as editor and I will readily tell others that Wikipedia favours disinformation about history, and will have links to prove it. So far I have defended wikipedia on every occasion, but this is a litmus test. Lastdingo (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Jerrycan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's their own fault if they are confused. I merely call this out. It's a MOST INAPPROPRIATE attitude for people who edit an encyclopedia to pay more attention to feelings than facts. Yes, I mean you. You should be appalled by how misleading the article is, not by me calling out other confused editors. I stick with my earlier statement; that article and its misleading quote are the litmus test for whether I will defend wikipedia as useful in the . future of agree and reinforce everyone who criticises it as crap edited by know-nothing people. That fantasy history in the article has to go away or be declared as such or else it shows a severe systemic defect of the wiki principle. A few thin-skinned and confused people should not be able to uphold fantasy history in an encyclopedia, period. So no, you cannot threaten me. I won#t edit the wikipedia any more if that crap article doesn't get repaired - I will turn into its enemy anyway. Lastdingo (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's up to you whether you edit here or not. But you will not be welcome to edit if you can't do that without persistently attacking other editors. Up to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)