User talk:Matthead/Archive2009 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matthead/Archive2009

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Matthead. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Matthead. Just to let you know, I have responded to your comment on the CFD nomination for categories for pre-Germany years. [1]. Terrakyte (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. This page has been nominated for deletion, please see WP:PROD and the page. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as there are many (compare Edward Miller) notable persons named Eduard Müller, I've made it a disambiguation after creating Eduard Müller (German politician). -- Matthead  Discuß   12:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation obviously. Your previous changes had created a double redirect.
I see you are having a discussion with User:Knepflerle regarding the title of the Karlštejn article, and have no inclination to get involved, but would agree that in whatever form it should include Castle. Please try to ensure that all disambiguation is done and there are no double redirects once a decision has been made. Regards. bigissue (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Knepflerle, you are using a name that suggests a South West German (or Alsatian, Swiss) background, how come the opinions you voice almost always seem to oppose anything remotely "Szwab"?"

The only evidence I can offer to the contrary is my edit record. I like to think that my voice supports the positions supported by English-language usage and our policies. Yes, I oppose German usage being touted as "English" when it is practically unseen in English texts - but only in the same way that I oppose any other language's usage being touted in the same way (e.g. Italian and archaic English being promoted as common current usage here) or archaic English usage being put forward as common current usage (for example). Indeed if every dispute is to be framed ethnically (which I loath) I have sometimes taken what might be characterised as the "German" position 1, 2,3, 4, 5 - but only because I believed the evidence and arguments are valid. I'd like to think that looking at my edits alone it would be very difficult to work out my background as ultimately it shouldn't influence how I interpret evidence and apply our policies. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hans Müller (pentathlete). Since you had some involvement with the Hans Müller (pentathlete) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). PamD (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also listed two other Hans Müller redirects. PamD (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy to withdraw the nominations, of course, now that there are stubs instead. Another time, though, please don't create redirects pointing to disambiguation pages as you did here - the red links have a value in themselves as showing that there's an article to be written, and the links pointing to the dab page didn't serve any useful purpose! Cheers, PamD (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Peter Sutcliffe (race driver) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Günter Klass at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chamal ^talk 13:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Günter Klass, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky 23:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Great start! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eduard Müller (German politician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On 19 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Potosi (ship), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Sutcliffe (race driver), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The move function has resulted in a number of redirects not working as redirects; I have fixed them. As to whether the move should or should not have been made, I'm agnostic - but having a broken redirect at that place was not really an option. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The categories are still under discussion, and should only be removed if they are deleted. Regards, GiantSnowman 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

They are not appropriate as a state or citizenship of "West Germany" never existed. Thus the categories have to be deleted. Neither Wikipedia nor Wikipedians can invent states in hindsight.-- Matthead  Discuß   23:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please wait until the categories are deleted before removing them from player's articles. I have started a discussion at WP:FOOTBALL. Regards, GiantSnowman 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think the way we treat and categorize West Germany is wrong, propose a new approach at the Village pump. Try to convince people and come to a consensus. But do not go on a mass blanking spree. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only agree with what other editors have posted here. I've reverted a bunch of your category blankings. This is not an appropriate way to address your issues with the categories or the articles that use "West Germany" or "West German". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys should get familiar with Wikipedia:Five pillars: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed". -- Matthead  Discuß   00:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with complete blankings of categories. The correct procedure in cases where you disagree with a category's name or its existence to is to make a proposal at WP:CFD—not to manually empty the category and then blank it. As long as we're mentioning WP policies and guidelines, though, you might want to refer to WP:POINT. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do need to tell you—if you keep this up, you will be blocked because it's disruptive. You've continued to blank categories after you've been asked a number of times to stop. This will be the last time you are asked to stop before you are blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive was the person who introduced and applied the categories in the first place, violating Wikipedia:Verifiability. This whole "West Germany was not Germany, no Germany existed between 1949 and 1990" business should be treated according to Wikipedia:Fringe theories, no matter how many underinformed and overopiniated editors (incl. admins) support it. Thank you for making threats without having an idea about the content concerned. -- Matthead  Discuß  

As mentioned to you a number of times, our and my concern here is not content-related. What is of concern is your insistence on imposing your own views without gaining a consensus to do so and attempting to neuter populated categories without using the proper procedures for proposing deletion or renaming. I couldn't care less about the naming issue itself; I'll leave that to you and others to debate. (You can interpret the above as a "threat" if you like, but I thought you would appreciate a forewarning rather than just being allowed to continue on and then discovering that you had been blocked for disruption.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours as a result of your disruptive edits, which include your use of profanity and your unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and bad faith in other users at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_4#West_German_footballers. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that personal attacks and further disruption will not be tolerated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Matthead,

Is is too bad, but I can understand your staying away and your disgust with the B.S. at Wikipedia.

You are one of the few with knowledge and common sense, sadly lacking with most at Wikipedia.

Good Olfactory states on 9 Feb: As mentioned to you a number of times, our and my concern here is not content-related. What is of concern is your insistence on imposing your own views without gaining a consensus to do so and attempting to neuter populated categories without using the proper procedures for proposing deletion or renaming. I couldn't care less about the naming issue itself;

It is unfortunate, that Wikipedia is ruled by people, who could'nt care less about content and want to dictate and enforce incorrect names of countries, people, places, even food. They are thereby chasing people, who care about correct information, away. Observing (70.133.65.117 (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Great to hear that I "rule Wikipedia"! Seriously, anyone is welcome to participate at WP—you just have to learn to play well with others. I haven't been "dictat[ing] or enforc[ing]" anything, except common courtesy. I can't understand why that would be a problem for other editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That refers much more to a large number of people besides you, and refers to a great many Wikipedia articles and topics, like countries, people, places and even food like Makowki (normal English letters won't even work at the English?Wikipedia, it has to be Makówki).

While we're at it Matthead was completely right, there is or was no such country as West Germany, but rather the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (translation: Federal Republic of Germany) and the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (translation: German Democratic Republic) West Germany, East Germany are nothing but nick names. I hope that you do take a bit more care about correct information from now on. Otherwise the last few, who do care will all be gone and only the ones, who do not care at all, will be left at Wikipedia. Have a nice day (70.133.65.117 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

You are apparently labouring under the same misconception that Matthead was. My involvement was nothing to do with the naming dispute—it was trying to get Matthead to respect other users and to not enforce his views without consensus. That's how WP works. If you don't agree with this approach, you'll find yourself a bit out of place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion here then. Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw this flash by on my watchlist and wanted to let you know, it's not vandalism. Please don't call good faith edits vandalism. Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernhard Fisch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Chamal ^talk 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I find your bad faith towards Radek highly unjustified and offensive; particularly in light of your previous warnings and blocks for similar behavior. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Matthead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthead, please comment on the proposal I made in that thread. Thanks,  Sandstein  23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is to notify you that as a result of that discussion, I am sanctioning you as detailed here.  Sandstein  17:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You're asking for MY reasoning? You're the one who made the unilateral and undiscussed change against all policy and practice of the DOY pages: the burden of convincing others to accept changes is upon you, I'm afraid, not for others to accept sudden unilateral declarations unconditionally. Nationality has always been a part of the individual entries, and you've given no good reason--no fact-based reason, at least--other than personal timidity. If you'd prefer not to make decisions, perhaps you can leave it to others to do so. Thank you. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I, of course, only have your word that you're in Germany, and even if you were, there are technical ways to re-route traffic. So no, I don't think I shall revert anything of mine. It's too bad--for you--that your past behaviour has left you unable to do so but a good thing for the rest of us. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference was attached to a sentence which is against NPOV policy. Removing this sentence entails reference uselessnes. Kind Regards, Mikołka (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Could you explain me why part of the article must be repeated in the reference list? Referenced text by Marsha L. Rozenblit relates to political activity of Jews in the "Habsburg Austria during World War I", not to Helene Deutchs directly. It has nothing to do with Deutsch's education, so maybe it should be a separate reference? Could you check and remake it since you have already reverted my correction?

2. Saying about "anti-Semitism of Poland" or "anti-Semitism of Polish nation" is untrue. You can't just accuse all Poles of anti-Semitism. Knowing the history you can't make such conclusion. Objectively, you can only say there were anti-Semitic events involving SOME Poles during the World War I and give examples. Kind Regards, Mikołka (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1. It's a good thing to provide a convenience weblink to a source, so anyone can look it up. In case it goes offline, for example when Google Books chooses not to show this snippet view anymore, its helpful when the relevant sentences were copied to the reference. Rozenblit wrote about Deutsch, her education and views, it does not matter how the book is titled. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing_sources.

2. I do not "accuse all Poles of anti-Semitism", but you have to accept the fact that Wikipedia:Reliable sources do write about Polish anti-Semitism, and Wikipedia does reflect their views according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- Matthead  Discuß   05:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at File:Historicalgermanophone.png at commons. Thanks :) -- PhJ (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the <ref> tags. I've changed it back. I'll try to be more careful in future. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=293531015&oldid=293513678.

I was concerned by your comment earlier today on AE (and surprised, as I've had little involvement in this subject area). Before I take time to look into what you said, are you quite sure you don't want to withdraw any aspect of what you said? I would be quite disappointed if I discovered that your comment was simply discrediting your fellow editors without cause.

Respectfully,

AGK 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting (trying to correct) the Polish propaganda attempts at the article on Dr. Johann Dzierzon. The anachronism would have apalled Dzierzon in his lifetime. There are lots of Polish anti-German POVs and historical falsification to be found and to be seen having been accepted at the English-language wikipedia. Even in the German wikipedia. It seems a mix of ignorance (about Central European history, especially among Anglo-Saxons) and political correctness (negatively portraying Germans is politically correct even now). I am Dutch by the way, not Deutsch. And Destalinization in 1958 had not been achieved as well and as entirely in Poland as in the Soviet Union of Chrushev, even though Poland was even quite economically liberal under Bierut.Smith2006 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As you presumably know Copernicus was Polish astronomer born in Royal Prussia, part of Crown of the Polish Kingdom, so its not true calling him Prussian astronomer. In Walhalla are busts of many Germanic people who werent even Germanic, and werent born in Germanic states (Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly – Russian Field Marshal had Scottish so Celtic descent, Joseph Radetzky von Radetz had Czech descent, etc. Mathiasrex (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your description of this category is misleading. Polish national hero General Jan Henryk Dąbrowski was Saxon (sächsisch) officer and he spoke better in German than in Polish ... Mathiasrex (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Anthony Beltoise. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. I'll delete all unsourced statements.-- Matthead  Discuß   22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the caption of a poster you have uploaded at Talk:Polish_Corridor#Polish_organization_poster. Since you as the uploader probably know more about it, your comments are appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On July 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matthias Bernegger, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 (c|s) 08:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On July 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mercedes-Benz W25, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject DYK 11:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An RfC has opened about this issue at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've left a response to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 04:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you comment on this?  Sandstein  06:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for an apology as per[[2]]--Jacurek (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Novickas (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering how sure you are that the above image is of von Brauchitsch. I've looked at it pretty hard, and beyond spotting it's a Mercedes I'm still unsure of the number (could be Caracciola or Lang as well). Can you see something I can't to put it beyond dispute? Thanks, Apterygial 10:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the driver is not wearing a white cap, thus it must be v. Brauchitsch with his trademark red cap.-- Matthead  Discuß   01:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for the English Wikipedia [3]! (Especially not to source the fact that some names are spelled in German). This is the second time you've done this in the past few days. You've been on Wikipedia since at least Jan 2007 - you know this is not how Wikipedia works. I've already asked you about it once - so you know that now you're just being disruptive. You're already on restriction. Please self revert.radek (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

oh dear, yea, thanks for reminding me. --Farras^{La Poste} 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.-- Matthead  Discuß   21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Per your accepted request, I have added rollback rights to your account. Ensure you only use rollback correctly, ie its intended usage of reverting vandalism only. For information on rollback see: Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback in the future, just let me or any admin know. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.-- Matthead  Discuß   21:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What did you mean when you said "we'd better delete that"? Chrisrus (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Stating that Whales are among the most popular animals, with millions of fans and supporters worldwide. is not quite encyclopedic. Many people have cats and dogs or other pets, or feed wild birds in winter, but I doubt anybody keeps an Orca in his backyard pool, or operates a whale feeding station. Even dinosaurs, even though extinct, still have many fans. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:06,

24 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that the statement is "not quite encyclopedic", but the facts that "people have pets" and that "people feed birds" do not argue against it. Instead, these facts show that the statements "many people like dogs", "many people like cats", and "many people like birds"; that those three statements are also true, which has no bearing on whether "many people like whales" is also true or not. More than one kind of animal is among the most popular.

While, for obvious reasons, nobody keeps orcas as pets, you can be sure that millions of people wish they could. After all, they pay untold millions of dollars for tickets to see them; orcas are one of the biggest draws for aquariums worldwide.

You're absolutely right, operating whale feeding stations is not a popular passtime. It is, however, a brilliant business idea, if you could pull it off somehow. People would line up for tickets, for sure, just look at the popularity of whale watching tours. And you are absolutely right to compare their popularity with that of dinosaurs, they're probably even more popular than whales. Awesomeness impresses humans. But all of that only supports the statement "dinosaurs are also among the most popular animals." It says nothing about what is wrong with the statement "whales are among the most popular animals, too".

So what you've done here is argued against the statement "whales are THE most popular of all animals" or "Whales are more popular than any other animal ever." You've thoroughly defeated THAT statement, because you've pointed out that there are other animals that are very likely even more popular, or at least as popular, as whales.

Unfortunately, you blew it. You were supposed to have argued against the statement "whales are AMOUNG the most popular animals." You must have some other reason for being against that statement, but until now, I still don't know what that is and would very much like to. So I invite you if you could to explain to me what there is about that statement that seems to rub you the wrong way. Chrisrus (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're funny. Chrisrus (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice this before, but I just realized that you are restricted to 1RR on Eastern Europe topics, per this. On West Germany you reverted twice, [4][5]

Because I don't know the exact terms of enforcement for this restriction, I have notified User:Sandstein (the user who placed the restriction) so he can verify whether or not the block length is appropriate. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matthead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

West Germany "related to Eastern Europe"? On what map? Did Continental drift speed up recently? I am German, and I get wikistalked by a Polish user:Jacurek even at articles on my home country, in an attempt to bait me into violating said 1RR restriction "related to Eastern Europe" which Sandstein has applied on me (and on Radeksz with respect to any edits by me). Rjanag, at your own talk, in User_talk:Rjanag#Jacurek_at_West_Germany, I had pointed out Jacurek's conduct, and that I consider it an attempt to provoke me. Just like you self-reverted your error at Elisabeth Hevelius, you could have retracted this embarrassing block yourself, stating a misunderstanding on your behalf. And next time, please ask another admin for a review before you spill administrative beans that leave permanent stains.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; unblock requests that accuse others are not considered, see WP:NOTTHEM. In my opinion as the sanctioning admin, the edits to West Germany did not relate to Eastern Europe and thus did not violate the revert restriction. A shorter block might be warranted for edit warring as such, jointly with the new Flroian River (talk · contribs); but in this case, the other edit warriors on West Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ought also to be sanctioned.  Sandstein  05:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You WERE edit warring, at best, and there was no concensus reached to remove the infobox, and YOU had the power to discuss the right move with the other party, and so yes, your disruptive edits DO warrant a block. Also, I wouldn't accuse other editors of Wikistalking unless you have solid evidence to back up YOUR claims.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 04:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have edited and discussed the article about West Germany many times in the last two years or so, and I have reverted twice, when once again an exceptional claim was made, without any source, comparable to adding a tombstone on the article of a living person. This country is my home land, mind you, and I know very well that it did not cease to exist in 1990, and that it never was part of Eastern Europe, no matter how broadly that may be defined. I am not restricted to 1RR in that article. When you, having never edited nor discussed the article before, showed up to revert at it, it was me who at your very own talk page inquired about your rationale, as you did not discuss on article talk, and gave no explanation in the edit summary. You did not to answer, but you showed up here to attack me, kicking while down. So much about your way of discussing the right move with the other party and reaching consensus. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Europe or not, West Germany HAS in fact ceased to exist as an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED country. The Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989 and Germany eventually reunited. The inlcusion of the table WOULDN'T be compared to "adding a tombstone on the article of a living person" if the area of Germany was once independant on its own in the past.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Essentially per Sky Attacker: so maybe Jacurek was trying to "bait" you, but you're the one who let him get a rise out of you. In the end, you're only responsible for your own actions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And you, Rjanag, are responsible for still not lifting this block despite you by now must have learned from Sandstein that "the edits to West Germany did not relate to Eastern Europe and thus did not violate the revert restriction" as "West Germany is indeed not understood to be in Eastern Europe". You have committed an error in blocking me for "violation of 1RR sanction http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=288301554&oldid=288296827#Matthead ". You still have the chance of rectifying this by unblocking me with the statement that it was you who made an error, not me. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

While this may support your claim that you haven't actually violated a ban on Eastern Europe, Rjanag's block was still appropiate as a result of YOUR failure to reach a concencus to remove the table BEFORE acting. Although, I think your block was also influenced by your other actions. Jacurek may have been baiting you (although it would be safe to WP:AGF and assume that it was not the case) but as an editor you have the power to "Not feed the trolls" (that is, only, if we assume Jacurek was a troll at all. If you are being Wikistalked, the best thing to do is not take the bait. This is not to say that I am endorsing Jacurek's actions either, but YOUR edits are the only ones that can get you blocked, not the edits of others.

Look on the bright side. Your block is only for 72 hours, you'll be back editing in no time at all. and if Jacurek troubles you again, remember that you don't have to in Rjanag's words "Let him get a rise out of you". If you don't want him to "Wikistalking" you, (if that is what you feel he is doing), try not responding to him, and maybe he'll leave you alone. If he doesn't leave you alone, well, I guess that's up for the admins to decide. Anyways, the "permanent stain" as you call it shouldn't really be all bad. Heck, once the block has expired, you will be able to edit again, all can be shelved and we just move on from there.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 06:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=To follow proper procedure, according to Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Give_a_good_reason_for_your_unblock, 3. State what is wrong about your block, I'm stating that this block was issued wrongly. Rjanag's block notice says "with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (violation of 1RR sanction)", pointing out above that I reverted twice on West Germany. Said sanction issued by Sandstein says "observe the WP:1RR rule with respect to all other editors in all pages related to Eastern Europe for six months". Rjanag had also notified Sandstein asking for verification, and Sandstein has confirmed my notion that "edits to West Germany did not relate to Eastern Europe and thus did not violate the revert restriction". Rjanag has made an error in assuming West Germany would be part of Eastern Europe and/or the sanction, so this block with an unfounded rationale is thus unwarranted and needs to be lifted.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): As per Sandstein's procedural decline above, the block was based on a mistaken assumption about the nature of the revert limitation. Moreover, judging the situation fairly and without the misinformation about 1RR, other participants, especially Jacurek, would have had deserved a block more; this makes this block objectively inappropriate. Given the fact that the false claim of 1RR was made by an opponent in the revert war, who was evidently hounding Matthead and wanted to get him blocked, and who is part of the infamous EE Mailing List cabal, we must avoid anything that could be interpreted as rewarding such wiki-hounding behaviour. – Finally, the article is now protected, so there is no immediate danger of further revert warring. Request handled by: Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Germany is related to Eastern Europe since was divided into EAST and WEST for over 4 decades and half of Germany was a member of the Eastern Bloc of Eastern and Central Europe. P.S. To be clear, I'm not asking you to change your decision by saying this, honestly I don't care. I'm just pointing out that you made a mistake saying that Germany is not related to E.E.--Jacurek (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthead. Thank you.  Sandstein  22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As a quick aside, I don't have "foes" or enemies on wikipedia. It's all good. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I requested a move again after seeing that 28 articles link to Szezzcein Lagoon and 244 link to Oder Lagoon. Could you come vote and tell others about this? Also I shall be editing alot more on here. -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Szczecin_Lagoon#Requested_move_2. Also, I'm curious about the percentage of English speakers who can properly spell this alleged English name.-- Matthead  Discuß   16:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that the number of native English speakers who can pronounce the word Szczecin is very limited!Varsovian (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about Molobo. For some reason the fact he was under an edit restriction just completely slipped my mind so I completely misinterpreted his request. Sorted now. Manning (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - and one of the (too) few who rectify their errors. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You challenged people to file an SPI, so here it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How come you answer challenges made to others? -- Matthead  Discuß   15:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthead, I have left a message for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination). Please consider striking comments as they are a little unhelpful. It's best to discuss on the merits of why it should be deleted, let's not allow the AfD slide into a sideshow on editorial semantics, and unfortunately I believe the comments as you wrote them may open the door to that. Regards, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Toruń at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated the article refs and answered at Talk on the same day. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC, and discussed Rjanag's conduct at the prior RfA.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Toruń, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Matthead, there's been some incivility on your part in some of your recent comments and edit summaries: e.g., [6], [7], [8]. Please try to be kind to other users. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Back in July of this year you wrote in the talk page of the above article that claims re the idea of delta wings having been first proposed in the 18th century by a Polish engineer(?) are incorrect. If this is correct, why not remove the incorrect information there in the interests of WP accuracy? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I pointed out the issue to others on talk, rather than engage in edit-warring, especially since I was followed around by Polish editors. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list and many other similar cases. Another example: a citizen of 19th century Lemberg in the Austrian Empire (today Lviv in Ukraine) used kerosene in an oil lamp, and the categories "Polish invention" and "Science and technology in Poland" were added to the article on these kind of lamps. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 30. Unterseebootsflottille, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help w/the discussion here?--68.173.96.196 (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that they won't wait more than the one day remaining on the AfD ... unless there is a keep consensus, or no consensus among those who vote. If what you are suggesting is that the article be kept for the moment (I'm not sure if that is the case), you might so indicate..--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I not sure whether the person is notable, but the alleged fraud seems to be. And even if the bio article is deleted, an article on the case can be created from scratch, covering also the person. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. But -- isn't the alleged perpetrator of every notable act, themselves notable? For example, Nidal Malik Hasan is only notable because of his notable act of shooting people at Fort Hood.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Thanks very much for your articles for DYK Matthead. We can do with your eclectic articles, we still have some missing articles as you've spotted. Thanks from me and the wiki... oh! and seasons greetings .... many happy returns to DYK in 2010 Victuallers (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)