Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jnc (talk | contribs) at 04:17, 7 June 2005 (→Gdansk/Danzig edit wars). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mackensenarchiv

• /Archive (August 2003–April 2004)
• /Archive (April 2004–November 2004)
• /Archive (November 2004–February 2005)
• /Archive (February 2005–May 2005)

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Yeah, that RfAr is completely absurd. And I'm a bit offended I wasn't included. At any rate, it seems headed for well-deserved rejection, so there's not so much to say about it. john k 01:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Sir George Young

I'd noticed that it was, but wasn't clear why - particularly when there are no titles or other information that would make the division serve a purpose (e.g. labelling one box as offices of state and the second as peerages and hereditary honours). Do you know where the custom comes from - and where the clearest way forward could be for it to be most productively discussed? Mpntod 19:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Schlieffen Plan

• The contents of the article do not reflect the considerable debate among scholars regarding Moltke, Schlieffen, and the "Schlieffen Plan." There's doubt now about the viability of the Plan, whether Schlieffen meant it as a war plan, and as to just what Moltke was executing in August of 1914. I've placed the disputed tag on the article to reflect this, but I do intend to engage in re-write (see e.g. Helmuth Johann Ludwig von Moltke) Criticism welcome and appreciated. Mackensen 02:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, the best laid plans. The article stills needs to be corrected (or the dispute tag removed). Still interested? Cheers, -Willmcw 01:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to accept your offer and remove the dispute tag. I hate to see them lingering. May I suggest that if you can take a quick pass and remove any egregious errors then that might improve the accuracy quickly. An irony of veracity is that a vague assertion is more accurate than an improperly precise fact. Anyway, the Schlieffen Plan is an important issue in history and we should have the best possible article. Thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk

I'm not disrupting Misplaced Pages nor am I proving any point. I'm merely enforcing the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Halibutt for my explanation. If you wish to question the outcome of the voting, you may do so on the relevant discussion page. Halibutt 17:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please ask me on a case by case basis and I'll be happy to answer your doubts. Also, the Talk:Gdansk/Vote does not mention the need to find a proof that these German cities were ever widely known outside of "Poland" by Polish names nor the need to find similar proofs for the German names of Polish cities. Halibutt 17:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but your understanding of the vote has nothing to do with it. For me the matter is pretty clear, and so was it to a number of other contributors, who for instance, added the names to places that had been under German rule for exactly 5 years. After a lengthy discussion with many wikipedians, including admins User:Chris 73 and User:John Kenney, I simply decide to adopt their interpretation. If you believe that their interpretation is wrong, you might want to contact them personally.

As to the proofs: indeed, the need to prove that there is a Polish trace in the history of the said cities is mine. If you question that in case of some places, then please be so kind as to ask me specifically. Halibutt 17:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to stop your revert war. Otherwise I'd be forced to ask for admin protection of all pages affected by the revert war you're starting. Which is definitely not what wikipedia needs. Halibutt 17:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I proved on the Talk:Dresden page that the rule clearly applies there. Please stop your reverts. Halibutt 18:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain yourself from disrupting wikipedia. If you have any problems with the article on Dresden or the vote, you can refer to the respective talk pages. You don't have to start reveret wars. Really. Halibutt 14:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Might interest you

User:SimonP is up to his old tricks over templates and categories. He has now proposed deleting Template:Crowns on the template for deletion page. Going by his past antics on Category:Westminster System and Template:Commonwealth Realms he's trying to delete a template that pulls all the articles on the topic together, then he'll start subcategorising all the articles and we'll end up with a complicated, user-unfriendly mess of a category. Your opinions and observations would be welcome. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 21:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)