User talk:Jadger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the Christmas wishes, and Happy New Year to you ! --Lysytalk 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayern/Urawa[edit]

Actually, "don't delete information unless you can prove it is wrong" is exactly opposite of the Wikipedia policy, (see #2 and #3 at the top of WP:V). Had it been cited correctly, or even mentioned on the FC Bayern Munich article, it would not have been deleted. Thanks for adding the citation. Neier 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Jan Dzierżon[edit]

... I can't believe this, it was you who cast accusations of revisionim (not toward me yet)? LOL. Observe poor logic of your answer. I did not claim he was Polish, did I (in that case your message and Kaliningrad example could be relevant). Actually, I have more complex views. I indicated that Poles did consider him Polish (as you looked like ingnorant to that). And let me rephrase your post in my talk that basically says Poles (or commies) considered him Pole because he was famous. Terrible as argument.
As for Dzierzon, you may want to realize his self-identification. If this discussion really concerns him and you have some constructive input, let's move to the relevant talk page. Otherwise EOT. --Beaumont (@) 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response to FYI[edit]

Frankly, I'm rather disgusted with what's going on at Dzierzon's article. He was a good example of how for many people ethnic origin was not the most important thing, and that being a Poles and Germans could collaborate instead of fighting each other. And now we have the (mostly anonymous) warriors, trying to push that he was German or Polish. How counter-productive and counter-factual. --Lysytalk 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wish anon users were banned from editing articles. This one is particularly frustrating, not only because of the idle debate, but also because it could be such a positive example, that's been turned into a silly warzone instead. What I (and I think you too) am trying to do is to guard the consensus version, but I can see how unstable it is. --Lysytalk 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same for the Recovered Territories. While I'm aware it's far from perfect, I don't want to see it made any worse than it is now, either way. --Lysytalk 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolaus Copernicus[edit]

This article has been receiving a lot of hits today. I am having problems keeping up with it because many of my other articles are also getting hit. I know that basics about Nicolaus Copernicus but not enough to fully proof the article. One IP broke a lot of the links by inserting extra brackets. Looks like your last edit cleaned some. Ronbo76 00:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you look at my talkpage, it appears a user who disagreed with one of my reverse edits, may be using multiple IPs or has a sockpuppet. It is the last item called "Link on Copernicus". One person signed it, Andrew, and the other is by an anonymous unsigned IP that I did not leave a citation on. Ronbo76 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a new user, user:Arudra, has begun edits to this article. He is reversing some edits. Ronbo76 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: vandal[edit]

I looked at it, and he's been blocked by another admin already. Let me know if you need any help in the future. That Nazi/"you will be watched" summary would have gotten an immediate block from me. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look -- everyone you listed except 131.104.218.46 has been blocked. I can keep an eye on that IP address. FYI, I can't do a Checkuser on logged-in people; only a few people have access to that. (I'm not sure how people could have such disparate IP addresses as 131 and 207, but then again, I'm no expert.) I'll keep an eye on Copernicus as well. --Fang Aili talk 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule[edit]

Hi there! I am going to make a nice, friendly request that you stay away from Copernicus and anything that vandal touches for a while. No offense intended, you seem to have decided to stayed away from it already but you exceeded 3 reverts on most of the pages. Just wanted to warn you that anymore reverts and you face a possibility of being blocked. Cheers, Philip Gronowski Contribs 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism[edit]

I noticed you were reverting added tags {{POV-check}} and {{unreferenced|date=December 2006}} by 207.245.84.70. Although I understand why you did it just take care someone may think you're a vandal, because this is not a vandalism - any editor can express feelings that page needs POV-check and that is unreferenced. Happy editing. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox[edit]

I created you the userbox This user is interested in Central Europe history hope you'll enjoy it. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recreated it to be more unique {{user Central Europe}}
This user is interested in Central European history.




≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the celtic cross is the best one - neutral and catches whole central europe. See celtic tribes in central europe Image:Celts_800-400BC.PNG green area is tribes around 1000 B.C. It's hard to find something purely related to the central europe region. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 05:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone can think that celtic cross is a neo-nazi symbol, afaik they use svástika and cross must be equilateral. But I changed it to Jan Hus picture, good idea. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 06:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:LUCPOL[edit]

I just want to ask you if you would be willing to help me stop User:LUCPOLs wikipedia propagandist and compulsive lieing spree, ive made a report but im not yet finished....here it is User:R9tgokunks\User:LUCPOL-- Hrödberäht 06:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II[edit]

Hi, please don't get me wrong, but I think you might appreciate the notice that this edit is on a verge of personal attack. Or it's unnecessarily aggressive and rude at least. I'm sure you will know it's not my intention to patronize you, but maybe such tone would be better avoided in discussing the already very delicate topic. Cheers. --Lysytalk 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm fine with that but the aggressive tone might aggravate others if this escalates and we would not want another trench war there, would we. I just wanted to make sure you're aware of this. Just consider this a friendly remark, nothing more. Thanks. --Lysytalk 05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Prussia[edit]

I think you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Prussia, if you aren't already a patron. -- Hrödberäht 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP templates[edit]

When listing user IPs, the following two templates can be useful: Template:IPUser and Template:User5. For IP "86.27.64.149", which was recently listed on WP:AN3RR, the templates would list:

FYI, Olessi 18:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of assistance. IMO, you should tone down your criticism of Tulkolahten at the expulsions page (as he should of you). Rhetoric and personal attacks by either side aren't going to help the situation, but will only make things matters worse. Olessi 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft[edit]

User:Jadger/draft_expulsions

--Jadger 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jadger/Expulsion[edit]

Thanks for the note. I'm travelling, and accessing the net with my mobile, so my activity is quite limited for the next couple of days still. --Lysytalk 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message[edit]

I apologize, but I have a lot going on IRL and do not have the energy to get involved in a dispute right now. I suggest you post to an appropriate subpage of WP:AN and someone there will help you. Thanks and good luck, Fang Aili talk 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

I did not offend you. In at least two cases you have removed a valid reference and then some more text - claiming it's unreferenced. Well, if it wasn't for your actions the remarks would've been referenced, just like they were before. So, in other words, your actions perfectly fit the definition of vandalism. Whether you feel offended by the word or not is really not of my business, is it. However, if you're not offended by your actions, how come you feel offended when someone calls them by their name?

Anyway, I saw your recent counter-productive spree and I'd like to point out that I did not revert all of your changes. In situations where you did any (I mean any) improvement of the earlier version along with promotion of the other name, I left them as they were. However, in situations where you simply changed a word or two just for the sake of it, I reverted to the stable version. //Halibutt 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:jadger[edit]

please, I would like to ask you to stop personally attacking me, as calling my edits "vandalism" does. I am also curious as to what in them constitutes vandalism? is it the removal of POV? or using the same name for an article as the article is titled? or maybe it is the removal of false citations in non-english languages that are represented to say something that they in reality do not?

--Jadger 03:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no - it's more about INSERTING biased POV, false claims, admiration for the FRITZ and his passed away since XIX century state, which shows in ALL your edits, destructive actions whose only purpose is to create chaos, your edit wars, your playing dumb or ignorant (which we both know you're not) whenever convenient etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Happy Valentine's Day! Space Cadet 03:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like it.
]
Friends?
Space Cadet 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it continues[edit]

Post another notice on WP:AN/I.--Isotope23 17:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jadger, if your ancestry is from the Palatinate, doesn't mean you can't be Prussian. Being Prussian is about the way you think. My intentions were to make friends with you, but I guess it flew right over head. I took an effort to make that emblem as a sign of Peace, you decided it was an excuse to take aggressive steps towards me (snitching and crying to the admins). Fine! Another reason you should consider yourself Prussian. If you can think of an emblem you would like this time, let me know, because I still want to be friends. I will make a new one, NOT post it on your page but in MY gallery of bumper stickers, where you can take it from, if you like it. Although judging by your recent actions you will probably rat on me again and histerically cry about yet another PA. Either way - Happy Editing - your wanna-be friend Space Cadet 13:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As do many Polish people, you associate Prussian with negative traits. "I took an effort to make that emblem as a sign of Peace, you decided it was an excuse to take aggressive steps towards me (snitching and crying to the admins). Fine! Another reason you should consider yourself Prussian." Please realise that when your actions are open to interpretation, you cannot seriously believe to get a more satisfactory response than you gave to him: "you're playing dumb or ignorant (which we both know you're not)". If you really want to be his friend, just take back comments like that or do you really think anyone would buy that you wanted to be his friend shortly after proclaiming that you disapprove of ALL he does, without having changed your mind? Against this background your alleged attempt to make friends with him appears sarcastic instead of conciliatory. And don't just continue what people certainly perceive as overstepping WP:CIV ("snitching and crying to the admins", "you will probably rat on me again and hysterically cry about yet another PA", "So my analogy kinda went way over your head, huh? I overestimated you, deepest apologies", "so do I have freedom to consider your offensive comments a PA also, and send them to hell, where they came from.", "So stop your drama about me deleting your crap and stuff it", "Get it? I know you do. Now just act like appropriately. Thank you."). Sciurinæ 16:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wanna be his friend AND I don't want to have to take anything back. Unconditonal friendship! Example: he never took back anything he said to me or about me, yet I took the initiative and made the first step towards Peace. Now I'm being chastized for it. Most German people "associate Prussian with negative traits" as does most of the rest of the world AFAIK. Anyway Sciurinæ, my friend, thanks for trying. Space Cadet 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is vandalism: you have removed a reference. Please don't make such edits in the future, or you may be penalized for vandalising Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow interesting, evaluating user:Piotrus "contributions" like these - removal of referenced information and ref itself, removal directly referenced formulation, situation continues, removal of tags placed by mediator and etc etc. So Piotrus, by your formulation you are vandalizing too, no? It would be additional information to your RFC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Piotrus. M.K. 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, M.K. Maybe if you try harder you will finally get a neutral editor to see your point of view. If they are sufficiently out of touch with reality to take your words for granted without following the links and looking at your misdirections in more details. I'd assume sooner or later you will find a naive soul who agrees with you, so don't loose spirit! Seriously, if you continue your slander, you may find Wikipedia has rules against it. Your friend Ghirlandajo did, to his suprise...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I read Prokonsul's Piotrus (P.P.) such "comments" I am being shocked. P.P. could you elaborate what do you have in mid saying try harder you will finally get a neutral editor to see your point of view and sooner or later you will find a naive soul who agrees with you. Do User:Mikkalai, the number 8 editor in whole wikipedia, is too "naive soul who agrees with you", because he suggested to suspend your admin power? - I suggest to suspend his amdin's rights to give him some time to refresh some basic rules of the game, or the another admin User:JzG identified continues P.P. misconducts as trolling, JzG is too naive soul??, [1]; or mediator who warned not to push POV yet another naive soul?; or other contributors, who clearly stated that you using Civility issues to deal with your opponents and yet again another soul?? [2]. Or you going to deny that you removed refs? I ask you a question, because you formulated definition about contributors, who deletes refs, as vandals; you deleted refs too. Seriously, if you continue your slander, you may find Wikipedia has rules against it. do I hear a threat? I would not be surprised, knowing your long credit of "prognosis" [3]. And btw, this replay is harassment?. I urge you to stop accusing contributors of vandalism, harassment etc., and you should apologize user:Jadger for your causations. M.K. 11:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC) P.s. user:Ghirlandajo is present again[reply]
No, it isn't. Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (emphasis added). Of course it's not the removal of a source in general. Therefore you won't find "removing of a source" in the definition at WP:VAND. Statements behind which there is a source can still be inappropriate (doesn't fit the context, unreliable source, assertion that a POV among several different is true etc). Or the statement may not even be based on the source. An extreme hypothetical example: "God exists and his son is Jesus[²]" in the lead section of the article, say, "Salamander". By your definition it would be vandalism to remove it. If you read the edit summary, you'll see that Jadger said he thought that "that source says nothing about this battle, and nothing about human shields". Especially in content disputes it is essential to recognise that "apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." Even Space Cadet's strange meddling with Jadger's userpage is not necessarily vandalism. This shouldn't be continued on Jadger's talk page. If you're still not convinced, Piotrus, you can post a thread on the talk page of WP:VAND, which I've now added to my watchlist. Sciurinæ 03:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Germany[edit]

Welcome, Jadger, 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.

Here are some tasks you can do. Please remove completed tasks from the list.

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) 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal[edit]

I have been accused of being a vandal on User:LUCPOL/Vandal:R9tgokunks due to past editing disputes with yourself, or other being involved in ways with yourself. Since you have been mentioned, i'd like to ask if you could please comment on the mentioned report, Thanks much. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Serafin[edit]

Thanks for the update. I have blocked both of the IPs in question for one week and made a report at WP:ANI to determine what else we might do. And about my username: yes, it's unfortunate... I'm Californian, not German, but no doubt that will mean little to Serafin. Well, I'll just see what the community has to say about him on the noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jadger, when you have concerns about Serafin, could you bring them to WP:ANI instead of to my talk page? It's better to put stuff like that in a central location so multiple admins can see it. I'm actually on wikibreak right now (just stopped in long enough to post this message for you) and probably won't be attending to checking up on Serafin for a while. So, there you go. Keep up the good work. Heimstern Läufer 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tulkolahten[edit]

Hello Jadger, could it be that Tulkolahten and Richard is one and the same person? Because I asked Richard on his talk site and Tulkolahten is answering. At least it seems that he is his spokesman... Wikiferdi 12:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a curiosity[edit]

You wrote:

personally, I think Reich is better translated as "realm" or "dominion/domain" for instance, the word Königreich means kingdom, but using the translation of reich that means "king's empire" which makes no sense as the ruler of an empire is an emperor, not a king. So make what you want from this, perhaps this could help with creating a different title of some sort --Jadger 07:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the wonderfull things about English is in the words of Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

In English the (English) Crown is by act of Parliament an imperial crown! (see Imperial crown#Legal usage) So the British monarch is an emperor but is titled king (rex)! --Philip Baird Shearer 13:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:206.117.32.31[edit]

No idea if that's our friend Serafin, but, at any rate, that IP is now blocked for vandalism, so I don't think it matters too much. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer 03:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I removed your recent comments at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. This was "collateral damage" in the removal of comments posted by the blocked user Serafin; it would seem odd to me to include your comments to him while removing his. As you noted, having other users respond to him on talk pages only validates his actions, and I consider it a good idea to revert all future edits by him until he realizes he must wait for his block to expire. Olessi 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block[edit]

Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Recovered Territories and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please use the time to review the 3RR policy. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus violated the 3RR just as much as I did, but I did not start an edit war, or as in Piotrus's case, a number of edit wars. if you will read the talk page, the version he created is explicitly stated as unnacceptable on the talk page as a consensus was builtup months ago. Also, before I make edits to this controversial article I try to discuss on the talk page first, but every time I do, I ask "does anyone have a problem with this edit?" and no one responds. Piotrus makes a point of ignoring me when he can't make a good argument against what I have said.

so I get punished for trying to get people to discuss controversial edits on the talk page first (AKA follow wikipedia policy)? geez, my favourite word on wikipedia lately has been hypocrisy, it is plain to see why.

--Jadger 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


this block was lifted because it was rather unfairly represented, thank you User:SlimVirgin for following up on your decisions and working with simple users.

--Jadger 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit[edit]

What personal attacks are you talking about? This:[4]? Space Cadet 13:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"yes, when you say "rv" (Revert Vandalism) in an edit summary, when a edit is not vandalism, that is a personal attack

--Jadger 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

I've been here for 6 years, so let me educate you - "rv" means "revert" and "rvv" means "revert vandalism". Are you paranoid or something?

Also, I guess R9's phrase "No no no , you wont be injecting your fascist propoganda into the truth today" was NOT a personal attack. After all, Germans never do that.

Another thing: is "a edit" typical for so called "Canadian English"? Maybe you should start a Canadian English Wikipedia?

Peace, Space Cadet 10:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jadger, I completely agree with you on the Stutthof issue as reflected in my edit:[5]. As you can see I wrote: Schopenhauer was born in 1788 in Stutthof (Sztutowo) in the Kingdom of Prussia, near Danzig, (Gdańsk) in Poland).
Listen, I came up with some Coats of Arms of a Canadian Palatinatian. This time though, I know better than to upload them, but I will if you want. Peace. Space Cadet 13:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the border! Sztutowo was hardly a border town. Very close to Vistula Bay, but not directly on it. And closer to Elbląg or Malbork than to Gdańsk! I'll make the appropriate changes. Space Cadet 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Eastern Germany[edit]

I think you'll be quite interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Nipigon[edit]

Re your email, see Lake Nipigon. We fished a lake west of it called Circle Lake. Sca 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out Territorial changes of Germany[edit]

This is an article that was screaming out to be written and I got tired of waiting for a consensus to form around a new title for Historical eastern Germany. Please check it out and give me your feedback or be bold and just edit the article directly. Thanx.

--Richard 07:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hel[edit]

Can you explain difference between capitulation of Westerplatte or Modlin and capitulation of Hel? Result of all these battles are equal so change Hel back to capitulation or change Westerplatte and Modlin to German victory. Piotr Mikołajski 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If standard says defeat, undecided or victory solutions only, I agree with your changes. But personally I see difference between defeat or victory in field and capitulation of garrisons. --Piotr Mikołajski 13:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier - I see difference between victory in field and capitulation of garrison, doesn't matter Polish or another. Of course in both cases one side wins but I still see difference.
What to do with garrison defending till the end of the war? Did German forces lost in Courland in May 1945? Yes. Was it victory for Russians? From your POV yes, from my POV it was German capitulation because Russians were not able to win in field. In both cases it's our POV, not NPOV ;o) --Piotr Mikołajski 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about Battle of Hel but about fourth result of battle - capitulation. First three are battle won, battle lost, undecided. You can't say about some battles that were won, sometimes one side loose but second doesn't win. And no, I'm not going to change result of Battle of Hel. --Piotr Mikołajski 07:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry[edit]

Space Cadet 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D-PL[edit]

You may be interested in: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,471777,00.html

Sca 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


German World Alliance[edit]

Hello Jadger,

do you know http://www.germanworldalliance.org/?

Greetings Wikiferdi 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Munich[edit]

WikiProject Munich has over 20 members now which should make for a good WikiProject. To help organize the project, please put down some ideas at the talk page. Kingjeff 02:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Munich membership[edit]

I'm giving WP Munich members a choice of being active members, semi-active members or inactive members. Please sign up for the correct one. Kingjeff 23:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive means you don't participate at all. Active members will do a lot of Munich-related edits (not necissarily every single one). Semi-active is more about doing some Munich-related editing. I hope you weren't offended about this. It's just a way to see which users are really interested in the project. Kingjeff 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've put a To-Do list on the main page of Wikipedia. Kingjeff 20:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

Done. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Prussia[edit]

Grüß Gott! I've just joined up as a wikipedia user and I'm interested in helping out over at Wikiproject Prussia and Wikiproject Germany, and I figured the best way to get involved was to contact someone already involved in them. How do I get involved and how can I help out? Mit Freundlichen Grüßen, Leopold III 20:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Leopold III[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Soldier's House[edit]

Hi Jadger, I changed my vote, I am really not sure where I saw the information. I did not know the name German Soldier's House before, so it is possibly a nn thing or a hoax.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on my editor review[edit]

I know that it's been over a month since you left those comments and I don't know how it is that I didn't see them until last Friday but I didn't. I was away on vacation over the weekend so this is the first real opportunity that I've had to thank you. There is still a lot of work to do on the articles related to the expulsion of Germans after WWII. The back-and-forth sniping and biting slows down the work but we are making slow and steady progress. Hang in there.

--Richard 05:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

brothels[edit]

New to me, thanks--though I notice most of t he documentation was from Ravensbrück, which makes a certain amount of sense. Typically, there is a level of metabolism below which men cannot have an erection DGG 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award[edit]

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 14:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:what do you mean no it isnt[edit]

"What I meant is the half of Frankfurt an der Oder now in Poland was not polish in the 17th century, the Holy Roman Empire borders where farther east for a long time, see

--Jadger 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Yeah I know, but at the same time Olsztyn was Polish until 1772. So in my opinion we have to reword the sentence a bit, so it's not misleading. Also, Holy Roman Empire does not necessarily have to mean - Germany. Polish dukes ruled in areas of Recovered Territories longer than 13th century. Polish King's brother - Sigismundus (who later became the king himself; known today as Sigismund I the Old) - ruled Silesia from Wrocław in 16th century. Happy we can talk about it peacefully again - Space Cadet 11:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on AC Milan Page[edit]

Your comments were not needed and I'm very sadden that an editor who has added so much to Wikipedia would go and do such a thing. Niall123 12:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOu seriously believe that "Milan is best known worldwide for cheating and bribing referees. " at the start of an article isn't vandalism or at least a complete bias and opinionated edit ? Niall123 18:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what Wikipedia is about. It is obvious that you are a Bayern Munich fan and that you are doing this as some sort of petty retribution. Clear bias has been shown here. This is very poor from an editor who has made as many edits as yourself. Niall123 11:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please desist in your edits. A concencus has been reached on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Vandalism_on_AC_Milan_article that your edits are poor and bias. If you revert again you will be breaking the 3 revert rule. Niall123 08:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom/Piotrus[edit]

Case has been started, probably you will be interested: [6] M.K. 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help[edit]

I would like to direct your attention upon this and this, but also upon this. As a contributor I am just fixing my pants. Certainly, I need somebody correcting my clumsy English. I guess you are the right one to do so! If I was right, please, feel free to leave me a message.

--Dionysos 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FC Bayern Munich Taskforce[edit]

Would you like to join a FC Bayern Munich Taskforce at WikiProject Munich? Kingjeff 20:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter[edit]

The Germany WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - May 2007
From the editor

This is the first issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts.

Other areas where you can help
  • Assessment requests: Some open Requests for assessment need to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can watchlist the assessment page.
  • More task forces and subprojects: As this WikiProject covers a very large topic area, it is helpful to add more task forces that focus on specific aspects of Germany. Currently, we have a Mainz task force, a Munich subproject and some joint task forces with other WikiProjects. Any project member is invited to start a new task force. Suggestions for possible topics:
    • Transportation in Germany
    • German politics (the political system of Germany and the biographies of its politicians)
    • German Democratic Republic

Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the project talk page (don't forget to watchlist it).

  • Categorization: Uncategorized Germany stubs need to be categorized
Project news
  • Criteria for B-Class status: The assessment criteria for B-Class have been changed. {{WikiProject Germany}} template now has 5 switches, B-Class-1 through B-Class-5 that correspond to 5 easily checked criteria that an article should meet to be assessed as B-Class. The advantage of this system is that now there is a clear boundary between Start-Class and B-Class articles. Authors of articles that were assessed as Start-Class now get more direct feedback what they should improve to attain a B-Class rating.

All of our B-Class, Start-Class and Stub-Class articles now need to be checked whether they meet any of the B-Class criteria. This is a major effort, and we need your help! If you want to help, but don't know how, please post at the project talkpage.

  • Cities and municipalities task force

A task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities has been started and is looking for help.

This newsletter was delivered by Kusma using AWB to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, Kusma 11:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your User Page[edit]

Good catch on the Nemmersdorf Massacre article. I do not know how that passage escaped me. Always reading over it, and getting it into my brain as telegram language, I suppose.

You really must do something about the vandal on your user page. The number of people who has reverted him is growing all the time. The reason why I am telling you is very simple (it recently crossed my mind, but please do not think that I believe it!): if you do not, some people will start to think the vandal is YOU, trying to find out who is following your pages. You could ask an admin or mention it at WP:ANI. Keep up the good work! --Pan Gerwazy 20:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, sorry but you're way off base, Pan Gerwazy. We pretty much know who the vandal is. It is banned user Andrew User:Serafin but there's not much we can do about it since he seems to have access to an effectively unlimited set of IP addresses, all in the range 131.x.x.x. I suppose we could try to figure out who his ISP is but, so far, nobody has gone to the effort of doing so.
--Richard 21:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
inetnum:         131.0.0.0 - 131.255.255.255
netname:         EU-ZZ-131
descr:           Various Registries
country:         EU # Country is really world wide
remarks:         These addresses were issued by
                 The IANA before the formation of
                 Regional Internet Registries.
status:          ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED "status:" definitions

--Lysytalk 21:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand. I see no 131.x.x.x adresses used by this vandal that fall outside 131.104.x.x. I agree the vandal is almost certainly Seraphin, but Seraphin's sockpuppets also have 131.104.x.x. only among 131.x.x.x. The sockpuppet IP which Seraphin claimed himself on his talk page (131.104.218.123) is not even in that list. According to WHOIS, 131.104.x.x is Guelph University, Canada (add suspicion with most of the IP numbers that the vandal uses, that the guy is actually in Michigan, USA -[7]) If you read my message carefully, you will see I do not believe that Jadger would do this thing and I had no inclination to mention why someone may think so. I will stop following his user page. --Pan Gerwazy 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Goderich Pirates[edit]

If you want to add a note about the mascot, just add it to the body of the article. The infobox is not set up for a mascot input. DMighton 02:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if adding a mascot section to a Junior/Senior hockey infobox is a good idea. To be honest... I'm worried about clutter... as well as the fact that I myself played Junior hockey and only ran into one team ever that had a mascot... the Walkerton Hawks... I played for the Mount Forest Patriots and Durham Huskies... and we played against Kincardine, Wingham, Lakeshore, Walkerton, Hanover, Wiarton, and exhibition against a variety of teams in Jr. C... as well. I also spent a pre-season with the Alliston Hornets in the GMO... never saw anything mascot-wise in that league.... and in Jr. A I played against Stouffville, Collingwood, Parry Sound, North York, Wexford, Burlington, Couchiching, Huntsville, Newmarket, amongst others and never saw any there. I played some for the Strathroy Rockets in the WOHL... didn't see any there either.... The point I am trying to make is... I played junior with and against probably 40-50 teams and only once did I ever see a mascot. I would suggest adding it in the introductory section right after where the league is mentioned, and if you want you can even talk about the arena, maybe some team history.... so forth.... maybe the original Goderich Pirates from the 80s and early 90s would be good? DMighton 09:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability[edit]

Before the Gleiwitz incident becomes another of the usual revert wars, please read again the key Wikipedia policy: Verifiability. Quite simply, every statement in Wikipedia must be backed by a reliable reference, if challenged.

This makes perfect sense, as attempting to insert statements with justification that they are "commonly known facts" is a recipe for disaster. Quite simply, what is "commonly known" to one person may not be to another. Balcer 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your email, you can contest the block and have another admin look into this by following the directions above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jadger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel your block of me is unfair for a number of reasons. This is in reference to the Gleiwitz Incident article

a)it has not been 3 users, it was 2 users, both of whom are notorious for editwarring, Piotrus even had an ArbCom started against him he is so bad at it. b)If you will take a look at my individual edits, not all are alike, I changed the subject of the sentence in question, and added 3 or 4 different references, I was not reverting, as a revert implies that I did not change the content of the edits, however, Piotrus and Balcer did not change the content and instead reverted, each more than the 3RR allows. c)If I am to be blocked, so should they, as I was editting to the version before PP came along started deleting references.

All I'm asking for is equality, if I am being blocked for the 3RR, so should they, as they have both clearly broken it.


P.S. also note that I was unfairly attacked when it was claimed I had been blocked for 3RR twice before. the one time I was blocked and then had it repealed for the very same reasons I want this one repealed, unfairly described under here: [9]

Decline reason:

You reverted the article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. If you believe others have violated the 3RR report them to WP:AN/3RR once your block expires (which is quite soon). — Tango 15:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bayern uniform[edit]

I think it is correct. Kingjeff 21:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure hot to delete that. Kingjeff 03:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey[edit]

I was only kidding, of course. Big deal, happens to anybody. Please come back. Our community needs you. Your self-contradicting friend Space Cadet 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back! Space Cadet (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus[edit]

The above case is closed. A general amnesty for editors involved in Eastern Europe-related articles is extended, with the expectation that further editing will adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 19:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion on -isms[edit]

Hi. A user category that you are in has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. You are welcome to comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you?[edit]

Wikipedia needs you! --Splette :) How's my driving? 19:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter[edit]

The Germany WikiProject Newsletter
Issue II - March 2008
From the editor

This is the second issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts. If you think anything should be featured in the next issue, please leave a note at the Newsdesk

Other areas where you can help
  • Assessment requests: Some open Requests for assessment need to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can watchlist the assessment page.
  • More task forces and subprojects: As this WikiProject covers a very large topic area, it is helpful to add more task forces that focus on specific aspects of Germany. Currently, we have a Mainz task force, a Munich subproject and some joint task forces with other WikiProjects. Any project member is invited to start a new task force. Suggestions for possible topics:
    • Transportation in Germany
    • German politics (the political system of Germany and the biographies of its politicians)
    • German Democratic Republic

Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the project talk page (don't forget to watchlist it).

  • Categorization: Uncategorized Germany stubs need to be categorized
Project news
  • Cities and municipalities task force

The task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities is happy to announce that there are now (at least) stub articles for all municipalities of Germany. Now the task force is looking for help in fleshing these out a little bit. The current phase of activity for the task force is to copy in infoboxes from the articles in German Wikipedia. If you want to help, even just for a few articles, look at the instructions and links here

  • Article Assessment:

There are now way over 26.000 articles tagged as part of our Wikiproject and many still need either an importance or a quality assessment. Also there are many more out there that do need to be tagged like approx 8000 municipalities. If you would like to help take a browse through Articles needing Importance assessment or Articles needing a basic quality assessment.

- Newsletter Bot Talk 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, - Newsletter Bot Talk 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

your post in invasion of poland[edit]

Hi I found this on discussion page by you:

  1. it was not a defensive war, as Poland indeed attacked German positions and attempted an offensive at Battle of Bzura calling it a "defensive war" is ludicrous, or else we should rename all war articles to "____ defensive war", the blank being filled in by whatever nation declared war second, for instance the Franco-Prussian War would be renamed prussian defensive war.--Jadger 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

- Well, in that situation, there would never be a defensive war. An offensive against the advancing invading army makes it not a defensive war any more? I think not. Barciur (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About you[edit]

You know, you should just come out and say it. You hate Poles and thought that Hitler had the right idea. Now go cry in the corner, masturbating to German porn, while telling yourself that you are the master race. Because if you honestly think that the invasion of Poland was anything but German aggression, masturbating is all you have left going for you in life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.240.103 (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 edition of the WikiProject Munich newsletter[edit]

The WikiProject Munich Newsletter
Issue I - May 2010
From the editor

This is the first issue of WikiProject Munich's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts.

Other areas where you can help
Project news

This newsletter was delivered by Kingjeff to all members of WikiProject Munich. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, Kingjeff ~~~~~

Bayern[edit]

Well done to Bayern tonight. Don't go fucking about with the Inter article like you did when Bayern lost to Milan the last time out. Accept your defeat and move on. Niall123 (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jadger&oldid=1143073387"