![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
see the german article the english article is based on, have a look at the history [1], have a look at the discussion history ( Yes, they realy do reverts on the discussion) too. IDGR claims to be anti-Fascist, its oponents say it is Ultra leftism. (Not my personal opinion, I do share none of them) Foreigner 15:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
pleases goto
and, if you like compare it with the orgiginal lemma http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationsdienst_gegen_Rechtsextremismus
you are more than welcome to proof the history and the facts if u can read german, for sample http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationsdienst_gegen_Rechtsextremismus
of course, there's a little debate too, u can also find a plenty of sources there http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Informationsdienst_gegen_Rechtsextremismus
Wish you a lot of fun retracing the evolutionary history of the lemma. I haven't got the nerve for never ending debates with Slim about obviously evident facts, please see the history and discussion of David Icke and the "doubts" concerning ayahuasca. Will give you a better understanding bout slims "approach". Thanks for attention and goodbye. Foreigner 07:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
User:I like Burke's Peerage edit summary:
Gesell isn't mentioned here, a consensus can only be achieved on talp. If you mean a(r)chieved, please give me the link.
Most blatant of the contended edits:
Particularly the Gsell issue is in disregard of elementary WP principles. -- tickle me 12:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. As I yust told you in the field for "Edit summaries" your changes are very unhappy ones. I like Burke's Peerage 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC) And please note: if anything ist to be considered blatant, it's that barefaced edit I like Burke's Peerage 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what's meant by "democratically inclined groups"? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Margret Chatwin is a (weak) Pen name only. In fact her name is Anna Margret Bezold-Chatwin. Bezold-Chatwin can be found here http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//k/koch.manfred/1996/koch.1096.de ; please also compare http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/wir/weg/weg_log.html) Byzanz
By the way on the discussion page I found an IP-contribution [2]
Nice additional information. Margret here claims that Wikipedia.de has stolen her material. -> keiner dieser dreisten Klauer, die so nach und nach alles vom IDGR - weil ja frei im Netz zugänglich - nach Wikipedia rüberschaufelten, zeigt eine Reaktion. Neben 1:1 Raubkopien, auf die ich jedesmal nach stichprobenartiger Prüfung mit mehrmonativem Intervall gestoßen bin, gab es eben die Fälle, in denen am Text ein wenig gefeilt wurde, während man in der Regel die von mir zusammengestellten bibliographischen Angaben, wie auch Zitate gerne übernahm, ganz so, als hätte man sich mit dieser Literatur tatsächlich befasst! Byzanz
The article here was obviously written with the POV of German users who were not successful in trying to include that POV in the German version in the past (like the above who tries to expose personal dates which have nothing to do with the subject). I corrected it as good as possible because IDGR is closed and we have to rely on secundary sources. Reasons for the new versions were given in the summaries. All last changes under IP came from me, I only forgot to log in. Jesusfreund 16:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Friend of Jesus demanded: These facts are sourced in the German article on IDGR, please trust, I am participant of it as a German use.
I don't care what he regards to be souced on wiki.de. We need the soruces here and we need it as a citation in the text. I also can't see, why anybody should trust a person in advance only because he claims to be participant of it as a German user. But if the user calling himself "friend of jesus" should be willing to cite and quote correctly, he's more than welcome to deliver reputable quotes here. Regards Byzanz
"Don't delete facts":
As you might have seen, User:Steschke wiped out the correct IDGR-editors name. Plesase let me remark that that steschke got a german account too. An IP has edited his archives there. Having a closer look on the IP 129.187.15.196 you can see, it is the same IP who signed as Margret Chatwin reproaching wikipedia with plagiarism which also edited steschkes german archives. So we arrive at a conclusion that Steschke either is Magret Bezold-Chatwin or a very close frind of her.
This can easily bee proven:
Please allow me to show in short that Jesusfriend and Steschke are buddy-buddy. Steschke always allowed Jesusfreund to edit his site, please see [7], for sample. The exclamation mark you see always has been a code for Steschke to go to action. Regards Byzanz
It was tried to establish Andreas K. as an reputable historian without giving any sources for his "reputableness". Of course I've done away with the hoax. Pitohui
Encyclopedic content must under all circumstances be verifiable. The German Lemma and it's partial translation can't be verified. Please excuse me wirting German:
Der deutschsprachige IDGR-Text ist ein Musterbeispiel für Adminwillkür. All diejenigen, die kritisch hinterfragt hatten, ob Magret Chatwins private Hetz- und Meinungsseite tatsächlich gegen Nazismus gerichtet war, wurden langfristig von politisch linkslastigen Admins und Chatwinfreunden kaltgestellt. Heraus kam ein extrem antifa-orientiertes Lemma, das praktisch ausschließlich von Chatwin-Freunden unbehelligt bearbeitet wurden durfte.
I strongly suggest to source every little detail with sources in form of harvard-citations or delete details which can't be verified. Quellnymphe 09:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Refrain from vandalizing the lemma. Don't delete the editors propper name. You can addd sourced information, but don't delete any proven information. Your are not allowed to delet the tag "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." Pitohui
@Steschke: Sorry, but I can't assume good faith any more now. Pitohui
All links I can find with the acutal name Bezold-Chatwin are either years old or brand new. The proove that her real name has been B.-C. years ago and is still today the name of the editor. Both names, the pen name Chatwin as well as the proper name Bezold-Chatwin can be found frequently. Margret Chatwin might be the former maiden name, the correct name of course is Bezold-Chatwin. I can't find a hint about harassement giving the correct name. It's evident the IP provides a far-fetched conspiracy theory. A pen name alone is never sufficient if the real name is common knowledge. It's not our task to lie at the reader. Byzanz
After reverting the lemma because important information went lost I reinserted step by step sources the IP has given. By and large it should be complete now. Regards Byzanz
After multiple complaints of "vandalism", just a few comments from an outsider:
Just to be sure who's who here, I take it that "Jesusfreund", "Steschke" and the 89.* anon are all the same person, and that "Byzanz" and "Pitohui" are the same person, is that correct? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
see the german article the english article is based on, have a look at the history [1], have a look at the discussion history ( Yes, they realy do reverts on the discussion) too. IDGR claims to be anti-Fascist, its oponents say it is Ultra leftism. (Not my personal opinion, I do share none of them) Foreigner 15:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
pleases goto
and, if you like compare it with the orgiginal lemma http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationsdienst_gegen_Rechtsextremismus
you are more than welcome to proof the history and the facts if u can read german, for sample http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationsdienst_gegen_Rechtsextremismus
of course, there's a little debate too, u can also find a plenty of sources there http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Informationsdienst_gegen_Rechtsextremismus
Wish you a lot of fun retracing the evolutionary history of the lemma. I haven't got the nerve for never ending debates with Slim about obviously evident facts, please see the history and discussion of David Icke and the "doubts" concerning ayahuasca. Will give you a better understanding bout slims "approach". Thanks for attention and goodbye. Foreigner 07:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
User:I like Burke's Peerage edit summary:
Gesell isn't mentioned here, a consensus can only be achieved on talp. If you mean a(r)chieved, please give me the link.
Most blatant of the contended edits:
Particularly the Gsell issue is in disregard of elementary WP principles. -- tickle me 12:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. As I yust told you in the field for "Edit summaries" your changes are very unhappy ones. I like Burke's Peerage 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC) And please note: if anything ist to be considered blatant, it's that barefaced edit I like Burke's Peerage 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what's meant by "democratically inclined groups"? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Margret Chatwin is a (weak) Pen name only. In fact her name is Anna Margret Bezold-Chatwin. Bezold-Chatwin can be found here http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//k/koch.manfred/1996/koch.1096.de ; please also compare http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/wir/weg/weg_log.html) Byzanz
By the way on the discussion page I found an IP-contribution [2]
Nice additional information. Margret here claims that Wikipedia.de has stolen her material. -> keiner dieser dreisten Klauer, die so nach und nach alles vom IDGR - weil ja frei im Netz zugänglich - nach Wikipedia rüberschaufelten, zeigt eine Reaktion. Neben 1:1 Raubkopien, auf die ich jedesmal nach stichprobenartiger Prüfung mit mehrmonativem Intervall gestoßen bin, gab es eben die Fälle, in denen am Text ein wenig gefeilt wurde, während man in der Regel die von mir zusammengestellten bibliographischen Angaben, wie auch Zitate gerne übernahm, ganz so, als hätte man sich mit dieser Literatur tatsächlich befasst! Byzanz
The article here was obviously written with the POV of German users who were not successful in trying to include that POV in the German version in the past (like the above who tries to expose personal dates which have nothing to do with the subject). I corrected it as good as possible because IDGR is closed and we have to rely on secundary sources. Reasons for the new versions were given in the summaries. All last changes under IP came from me, I only forgot to log in. Jesusfreund 16:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Friend of Jesus demanded: These facts are sourced in the German article on IDGR, please trust, I am participant of it as a German use.
I don't care what he regards to be souced on wiki.de. We need the soruces here and we need it as a citation in the text. I also can't see, why anybody should trust a person in advance only because he claims to be participant of it as a German user. But if the user calling himself "friend of jesus" should be willing to cite and quote correctly, he's more than welcome to deliver reputable quotes here. Regards Byzanz
"Don't delete facts":
As you might have seen, User:Steschke wiped out the correct IDGR-editors name. Plesase let me remark that that steschke got a german account too. An IP has edited his archives there. Having a closer look on the IP 129.187.15.196 you can see, it is the same IP who signed as Margret Chatwin reproaching wikipedia with plagiarism which also edited steschkes german archives. So we arrive at a conclusion that Steschke either is Magret Bezold-Chatwin or a very close frind of her.
This can easily bee proven:
Please allow me to show in short that Jesusfriend and Steschke are buddy-buddy. Steschke always allowed Jesusfreund to edit his site, please see [7], for sample. The exclamation mark you see always has been a code for Steschke to go to action. Regards Byzanz
It was tried to establish Andreas K. as an reputable historian without giving any sources for his "reputableness". Of course I've done away with the hoax. Pitohui
Encyclopedic content must under all circumstances be verifiable. The German Lemma and it's partial translation can't be verified. Please excuse me wirting German:
Der deutschsprachige IDGR-Text ist ein Musterbeispiel für Adminwillkür. All diejenigen, die kritisch hinterfragt hatten, ob Magret Chatwins private Hetz- und Meinungsseite tatsächlich gegen Nazismus gerichtet war, wurden langfristig von politisch linkslastigen Admins und Chatwinfreunden kaltgestellt. Heraus kam ein extrem antifa-orientiertes Lemma, das praktisch ausschließlich von Chatwin-Freunden unbehelligt bearbeitet wurden durfte.
I strongly suggest to source every little detail with sources in form of harvard-citations or delete details which can't be verified. Quellnymphe 09:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Refrain from vandalizing the lemma. Don't delete the editors propper name. You can addd sourced information, but don't delete any proven information. Your are not allowed to delet the tag "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." Pitohui
@Steschke: Sorry, but I can't assume good faith any more now. Pitohui
All links I can find with the acutal name Bezold-Chatwin are either years old or brand new. The proove that her real name has been B.-C. years ago and is still today the name of the editor. Both names, the pen name Chatwin as well as the proper name Bezold-Chatwin can be found frequently. Margret Chatwin might be the former maiden name, the correct name of course is Bezold-Chatwin. I can't find a hint about harassement giving the correct name. It's evident the IP provides a far-fetched conspiracy theory. A pen name alone is never sufficient if the real name is common knowledge. It's not our task to lie at the reader. Byzanz
After reverting the lemma because important information went lost I reinserted step by step sources the IP has given. By and large it should be complete now. Regards Byzanz
After multiple complaints of "vandalism", just a few comments from an outsider:
Just to be sure who's who here, I take it that "Jesusfreund", "Steschke" and the 89.* anon are all the same person, and that "Byzanz" and "Pitohui" are the same person, is that correct? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)