User talk:Nachtsoldat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
- M:Foundation issues
- Wikipedia:Tutorial
- Wikipedia:Cleanup resources
- Wikipedia:Help desk
- Wikipedia:Five pillars
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
[edit] That userbox
Sure, go ahead. I got it off of Mistress Selina Kyle's userpage in the first place; I didn't make it. (I did modify it for the German one, though.) Rogue 9 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
One more thing. You're pretty new, so I don't know if you know about the userbox wars. Currently there's a bunch of admins going about deleting userboxes because having little boxes telling about yourself on your page is somehow divisive or some bullshit like that. Might want to save the code for the ones you're using somewhere so that you can just paste it onto your page in case some of yours get nailed. Rogue 9 18:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit new to this, so I'm not really sure how to save the code... I have heard about the userbox wars, though. And quite frankly, what the admins are doing (especially with regards to religious userboxes) is royally pissing me off. I've already had some troubles with an admin inserting POV bullshit into an article repeatedly, and as such I am starting to agree with your userbox on admins. It just seems like the entire selection of administrators is a bit... well, wrong. For instance, said admin's edits were not only POV, but they were also of astoundingly low quality. If you could give me any info on saving the code, though, that would really help.
Mister Mister 19:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I might be able to help you out with that article; there are some methods of negotiating that you just pick up over time. What article is this?
- As for saving the code, simply edit the template page and copy and paste the contents. For instance, {{User:UBX/separation}} recently got undeleted, and I have a feeling that it might be deleted again once one of the deletionist admins notices. Simply go to the template page of the template you want (do this by entering Template: followed by the name of the template you wish to save into the search bar) and copy the contents. Rogue 9 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, originally it was the Anti-Christian prejudice article, but I think that dispute is kind of over. However, it looks like there might be something going on in the Al Sharpton article with this one editor, MichaelK, and I'm thinking this might break out into a fight if he doesn't stop talking crap to me. A revert description of "Again, section on his bigotry is documented. Removing it just exposes the editor's bias against the truth" is one example. I'm not sure if I've done anything wrong in said article, but as far as I know all I've been doing is asking him for citations from some newspapers other than opinion/editorial articles and the National Review. He seems to just keep inserting things which are calling Al Sharpton racist against pretty much every group, as well as things that seem to suggest he instigated several murders. Not that I like Al Sharpton (he's kind of embarrassing and a loudmouth), and I'm not saying that we should use the NYT or the Washington Post for our sources and exclude anything that's remotely to the right of them, but it would be nice to get a balanced viewpoint. That's just how I feel, though. When we get a consensus from all sides that does validate these claims, then I'll say we should keep them in the article.
EDIT: Actually... I take that back. It looks like ALL of them are from opinion/editorial articles. What do you know?
Mister Mister 12:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Soda-0
Hi. I'm Jared. I was just looking at the soda-0 category and I saw your username there. Its so nice to know that there are other people out there who don't like soda. Haha. Well I thought I would just drop you a note and welcome you to Wikipedia, seeing how you are fairly new! Nice talking to you. --Jared [T]/[+] 20:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Crossing out flags
I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I do get annoyed by the people who trash the UN and EU, but isn't it a little high and mighty of you to say that one cannot cross out a picture of a flag on an internet encyclopedia? I'm just wondering, because that doesn't sound exactly rational to me. Just a thought, though.
Mister Mister 15:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am only asking for some respect, nothing more, nothing less.
- May I ask who the person is you write about on your user page? ROGNNTUDJUU! 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hey
I'm just saying hi out here! Nice page :-) hope to hear from you soon! --Shaunnol 08:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:NOMI2.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:NOMI2.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Stan 04:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee
Nachtsoldat, I can see from your userboxes that you love cats.
Would you be interested in joining the Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee?
If you want to join, you can add yourself to the members list and contact the committee founder, me, GeorgeMoney on my talk page.
Thank You. --GeorgeMoneyTalk Contribs 22:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your question on the Christianity and Freemasonry page
Yes, it is biased. Essentially if you try to give these sections a badly needed prune then they try to revert them back. The devil worship arguments are straw men, if these are disproven then other more substantive Christian objections can be ignored, but it is very hard for dedicated Masons to see that. In fairness it is very hard for any committed advocate to avoid the temptation to set up a few straw men against their position. JASpencer 17:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also to say, be very careful on those pages. JASpencer 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- As a counterpoint to JASpencer's statement... the devil worship stuff (while silly, and easy to disprove) is not at all a straw man. It is one of the most common accusations made against Freemasonry by fundamentalist Christian groups today (especially in the USA). Freemasons are CONSTANTLY asked about it. Thus, the prominence it has in the article, and the insistance that the counter argument be shown. Perhaps all this is because these alligations are relatively new, and have hit at a time when the internet makes them so easy to spread... while other objections, such as those raised in various Papal pronouncements and encyclicals tend to be relegated to the dusty shelves of history.
- As to bias ... if you ask a Mason, he would say it is biased towards the Anti-Masonic POV. In other words, both sides don't like the amount of coverage that is being given to the other's POV. This either means that the article is actually fairly balanced, or (and this is what I feel) it see-saws back and forth between POV extremes, and probably needs to be completely re-written. Blueboar 18:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: Keep up the good fight.
Thanks. Anyway, I think I'll ignore him on the talk page and just concentrate on the article instead. It's quite useless to try to talk to him. It only makes the blood boils and ruins an otherwise good day. And I'll be reducing my edit frequency on the page since I don't want to be caught violating the 3 reverts rule unnecessarily. Again, thanks for the msg. __earth (Talk) 11:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: Where are these so-called sources?
I don't know and he had never given one until today. But even those that he offered do not support his claim directly; for instance, he offered this as a source to his "Because the April 22 Earth Day was also a Vietnam War protest, and many of the protesters were aligned with North Vietnam and the Soviet Union, there are those who believe this date was chosen deliberately". The article doesn't say anything about Earth Day and I feel he is making his own conclusion and hence, WP:OR, which is part of WP:NOT. But it would be better if you ask him yourself. From a third person point of view, I answer would be biased against that user. __earth (Talk) 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- already talked to Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Personal_attack_and_prejudice but things are moving slow. __earth (Talk) 03:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Tomfox.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Tomfox.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scholarship VS Personal Politics.
I noticed today that the Earth Day entry is locked. The POV that attacked "rightists" is not in the locked version. Despite your attempts to censor facts that you dislike and project your own actions on me, your unsubstantiated POV concerning Lenin and socialist anti-war protesters are not included in the locked version. I find it interesting (though hardly surprising,) that because you could not refute my facts on the discussion page you chose to smear me on earth's page instead.
Your attempts to discredit me personally, rather than my edits, says all that needs to be said about your lack of integrity. Accusing someone of personal attacks in a transparent effort to have their edits removed is an unprincipled act. In your case it is also extremely hypocritical. The forcible suppression of opposition and criticism is the textbook definition of fascism. Incredibly, you accused me of these acts! You managed to practice hypocrisy on two separate levels. I would be impressed with your impertinence, if I weren't so repulsed.
Ideological partisans like you who cant keep their POV out of an entry are damaging the credibility of this site. Your actions on the Earth Day entry are inexcusable. Bargholz 23:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mommy, Mommy!
I see you're attacking me indirectly again. Instead of backing up the calumny you directed at me on the "Earth Day" page, you chose to suck up to earth on his lonely page. When I confronted you and your lack of honor here on your own page, you ran to him again.
You cant back up your own rhetoric because you know that I'm right. Try some honesty for a change. Opinions only trump facts in Leftist-land.
You can delete this comment if it threatens your sense of security. Uncle Adolph would heartily approve.
Because I'd just die if you accused me of deliberately failing to sign this comment, here's my signature: Bargholz 09:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
