Hi. I am working on the following page: /info/en/?search=Draft:GNP_Energy, and you rejected it due to notability. I have used this as a template: /info/en/?search=Fjordkraft, and I firmly believe that my article meets the same standards. Could you perhaps help me determine how to increase its notability and improve the content? All sources should be impartial and trustworthy. Have a nice day! peterkragh ( talk) 11:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Albert Speer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have been repeatedly warned that this source is unreliable because the author claims to be able to read minds.
Hi, I wanted to check with you and see if the edits I've made to the draft address your concerns about notability. I've added several extensive sections on the history of the organization, their sales and growth, as well as their design process and outreach events. I've drawn on several newspapers, interviews, magazines, and other sources. I would greatly appreciate your guidance in continuing to develop this draft and prepare it for publication on Wikipedia. Potatowrite ( talk) 19:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI, someone on Reddit Wikipedia is accusing you of being pro-Nazi for “attacking opponents of Hitler” (read: removing Clean Wermarcht nonsense front Wikipedia). Whoever posted this went to a lot of effort to twist your actions and make you look despicable. I debated whether it was worth bringing this to your attention, but the post has hundreds of upvotes and looks like it could spread. (If you’re already aware of this, then my apologies for bringing it up on your talk page). Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 09:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
My grandfather served in the United States Army during WWII, and I’m sure he would have been absolutely fascinated to learn about all the “opponents of Hitler” he fought during the war. Sarcasm aside, thanks a lot for your efforts to clean up bad history and pro-Nazi nonsense. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, and I’m glad you’re not fazed by these attacks. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman, Would you be able to offer your expertise reviewing an article that was deleted due to notability issues.The deleted article /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NetBase_Solutions was moved to my talk page and I have subsequently started to update it here: /info/en/?search=User:ScottHin45/NetBase_Solutions. I know you were someone who originally flagged this for deletion, so thought you'd be a good person to talk with. Thanks! -- ScottHin45 ( talk) 21:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
K.e. - I circled back to do some work on this article, after re-adding it to my watchlist. I have added some detail and RS citing and looking at the talk page, back in December 2015, you brought up a discussion about his service time in the USSR. If you still have the Smelser and Davies book (and have the time), can you fill that in. It sounds as if he was training Bandenbekämpfung units. Cheers, Kierzek ( talk) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Take a look at User:Icewhiz/sandbox#EHESS. I'm mulling writing this up - it definitely passes notability, though I might wait for more sources (they seem to be coming out quite a bit this month - and seeing the authors - probably will be in journals as well). The problem at this point is that while there are sources in English - sourcing in French is more copious (there's also an excellent recent piece in German in Neue Zürcher Zeitung)- and I'd prefer to do this only off of English. What do you think? Icewhiz ( talk) 08:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. May you please send User:K.e.coffman/Dimitris Vardoulakis to a second AfD? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 07:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at [2]. Discussion split at Talk:Rota (poem) and Talk:Anti-German sentiment. I do wonder if an attempt to portray a anti- Germanization symbol as anti-German is 'distortionist'. Some neutral mediation might be needed here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"Rota also... It was written in the ninteenth century to mobilize the nation against the Prussian oppressors. Now, despite its "anacrhonism" and nationalistic overtones, the communist activists found that the talk about "the Germans" who "shall not spit in our face" had useful contemporary relevance - its mandatory singing became part of the morning and evening "apel" starting May 30, 1943. As with the anti-German rhetoric in Pravda, the demonization of the Germans helped generate hatred and a fighting spirit.[1]
"one of the best known patriotic, and anti-German, poems (and songs) in the Polish heritage.... Even though used by Communist government to keep up anti-German sentiments in Poland, the song was also sung in Polish churches" .... The first line of one of the stanzs of Rota is: "Nie bedzi Niemiec plul nam w twarz" ("The German will not spit in our face").[2]
"Anti-German feeling manifested itself on the popular level by the singing of "Rota", a song of anti-German defiance dating from turn-of-the-century Prussian Poland that includes the line "The Germans will not spit in our faces any more"; it was so frequently in the 1930s that is acquired for some the status of a second national anthem. Anti-German feeling also continued to find exprression in acts of violence against the minority and its property.. [3]
References
"W uzasadnieniu Niemcy twierdzili, że Rota obraża ich uczucia narodowe i wznieca nienawiść. Nieprzypadkowo pieśń ta — dodawano w innych kręgach — jest urzędowo zakazana w Czechosłowacji"(google translate: "In the justification, the Germans claimed that Rota offends their national feelings and incites hatred. It is not a coincidence that this song - it was added in other circles - is officially banned in Czechoslovakia"). The mixed commission determined that:
"Nie da się [...] pogodzić z duchem K onw encji Genew skiej, jeżeli w szkołach Górnego Śląska zarządza się lub toleruje śpiew anie pieśni w yrażających uczucie zem sty, nienaw iści lub pogardy dla narodowości jednej z obu części, ludności."(google translate: "It is impossible [...] to reconcile with the spirit of the Geneva Institute, if Upper Silesian schools teach or tolerate singing songs that express feelings of evil, hate or contempt for the nationality of one of the two parts, the population"). The Silesian voivode - Michał Grażyński (whom Romanowski says is known for other anti-German incidents) - rejected the ruling by Calonder. Besides being rather self-evident from the lyrics themselves - the inciteful nature of this anti-German song is well attested. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
... for improving articles in April! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Albert Speer has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
I have left a note on the FAR page as requested by @ Szzuk:.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 13:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
For de-mythologising Albert Speer. Szzuk ( talk) 18:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
Hi. I am working on the following page: /info/en/?search=Draft:GNP_Energy, and you rejected it due to notability. I have used this as a template: /info/en/?search=Fjordkraft, and I firmly believe that my article meets the same standards. Could you perhaps help me determine how to increase its notability and improve the content? All sources should be impartial and trustworthy. Have a nice day! peterkragh ( talk) 11:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Albert Speer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have been repeatedly warned that this source is unreliable because the author claims to be able to read minds.
Hi, I wanted to check with you and see if the edits I've made to the draft address your concerns about notability. I've added several extensive sections on the history of the organization, their sales and growth, as well as their design process and outreach events. I've drawn on several newspapers, interviews, magazines, and other sources. I would greatly appreciate your guidance in continuing to develop this draft and prepare it for publication on Wikipedia. Potatowrite ( talk) 19:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI, someone on Reddit Wikipedia is accusing you of being pro-Nazi for “attacking opponents of Hitler” (read: removing Clean Wermarcht nonsense front Wikipedia). Whoever posted this went to a lot of effort to twist your actions and make you look despicable. I debated whether it was worth bringing this to your attention, but the post has hundreds of upvotes and looks like it could spread. (If you’re already aware of this, then my apologies for bringing it up on your talk page). Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 09:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
My grandfather served in the United States Army during WWII, and I’m sure he would have been absolutely fascinated to learn about all the “opponents of Hitler” he fought during the war. Sarcasm aside, thanks a lot for your efforts to clean up bad history and pro-Nazi nonsense. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, and I’m glad you’re not fazed by these attacks. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman, Would you be able to offer your expertise reviewing an article that was deleted due to notability issues.The deleted article /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NetBase_Solutions was moved to my talk page and I have subsequently started to update it here: /info/en/?search=User:ScottHin45/NetBase_Solutions. I know you were someone who originally flagged this for deletion, so thought you'd be a good person to talk with. Thanks! -- ScottHin45 ( talk) 21:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
K.e. - I circled back to do some work on this article, after re-adding it to my watchlist. I have added some detail and RS citing and looking at the talk page, back in December 2015, you brought up a discussion about his service time in the USSR. If you still have the Smelser and Davies book (and have the time), can you fill that in. It sounds as if he was training Bandenbekämpfung units. Cheers, Kierzek ( talk) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Take a look at User:Icewhiz/sandbox#EHESS. I'm mulling writing this up - it definitely passes notability, though I might wait for more sources (they seem to be coming out quite a bit this month - and seeing the authors - probably will be in journals as well). The problem at this point is that while there are sources in English - sourcing in French is more copious (there's also an excellent recent piece in German in Neue Zürcher Zeitung)- and I'd prefer to do this only off of English. What do you think? Icewhiz ( talk) 08:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. May you please send User:K.e.coffman/Dimitris Vardoulakis to a second AfD? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 07:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at [2]. Discussion split at Talk:Rota (poem) and Talk:Anti-German sentiment. I do wonder if an attempt to portray a anti- Germanization symbol as anti-German is 'distortionist'. Some neutral mediation might be needed here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"Rota also... It was written in the ninteenth century to mobilize the nation against the Prussian oppressors. Now, despite its "anacrhonism" and nationalistic overtones, the communist activists found that the talk about "the Germans" who "shall not spit in our face" had useful contemporary relevance - its mandatory singing became part of the morning and evening "apel" starting May 30, 1943. As with the anti-German rhetoric in Pravda, the demonization of the Germans helped generate hatred and a fighting spirit.[1]
"one of the best known patriotic, and anti-German, poems (and songs) in the Polish heritage.... Even though used by Communist government to keep up anti-German sentiments in Poland, the song was also sung in Polish churches" .... The first line of one of the stanzs of Rota is: "Nie bedzi Niemiec plul nam w twarz" ("The German will not spit in our face").[2]
"Anti-German feeling manifested itself on the popular level by the singing of "Rota", a song of anti-German defiance dating from turn-of-the-century Prussian Poland that includes the line "The Germans will not spit in our faces any more"; it was so frequently in the 1930s that is acquired for some the status of a second national anthem. Anti-German feeling also continued to find exprression in acts of violence against the minority and its property.. [3]
References
"W uzasadnieniu Niemcy twierdzili, że Rota obraża ich uczucia narodowe i wznieca nienawiść. Nieprzypadkowo pieśń ta — dodawano w innych kręgach — jest urzędowo zakazana w Czechosłowacji"(google translate: "In the justification, the Germans claimed that Rota offends their national feelings and incites hatred. It is not a coincidence that this song - it was added in other circles - is officially banned in Czechoslovakia"). The mixed commission determined that:
"Nie da się [...] pogodzić z duchem K onw encji Genew skiej, jeżeli w szkołach Górnego Śląska zarządza się lub toleruje śpiew anie pieśni w yrażających uczucie zem sty, nienaw iści lub pogardy dla narodowości jednej z obu części, ludności."(google translate: "It is impossible [...] to reconcile with the spirit of the Geneva Institute, if Upper Silesian schools teach or tolerate singing songs that express feelings of evil, hate or contempt for the nationality of one of the two parts, the population"). The Silesian voivode - Michał Grażyński (whom Romanowski says is known for other anti-German incidents) - rejected the ruling by Calonder. Besides being rather self-evident from the lyrics themselves - the inciteful nature of this anti-German song is well attested. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
... for improving articles in April! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Albert Speer has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
I have left a note on the FAR page as requested by @ Szzuk:.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 13:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
For de-mythologising Albert Speer. Szzuk ( talk) 18:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |