User talk:R9tgokunks/Archive06

Main talk page

License tagging for Image:SeaReed.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SeaReed.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 00:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

rescue links
The links you have added to the german shepherd and alaskan malamute pages are not apropriate for wikipedia Per the external links and spam guidelines. So i'm removing them again. Things like breed rescues, unreliable sources like dogsindepth, fancier web forums should not really be linked to. As such, i'm removing them again. Things like the parent breed clubs should be linked to, these clubs define what a breed actually is, so they are good links to add. - Trysha (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I Iadmire your dedication to breed rescue, I am invovled in rescue myself.   But please stop adding links to rescues. as you keep  adding links to rescue organizations to dog breed articles.   Wikipedia is not a directory of links, nor is it a soapbox.    Per WP:EL and WP:SPAM please stop adding them.    No matter how noble a cause, wikipedia can't be used to promote it.  - Trysha (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Reed Sea
I saw that you made many edits about the Reed Sea, stating that the biblical Yam Suf always refers to it. This is impossible for many reasons, at least one of which I have seen on the talk page for Reed Sea. Just because Simcha Jacobovici said it is true, this does not mean that it really is. It is quite POV to claim all over Wikipedia that the Reed Sea and the ancient Red Sea are one-and-the-same. Also, as for the semi-protected tag on the Reed Sea article, my edits are not vandalism, in fact, they are exactly what Wikipedia wants: to remove anything that is completely POV. Please see WP:NPOV for details. 71.243.170.235 02:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is Simcha Jacobovici?--r9tgokunks 02:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you probably got the theory about the Reed Sea being Yam Suf from Simcha Jacobovici (pronounced sim-KHA ya-KO-bo-vitch), who made a documentary called Exodus Decoded in which he argues that Yam Suf refers to the Reed Sea.
 * Also, when you respond to something on your talk page, you should respond on the talk page of the user who left the message, as they will see when you respond with a notification. 71.243.170.235 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV from Reed Sea. I also classed it as a stub. Could you please find more non-POV information on the Reed Sea? Thanks. 71.243.170.235 03:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Myths and Easter Eggs in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
I'm sorry, but I keep reverting your edits due to the fact that they are actually getting rid of valid info, and making the grammar worse in some areas. I understand you're trying to clean up the article, but you're actually deleting a few notable theories in the process. T1g4h 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish to apologize for my previous reverting. I guess you were right, the article -was- getting a bit large with all the excess... That, and as a former Myth hunter, I kind of enjoyed reading up about all the old stuff we used to search for. I do like the fact that you're helping improve it though. Glad to know i'm not longer the only one working to make it better :) T1g4h 11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a bit of a letdown finding all the paranormal hunting done in-game was for nothing... Though I at least learned there is a way to steal that one massive jumbo jet... T1g4h 05:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fansite List
It's certainly an interesting way to remove a listing by simply renaming it to a name it doesn't hold and leaving it there as well, awesome work. 80.41.78.65 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bogeyman
Please provide citations for the claims of Germanic origin. In any case, even if the names are Germanic in origin, I'm not sure it's particularly notable since most of the languages in that part of Europe are of that particular language group. To place emphasis on that would seem to be promoting a Germanic-centric POV. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Glitches in Driver: Parallel Lines article
Your edit summary for the revision of my "vandalism" (the removal of the glitches section in the DPL article) says that I might as well "delete the glitches section" of every wikipedia entry about a game. Thing is, including such a section is a violation of WP:NPOV policy, no other valid game articles include such a section (that I've seen), and it really is non-notable for the article. I am reverting your re-insertion of the glitches section. -albrozdude 06:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Modern languages
thanks for you alphabetisation of this article but you inadvertantly removed a necessary citation tag in the process. I thought you would like to know this :) .Abtract 20:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit war
I apologize for my actions during this war, I was only trying to make the articles make sense because they don't right now, some people are being stubborn and not caring if its right or not 68.195.62.113 01:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tamaskan dog
This "breed" is a hoax and invention, and its WP entry has been deleted. That's why I removed it from the list of dog breeds. Also see: Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog Tubezone 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WPND vandalism
A vandal from IP range 165.234.x.x has been making trouble in articles relating to the Democratic-NPL, and returned today after a week-long range block. As a member of the CVU and WPND, could you please watch for any suspicious activity? -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Page blanking
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Inge 10:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Minot
As we seem to have differing views on the new section, I've put some thoughts on the Minot talk page. -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"?
Hey. I noticed you just reverted my edit at 2000s and identified it as "vandalism". Could you...not do that? Furst off, ever heard of assuming good faith? Second, how could that edit be contrued as vandalism? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, when you're wrong, be man enough to admit it and do something. Good day. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, how was this edit undoing vandalism? Please be careful how you use the term. --Guinnog 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read WP:VANDAL, you should see that vandalism is deliberate. Your reversion also removed information from the article, but I assume good faith and reckon you were trying to help, as I was too. Can you integrate the good info from the two versions? If not then I can. --Guinnog 23:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hear Hear! Deleting thoroughly innacurate nd somewhat pointless information is not vandalism. Now that you have changed the heading its SLIGHTLY less pointless WookMuff 19:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Germany
Welcome,, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template WikiProject Germany. A few features that you might find helpful:
 * The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
 * Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to [ watchlist it].
 * We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Kusma (討論) 11:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The results of the Gdańsk Vote
Here, I got it for you for the future reference:

You can actually read it and then delete it because it takes a lot of space. Happy editing! Space Cadet 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts to List of Wikis

 * Please stop re-adding in hyperlinks/red links/almost links into List of Wikis. This issue has already been discussed on the talk page.  If you wish to have this issue reconsidered, please bring it up on the talk page, rather than simply reverting it.  Such edits are not constructive.  Wickethewok 21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please discuss your qualms on the talk page. Brute reversion is not the answer to disagreements.  This issue has been discussed and agreed upon by other editors besides myself, so please stop.  I for one am willing to hear your arguments, but you need to say what they are.  Wickethewok 02:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Austria / Germany
Your recent edits to Austria and Austrian people seem likely to represent a single point of view, namely that the Austrian people is a German people. This is not the standpoint followed by most impartial sources and cannot be seen as accurate. Please do not use Wikipedia to push your own viewpoint. Further edits in a similar vein will be seen as vandalism and are likely to earn you a block from editing. --Stemonitis 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Same for Metz and your following edits to that article. Please do not use Wikipedia to push your own German-centric viewpoint, as unfortunately your Contributions document. --danh 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It must be clear to you by now that such edits will not be tolerated and must be seen as vandalism. Consider this your first warning. --Stemonitis 08:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that opinion, if you believe that your POV is not covered by the article, you should try to work it out on the talk page instead of doing a blanket revert under the pretense of vandalism. Most of the editors you're encountering are established editors from Europe and fairly familiar with the topic at hand. 71.198.59.81 01:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Global City
Your changes to use the German names of cities is unacceptable. The sourced lists of cities must appear exactly as in the list, and we should also use the style agreed to by the rest of Wikipedia. If you continue making those changes, you will be blocked for vandalism. I do not see evidence on this talk page that you've been informed that these specific edits were wrong, so I will not block you this time. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition, your change from Vienna to Wein Wien leads to a disambiguation page. If the name you choose corresponds to the same Wikipedia article, that's one thing, but changing from an article to a disambiguation page is a mistake.  If you do that again, anywhere in Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on December 18 2006 to Austrians
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 09:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

List of German Americans
I have reverted all your changes on this page. I'm not sure if adding Arnold Schwartzengger, Renee Zelwegger, etc. was your idea of a joke, but you can not add anyone to that page unless you have a reputable source that says they are a German-American. Nothing else. Not that their parents were Swiss emigrants. Not that their great-grandmother was born in Berlin. Mad Jack 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Vandalism, which reads "Intentionally making non-constructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban." I believe you know as well as I do that adding, say, people like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Renee Zelwegger, who obviously have no German ancestry whatsoever (as well the multitude of other such people you added) qualifies as vandalism. I hope you do not persist adding such names to the list, especially having just come out of a block. Any name added to any list on Wikipedia must pass WP:V, i.e. have a reliable source that states that person is what the title of the list claims they are - in this case, German-American. Not Austrian-American. Not Swiss-American. Not having Romanian Jewish parents. This is blatantly obvious. Mad Jack 05:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians you admire
Hi, I see on your userpage I am one of the "wikipedians you admire". Except for your recent edits on Historical Eastern Germany I do not believe I have had much experience co-operating with you on articles. I hope you are enjoying your experience on Wikipedia and continue to contribute useful information.

--Jadger 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted
I have reverted your edits on List of Austrian Jews as they appeared to be vandalism. However, in the process I may have reverted genuine good edits that you have have included in that sessions. Feel free to restore those. Thanks and sorry about that. 141.213.212.84 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing?? Please view this source concerning Meyrink: http://www.symbolon.de/books2004/meyrinkvita.htm. The Jewish article database online to originally spread information of his mother being Jewish is horrible unreliable. The same site writes that Franklin Roosevelt and David Bowie are Jewish.141.213.212.84 01:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, i didnt realize that it was falsified information.. :( -- Hrödberäht 19:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Kaliningrad citation notice
Please do not arbitrarily remove "citation needed" notices unless you have replaced them with a suitable reference and footnote. If you do not understand why a citation is needed, then please post a question on the article's talk page. Thank you, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Global city
Hi there - I've just reverted your changes from Frankfurt to Frankfurt am Main on the Global city page. This is because Frankfurt is the main page and Frankfurt am Main redirects to Frankfurt. Well done with changing Zurich to Zürich, though, as the latter should be used in preference because the former is just a redirect page to it. Cheers, Matthew 12:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thessaloniki (name dispute)
Hello R9tgokunks. I was wondering if you could help here. Crvst 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Largest European metropolitan areas reverted?
Can you explain that? All changes I made have sources and explanation. I correct all mistakes I found (according to sources), I add more references. So please explain your revert or else I will revert it back. --85.207.40.58 11:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hallo mein Freund
I'm getting really sick of your Deutschland über alles-attitude and your trials to turn history back. I'm sorry, but Strasbourg is officially french since 1945 and you just can't pretend is is not true or only of secondary relevance. RCS 15:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is you who try to manipulate history and this is a very serious offense. Since you are an admirer of Bismarck, there is no use asking why you would want Strasbourg to be as prussian now as it was 105 years ago. RCS 17:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I read your messages in full, but then how come your boldening of the german and the alsatian name has been reverted several times by other contributors than me ? is it a conspiration against you ? By the way, i am German, and i have lived in Strasbourg for 11 years. Cheers, RCS 18:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I see I was wrong then. I've locked the page until you all can come to an agreement on the article talk page. — P ilotguy (ptt) 18:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, aryanization was a bit strong, sorry, really. But shouting won't bring you anywhere, and reporting me, neither. You have a history of being reverted on these matters. If i was you, i'd be just quiet. Good evening. RCS 19:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit in Docking (animals)
In English, the country is spelled "Netherlands", not "Nederlands". - Mike Rosoft 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: user 131
this is the same user as user:Serafin and was recently blocked, but the block ended yesterday. he has been banned from German wikipedia I have been told, there his username was Aserafin. Unfortunately, people with a track record like his still get the rights of assuming good faith and he will have to be watched for until he starts editing reasonably or until he is banned like user:Molobo, who was banned for a year.

--Jadger 20:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
Do you honestly believe you're going to get away with adding these people to the German-American list? I mean sure, Wikipedia doesn't have a great reputation, but we're not THAT stupid that blatant nonsense is just going to be allowed to come through. Audrey Hepburn? Harvey Keitel? Fritzi Scheff? And so on and so on. Every name you add needs a source that says exactly "Person X was a German-American" or "German" or whatever. This is pretty obvious. See WP:RS - anything unsourced can be removed by any editor, especially when it involves living people. This goes for the rest of your edits on Wikipedia as well, judging by the posts above. You have to realize this isn't anyone's personal playground. Mad Jack 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because there are unreferenced people on the list doesn't mean we're going to add more. A piece of info being unreferenced means that is is liable to be deleted by anyone, and very much justifiably so. Mad Jack 04:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the actors section. Kirk Baltz - no reference. Drew Barrymore - one ref says she's half Hungarian. The other says her mother was born in a displaced person's camp in Germany. Neither ref says she's a German-American. Being born in a post WWII displaced person's camp does not make one German. Tom Cruise - no reference that says he's German-American. Arlene Dahl - ref says she's Norwegian-American. Taylor Dooley - ref says she's a "mutt" and "mostly Belgian". She says she is "mostly Belgian, with some German and English on my mom's side and Irish, German, English, and Sioux Indian on my Dad's side"; not that she is a German-American; we do not use the one drop rule. Harold C. Deutsch - red link - no article - no reference. Jewel de Nyle - no reference. Her article mentions a bunch of non-German ancestry. Robert de Niro - no reference that says he's a German-American. Buddy Ebsen - ref says Danish and Latvian. Erika Eleniak - ref says "my mom is Estonian and German", not that she is. one drop rule again. Audrey Hepburn - this is the point where I stop. You are not going to waste my or this community's time with this nonsense. Revert again and I'll report you for vandalism. WP:VANDALISM explicitly states "Intentionally making non-constructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban.". I fully believe you are purposely making non-constructive edits. Furthermore, if you revert once more, you would have broken WP:3RR and could be blocked for that as well. Mad Jack 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Listing off German along with 20 other ethnic groups (Dooley) does not a German-American make; in no uncertain terms, that's the one drop rule. The reference needs to say the person is a German-American, not that they had a German ancestor 300 years ago. Mad Jack 04:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for the unsourced information (which is 98% of your edits to the list), if you're fine with removing it, then you shouldn't add it! In fact, since such a small percentage of your edits is sourced to a source that actually says the person is a German-American, you shouldn't hesitate to just restore those 2 or 3 names. I'm not sure if you can at the moment under 3RR, but, as soon as you're able and as long as the source says what the article's name says, that the person is actually a German-American, you should restore the name Mad Jack 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you've A. deleted a batch of unsourced names, which is good, B. added a batch of names, some of which are unsourced completely (bad) and some of which are unsourced to sources that actually say the person is a German-American. As well as C. broken WP:3RR Mad Jack 05:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you've deleted Ross Macdonald and Victoria Wolff, who you had just added 5 minutes ago - but that's good, since they were both unsourced. A batch of refs that don't actually say the person is a German-American still around. Starting with actors: "The actor was born in the Bronx to a Polish Catholic mother from Pennsylvania and a German Jewish father whose ancestry was Spanish Sephardic" (Jerry Orbach), Harold C. Deutsch (not an actor? unsourced? red link?), Taylor Dooley (who says she is a "mutt" with something like 20 different ancestry groups, not a German-American), Buddy Ebsen (which links to a fansite that doesn't pass WP:RS, and doesn't say he's a German-American, but rather had "parents of Danish-German and Latvian extraction". A few others like that there and elsewhere Mad Jack 05:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Metropolis
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (This was added by a user that was not an administrator, and was solely trying to intimidate; see below discussion.)

Warnings and comment on previous test4
Actually, anyone is allowed to place warnings up to and including level 4, but not levels 5 and 6, on your talk page. You are allowed to delete them, but it indicates that you acknowledge the warning, which you deny. Perhaps you should reinstate the warning; but it's your choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Damn bot; I forgot to sign, and the bot signed for me within 5 seconds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, but I dont understand how "You are allowed to delete them, but it indicates that you acknowledge the warning, which you deny."  -- Hrödberäht 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You deny the propriety of the test4 warning, which is incorrect. It may be inaccurate, but it a proper warning.  By deleting it, you acknowledge that it is a valid warning, and, if you repeat the actions in question or similar actions on another article, and they (the new actions) are considered improper by the reviewing Admin, you will be blocked.  If you were to reinstate the warning and say that you don't think you've done anything wrong, that might be considered in your favor by the reviewing Admin.
 * If you don't understand what I'm saying, perhaps you could request clarification by a German-speaking Admin. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ostrava/Ostrau
Any further attempts to Germanize the Ostrava article will be reverted and you will be blocked. Auf Wiedersehen! - Darwinek 09:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but personal attacks from you are actually the bad instance here, and actually according to Wikipedia Policy, you are the one that can be blocked for this. Please read the Naming Convention guidelines. This time ill help you read it, by giving you a little sample of its content:, Naming conventions (geographic names) does specify that Ostrau be bolded, it states: ''It is Wikipedia convention to emphasize alternate names at first use, normally in the first line. It is customary to bold names frequently used in English, and italicize foreign names represented in Roman script. The name Ostrau is frequently used in English, and even possibly the Polish version well, so what edits i have done are actually constructive and you'' just made a personal attack, and reverted constructive edits 3-4 times, but albeit probably with a hint of ignorance.(WP:3RR) -- Hrödberäht 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ostrava is most widely used in English, that's why the article is named Ostrava and not Ostrau. Actually you were blocked few times for violating the rules. Next time you will bolden it, I will block you. And you can bet I will do that, as I am the hardliner. Bis bald! - Darwinek 01:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And what about Mayer Grosse Atlas from 1930s? All names in Tschechien are in German... See:, it is nice example of use of both versions. Btw you are twisting NC words. Bold one should be the most widely used and therefore it must be the same one as the article name. That's why we have Katowice and no Kattowitz, Ostrava and no Ostrau etc. Other variants should be only in italics. I don't get your point. German variant is still in use in the article. I have nothing against Germans, btw I was the user that implemented the German version of that name to the article. - Darwinek 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the grammar could be more clear. I am here for more than two years, and naming conventions is one of my fields, you can trust me. Basically it should look like in Hrodna article, for example. - Darwinek 01:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * These are special cases. Cities with far larger historical significance. And in ALL of these cases huge discussions and even votings were conducted. I gotta go sleep. Stop wasting my time and do something valuable for Wikipedia, write some new articles or so. - Darwinek 01:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on December 29 2006 to Metropolis
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 11:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:10w.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:10w.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 20:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

- I am translating LUCPOL's statement per request, I don't endorse it - I am just a translator.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My English is poor, indeed, I had much difficulty understanding R9tgokunks. So: I did not execute no vandalism. LUCPOL 16:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer:
 * 1) Case: Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union - Name Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union (polish: Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny) it's an old, now unused name retired by the new government (after elections of November 2006 ). "Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny" was replaced by "Silesia". Examples: in :, ,  in , , ,  (etc...) and pl.Wikinews. Polish Wikipedia for long months had article pl:Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny, and were politicians changed the name to "Silesia" than Polish wiki gained a new article pl:Silesia (miasto) (english: "Silesia city"). They both described the same thing after some discussions I created a redirect , but we delayed renaming "Silesia (miasto)" as it is a current process and we want to see what happens. But Polish wiki article states: "Silesia (dawniej Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny)" - english: Silesia city (long ago Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union") . So you see: R9tgokunks inserted wrong info into the article and engaged in revert wars , without any knowledge of the "Silesia (miasto)" issue - and he accusses me of vandalism. Further, he removed the name "Silesia" from article which seems to me to be clear vandalism:.
 * 2) Case Frankfurt am Main - Simply, I never edited that article and have no idea why I am accused of editing it.  I never even accused you of editing this article.... R9tgokunks 20:52, 20 January 2007
 * 3) Other accounts. I am an experienced Wikipedian - Ihave 15 000 edits on pl.wikipedia, 2000 on en.wikipedia , and I decided to have an account on other Wikis for interwiki additions, so they appear under my account and not anon's IP. I don't understand what's wrong with that.
 * 4) IP (ex: 91.120.107.93, 168.213.1.132, 207.245.84.70, 131.104.218.46, 216.171.96.18) are not mine and checkuser will verify this.  Yes, sorry, I mistakenly added these based on other vandals on wikipedia that i was wishing to check on. R9tgokunks 20:52, 20 January 2007
 * 5) Case Template:Infobox City Poland - As for my revert it's easy to explain: User:Fujicolor changes completly revamped the infobox, and I think it damaged the layout on en.wiki. I disagree with this change, thus I revert it. As simple as that.
 * 6) Case Silesian - There is no such entity as "Polish Silesia", there is just Silesia region on the territory of 3 countries. Thus I reverted R9tgokunks' edit.
 * 7) Case Silesia - Old version of the article had "Nation" and my dictionary tells me it translates to Polish "naród" (people); I think "State" is more correct. In america and the rest of Europe, they call Poland and the Czech republic countries(Nations),so obviously it doesnt matter what you think when it goes up against [Common Knowledge]]. User:Olessi change to "Country" is fine with me and I consider the matter closed.
 * 8) Case Katowice - I reverted R9tgokunks' edit as it damaged the layout of article (see for yourselves). Panoramas should go at the top, I think it's a common policy.


 * Case Template:Infobox City Poland - Reverted a template that wasnt even created by himself...and it was reverted back by the user that created it..


 * 1) Case: Silesia - Ok then...If you yourself KNOW that Silesia exists in 3 different countries...then WHY did you revert my edit???It doesnt make any sense....
 * 2) Case: Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union - User LUCPOL lied about the validity of the names 'Metropolis Katowice' and 'Silesia City', he said they were true, but recently i found out they are fake and arent even used in Poland. Subsequent trans-language articles of wikipedia have all been created by USER:LUCPOL under the fake name of 'Metropolis Katowice', and almost all have been changed to (this case, in English) 'Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union', with MANY users telling him 'Metropolis Katowice', and 'silesia city' dont even exist, and that its the wrong name, but STILL he choses to disobey authority and switch it back because his your ignorace in thinking.
 * 3) Case Katowice - Wrong, its not 'common policy', view the Frankfurt and Warsaw articles... which are some of the best articles on wikipedia.-- Hrödberäht 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ad.1 Without comment.
 * Ad.3 Now official name this "Silesia (miasto)" - english "silesia city". This is fact. Proofs are above. Do you understand?
 * Ad.4 Without comment. LUCPOL 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Per my comments on user talk pages, I strongly suggest mediation: both users seem to be good faithed editors who have content dispute, compounded by LUCPOL's poor command of English.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am translating new reply by LUCPOL. R9tgokunks, please don't remove LUCPOL Polish comments - he has asked others for translation and it is acceptable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To: R9tgokunks. I want to reach a compromise with you. Let's leave aside the issues of Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, Upper Silesian Industry Area and Silesian for now. Please reply to those questions of mine:

Please reply to the points in order. Let's try to finish some issues so we can discuss others. If you agree we can discard a point please strike it out. I hope we can raech an understanding as soon as possible. LUCPOL 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) IP 91.120.107.93, 168.213.1.132, 207.245.84.70, 131.104.218.46, 216.171.96.18 - this is not me. Can we discard it?  This was already solved a while ago...-- Hrödberäht 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Template:Infobox City Poland - I explained that I disagreed with infobox new look; I have reached a compromise with the user who did the change and the matter is closed. Can we discard it?  -- Hrödberäht 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Other Wikipedias - I know of no rule that prohibits me having those other accounts. Can we discard it?
 * 4) Katowice - your edit damagaged the layout . It was a single revert and I see no reason we should discuss it further. Can we discard it?  No it didn't 'damage the layout'????Explain to me why you believe a contrary version of Wikipedia Policy?-- Hrödberäht 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Silesia - I am happy with Olessi's "country". Can we discard it?  This isn't really problematic since Olessi solved the problem a while ago.-- Hrödberäht 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Concerning Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, I'm afraid that the present dispute is somehow pointless (no offence, see what follows). I think the article should be virtually blanked and rebuild from scratch (on the pl.wiki article basis, say), the reason being that it does not describe correctly its subject. Observe that the article does not mention any sources - pl.wiki version does (in external links section). One could be surprised how different the subjects are... Actually, en.wiki text corresponds roughly to the old pl.wiki version which has been deleted (and replaced) on grounds of h-word rationale; disclaimer: at the beginning I was involved there. I put a version of this post in the relevant talk page, I'm willing to do what is necessary. To make it clear: I suggest not discussing it further here but moving to the relevant talk page instead. --Beaumont (@)  11:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)