Krawunsel

Krawunsel:

I've answered your response regarding Goebbels' Sportpalastrede; thank you for the information.

Besides our interest in the period of the Third Reich, I see we have one other bit in common. You wrote that

I don't like the way conservatives in America, most notably the GOP, are trying to impose a negative image on everything "liberal" means. Maybe they don't really understand the meaning of that word.

I agree, but I'll go one step further; liberals in the USA seem to be afraid of the word and would rather deny being a liberal than stand behind their ideas and ideals. This sort of weakness doesn't help the liberal cause, and reminds me of too many cases in history where weakness and defeatism on the part of liberal democratic parties has allowed vile regimes to gain and hold power. With friendly greetings. — JonRoma 06:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I've found Sportpalastrede in text and audio on a new site I've not seen before. They are still excerpts, however. — JonRoma 02:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Please check the Biographies of living persons policy. Email me if in doubt (my email address is at the top of my talk page). --Tony Sidaway 13:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pleistocene

Thank you for your edit to the Pleistocene article. Hominini was not a typo on the section heading. Hominini is the name for the tribe of Homininae that includes just (1) humans (Homo), (2) chimpanzees (Pan), and (3) their extinct Homininae ancestors. It excludes the Gorillini (gorillas) and their extinct ancestors. --Bejnar (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Doris Day

Please do not remove maintenance tags from articles when the issues noted have not been addressed. Multiple maintenance tags are not tag spam, they indicate genuine issues that need to be addressed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

History of London - Population

Remember? You added a request for reference to the population section of the above mentioned article in Oct, 2008. I wonder why you did that instead of remedying the actual problem. It took me just five minutes to find TWO population lists by googling. I wonder why you didn't do that yourself - is it that much easier just to add tags and to wait for someone else to do the actual work rather than taking care of the problem yourself? Well, by just adding that tag it took the problem more than two years to be solved... you could have done it immediately, had you wanted to... ;) --Krawunsel (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have edited over 20,000 pages. If I had stopped to fill in all the gaps on all of them, I certainly would not have had time to eat or sleep or go to work. Some such fixes are fast; others are time consuming. I often do make quick repairs, but I also consider pointing out flaws to be helpful, since people with more time or passion are bound to come round eventually and deal with them. Sometimes that person ends up being me at a later time, but the fact that I haven't circled around to take care of this particular note indicates I haven't had the time. Regardless, thank you for your valuable contribution to the article on the history of London; the next reader who comes along looking for that information will not be disappointed. -- Beland (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pope Leo XIII, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2013 Formula One season

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In List of British royal residences, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Kent House and Crosby Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP edits

Please do not continue to restore unsourced personal info to a WP:BLP - per Wikipedia policy, if information is removed and a source is requested the onus is on the editor wishing to restore the information to include a source for verification. You are also removing a clean-up tag that calls for improved references; as it stands the article does not contain a single reliable source and could therefore be subject to deletion. Repeated baseless removal of tags can be considered a form of vandalism, so please do not continue to remove it without addressing the sourcing issue. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have explained each of my edits, so no need to yell at me! --Krawunsel (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No where have I yelled at you; I was explaining, with points to specific policy and guidelines, why your edits are being removed. It is much more cordial to explain here as opposed to attempting to communicate via edit summaries. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC

I believe the best way to explain edits IS in the edit summary. You don't really expect me to explain every single one of my edits in my user talk page, do you? As to the tags, I think there are way too many of those tags all over the Wikipedia, many of which are unnecessary and/or don't make any sense at all. Some weeding out seems more than necessary and that's what I occasionally do. And that is NOT vandalism; nor is adding valuable information (even if adding information is, obviously, frowned upon by some users). If you think my remark about having been yelled at was inappropriate I apologize for it. I felt being yelled at, but no harm meant. --Krawunsel (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries are very important for explaining why you are making specific edits, but should not be used while reverting to carry on a conversation (see WP:REVTALK for example). Although there are some tags that can appear extraneous, BLP reference tags are imperative for identifying biography articles that require better sourcing - continued removal of policy related tags can be considered vandalism, which is why I supplied the link for you. WP:BLP is a fairly stringent policy with several bright line rules of conduct, and I wanted to ensure you were aware of them by dropping you a note on your talk page. It's not intended as a lecture or admonishing, just a clear outlining of policies you may not be aware of. Good luck with your future editing! Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerry Skilton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Enforcer and On Her Majesty's Secret Service (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not add any links. I simply restored an article which was erraneously turned into a redirect page. --Krawunsel (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

IMDB as a source

Per long time consensus IMDB is not a reliable source for personal info in BLPs, see for example WP:IMDB and WP:IMDB/RS, therefore I have removed the birthdate from Morgan Saylor until source meeting WP:RS (i.e not online third-party databses/compendia) can be included for verification.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That "consensus", if it exists at all, which I doubt, is nonsense. Where else would you get reliable data if not from the IMDB? --Krawunsel (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the links I included above? Restoring poorly sourced information to a BLP after it has been explained to you that consensus is that the link does not meet the requirements for verifiability will ultimately lead to a block of your account. You are more than welcome to start a request for comment or attempt to change consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard, but you cannot edit war to restore material removed citing BLP concerns.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Hello, I'm Ahunt. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 (2nd nomination) that didn't seem very civil, and needs to be removed by you. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Krawunsel. I'd also like to have a word about this. I assume that Ahunt is referring to this comment that you made in the deletion discussion, which I was alerted to by Codename Lisa on my talk page. There are two points that I want to clarify with you about it. The first is that we have a very strict definition of vandalism. If you look at Wikipedia:Vandalism you can see that we define vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". The important part about this is it must be deliberate to count as vandalism. Codename Lisa's nomination of the article for deletion was obviously made in good faith, so by definition it wasn't vandalism. Calling things vandalism that don't fit the definition only tends to make people angry or upset (as you can see here), and I recommend you avoid it.

The other point is about the accusation you made about Codename Lisa's real-life identity. You need to be very careful about things like this. Our policy on "outing" says that "posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Posting speculation like this is a very bad idea, because if an administrator decides that it constitutes outing and/or harassment, they will likely block you from editing. I don't think your accusation this time reaches to this level, but please be careful about this in the future. The best way to make sure you do this (in the words of WP:NPA) is to make sure you comment only on content, and not on other editors. Let me know if anything in this comment doesn't make sense, and I'll be happy to clarify it for you. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Civility, again

I note the section above where you were warned about personal attacks before. You may count this section as a second warning. At Talk:Kim Jong-un, you have made a long series of personal attacks upon myself and Masem. I note;

• 1 June 2013: (referring to me and Masem) "unless you count the thickness of their skins" [1]
• 20 August 2013: (the entire post against myself and Masem, and specifically...) "Wikipedia cannot benefit from the two of them since they are not contructive but destructive!" [2]
• 28 January 2014: (referring to me) "keep opposing all sensible ideas and solutions for this article" [3]
• 28 January 2014: (referring to me) "obstinacy isn't helpful to the Wikipedia" [4]
• 11 July 2014: (referring to me) "you've got to destroy everything" [5]

These comments directly violate Wikipedia:Civility. I do not wish to escalate this. However, if you continue to act as you have it may lead to a block of your editing privileges. I have been and remain patient and willing to discuss with you why the various images that have been attempted on Kim Jong-un are not compatible with our requirements. I know you are very much of the opinion that we should allow a fair use image. I know you feel strongly about this. However, your ardency in this matter is not justification for uncivil behavior. Please stop. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You have long been hampering efforts of other users to add an image of Kim Jong-un to the above-mentioned page. Then there finally was an image - and you had it deleted. Maybe you would, in the light of this, want to be a bit less sensitive about the critical response triggered by your very own actions. By the way, your "discussion" of the images was limited to repeating your absolute abhearance to what you think is Wikimedia's policy. You never responded to any of the arguments placed before you, disregarded them in a very provocative way. And now you wonder why you received criticism and complain about an alleged lack of civility from my side, using quotes ripped from their context. Well, you have been obstinate regarding Kim Jong-Un's image and you did keep opposing everyone's ideas. That's clear from the discussion. And that's what I wrote. The truth can be painful...

Anyway, you've criticized me for my approach on the matter, too, and I don not remember complaining about this on your discussion page or threatening you with a ban. --Krawunsel (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to continue with insulting people, that's your business. I can not stop you. However, please be aware that if you continue to insult other editors I will be making a report of it and recommending another block of this account. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Continue with insulting people? I don't think I insulted anyone in the first place. Maybe you would want to see that there is a difference between just feeling insulted and actually being insulted. There are people who feel insulted all the time without actually having been insulted. And criticism isn't the same as an insult. As I said before, your actions and your refusal to acknowledge that in the case of Kim jung-un we have an exception that is not covered by the rules you keep quoting was bound to raise criticism. And it was not only me who criticized this attitude, there were others, too. But you seem to have chosen me to turn at for my criticism. It seems that I can't change that. But I will also not change my opinion about an image in Kim Jong-un and the related rules. And I don't think you should have me banned for exercising my right of free speech and free opinion. --Krawunsel (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not particularly interested in having a meta discussion about whether something is an insult or not. Please be aware that you do not have the right of free speech here. I have outlined the behaviors above that I find to be in violation of WP:NPA. If you persist in those behaviors, I will be reporting same. It will be up to others to judge whether your behavior is in violation of policy or not. It's your choice to continue or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)