Moved here at 04:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not from a Document, it's from the book: Gröner E, Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945, Band 1, Seite 58. User Nihlus1, have previously faked the cost. To proof it, I uploaded the aforementioned page to imgur. 83.143.240.18 ( talk) 00:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ 83.143.240.18: If you would be so kind as to use this template to cite it, it would be great. Dschslava ( talk) 00:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Okay, I'll try it. Please check it afterwards. 83.143.240.18 ( talk) 00:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Done!

@ 83.143.240.18: Ahhhh. This looks just beautiful. Thanks! Dschslava ( talk) 00:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Goodbye! 83.143.240.18 ( talk) 00:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report Our 2015 End of Year Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; New record lows in the article backlog and on the Requests page; Coordinator election results; Membership news; Changes around the Guild's pages; Plans for 2016. – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC) reply

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC) reply

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amanda Higgs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC. 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) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Dschslava, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki 12:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

So what's going to happen now? 70.190.188.48 ( talk) 22:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC) reply

70.190.188.48, the discussion at WP:DRN has been closed. What happens next is (as the dispute seems to be on the sources) that if you want to continue the discussion further, I can take it to WP:RSN which specializes in these disputes. Pinging Erik. Dschslava ( talk) 01:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I have researched and found numerous more reliable sources highlighting the film's white savior. I found the IP editor's commentary on the reliable sources disingenuous since they already betrayed their bias early on in making generalist arguments to exclude the film. Of course their goal is to find a way to reject the sources, rather than taking an even-handed approach. Once again, if there is commentary contesting the "white savior" categorization, it can be folded in and properly attributed, but the ASHE Higher Education Report demonstrates retrospective coverage that critics at the time identified the "white savior" element in the film. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 02:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

However, Erik, if consensus can be found (and no doubt it will be) in support of that viewpoint, there will be the big stick of WP:CONSENSUS to use against 70.190.188.48. Dschslava ( talk) 02:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm working on listing the sources I found and quoting the relevant parts on the article's talk page. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 02:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I've listed them on the talk page. Based on this further investigating, I find the film's inclusion on the list even more warranted. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 02:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I'll take it to RSN in a few hours, if you all don't mind. Do ping the other party in our previous dispute (on a mobile device and can't type) Dschslava ( talk) 03:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Pinging @ Erik, 70.190.188.48, and Betty Logan: Dschslava ( talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I find it unnecessary to go to WP:RSN. As I showed, the preexisting sources were not isolated instances. There are multiple more instances that I've listed. Is there going to be a problem found with each one of them? That they're all "pushing a white guilt agenda by racist idiots", as the IP editor said? I think not. It seems that you and Betty agree that sources back this film's inclusion. In most discussions, that would be the end of the matter. I'm not sure why this issue needs to persist at all. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 13:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

70.190.188.48 I haven't taken it to RSN yet, but the reason that I'd like to is that I'd like all of us to leave in agreement. Edit wars are not fun. Dschslava ( talk) 16:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Pinging Erik

I got the ping before. I think you need to ping 70.190.188.48, though. Writing "u|Erik|70.190.188.48" pings me but masks my name with the IP editor's. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 17:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Right. Pinging 70.190.188.48 Dschslava ( talk) 18:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Right here. 70.190.188.48 ( talk) 22:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

So here's my proposition. @ Erik, 70.190.188.48, and Betty Logan: we'll take it to RSN which, while maybe unnecessary, is probably the best course of action, as it shall provide a definitive consensus for the locus of dispute. Dschslava ( talk) 22:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Fine by me. 70.190.188.48 ( talk) 23:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Okay. The additional sources from the article's talk page should be included with the ones already in use in the article. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 03:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ 70.190.188.48: you're fine with the sources mentioned? Dschslava ( talk) 07:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

If you mean I'm fine with those sources being reviewed as well, then yes 70.190.188.48 ( talk) 22:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC). reply

Hi Dschslava,

You reverted my edit to Investor-state dispute settlement. I had mentioned it before in the talk page, and waited for reactions, getting none. It would be nice if you would first discuss it there before clicking undo. Mateus Araújo ( talk) 19:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Tercer: I was on recent changes patrol when this came up. As such, I did not check the talk page before good-faith reverting. I'll begin the discussion on the talk page in a few hours. Dschslava ( talk) 20:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

No problem, thanks for chiming in. Mateus Araújo ( talk) 10:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I