Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by R9tgokunks (talk | contribs) at 18:18, 25 December 2006 (→Re: Strasbourg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

No personal attacks please

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

"ref says he was under 2 metres. you are pathetic trying to make him even taller." is an unacceptable edit summary. Please don't repeat this. Thanks. --Guinnog 07:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, empathy. So how can I help you then? --Guinnog 07:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. Nevertheless, there are better ways to get things done. Please do let me know if there is anything I can do to help you. --Guinnog 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of famous tall men

I'm sure I can trust you, however, your meetings with people and photographs are not passable as verifiable proof. As the topic in question has gone through a couple of AfDs with the conclusion that entries should be cited; you will need to add a decent referenece for your additions (interview, quote etc.); as IMDB is open to being even more unreliable than here, I'm afraid that doesn't count as one. SteveLamacq43 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Strasbourg

Well I'm not an expert on this subject and as far as I can tell you pretty much disagree on wether or not the German name of scertain towns in Frace should be boldfaced or not. Calling it an attempt to re-write history seems to be needlesly confrontational (I could find no diffs where he actualy dispute that the towns are French). As long as there is no actual vandalism and no disruptive edit war there is not rely a lot an admin can do, we are not rely a part of the process of resolving disputes. If you feel he is pushing a pro-German POV in multiple articles and simply talking to him doesn't help I think your best bet would be opening a request for comments on his conduct, failure to follow the manual of style and whatever else. --Sherool (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Here, it seems like you need to get familiar with the Naming convention agreement, ill pull up some of the precedents of it:

This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes: For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945 For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945 In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively. For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises. Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries. Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Misplaced Pages:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers. The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

You can actually read it and then delete it because it takes a lot of space.But anyway , this led to a naming convention agreement where towns with multiple histories SHOULD have these names boldened(check out this: Talk:Gdańsk#My_edits) and parenthesized next to the name, and by the way personal attacks can get you blocked for a lengthy amount of time on wikipedia. Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays -- Hrödberäht 17:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to understand what you just said,but i should tell you that im not doing anything at all to "manipulate" history, im just following the rules by adhering to the agreements on naming places, and on not making personal attacks. anyway, hopefully you read the entirity of the previous message i sent you.-- Hrödberäht 17:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they did change it before, but they had mistakenly thought that the agreement said not to bolden them, but a second check clarified that they had made a mistake in that respect. , and besides this happened 4 tagen ago and we all agree on the article structure now.-- Hrödberäht 18:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any need to intervene here. It seems the user is making a commendable effort to explain why he or she is making such a change. The only thing that is blockable is WP:3RR, and that has not been done in this case. I would suggest coming to an agreement on the article's talk page. You all have a Merry Christmas. —Pilotguy (ptt) 18:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"...is it a conspiration against you ?" Well, I can't see why there would be a conpiracy? Haha, well the alsatian name also falls under the conflicting histories category, so i bolden that as well, but a conpiracy? a conspiracy would have to lead to the involved users being blocked-- Hrödberäht 18:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)