User talk:Lothar von Richthofen/Archive1

9 Feb 2010

hallo.
Ich sehe, Sie kaempfen auch mit diesen pathologischen [Schiller, Goetz von Berlichingen) Kleingeistern wie trekphiler und Konsorten um Ihre Eintraege. Ich selber habe aus diesem Grunde auch meine Taetigkeit hier komplett eingestellt und zurueckgerollt.
Sollten Sie tatsaechlich (wie ich) hier mit Klarnamen arbeiten: ich war letztes Jahr einige Tage in Schweidnitz mit meiner Mutter, die dort in den 1950ern noch in der Friedenskirche konformiert worden ist. Das hat mich aus verschiedenen Gruenden sehr beruehrt, und seitdem habe ich einige Tonnen an Karten, Zeitzeugenberichten etc. zur Stadtgeschichte Schweidnitzs im Internet gefunden. Sollten Sie interessiert sein, schreiben Sie mir doch unter hans@achimkoerver.de, und ich kann Ihnen einige Links und/oder gleich das umfangreiche Material auf DVD zukommen lassen.
Ich beschaeftige mich stark mit der wilhelminischen Epoche und bin immer am Informationsaustausch mit Un-Deutschnationalen und Un-Fluechtlings-Funktionaeren zu diesem Thema interessiert.
MfG
Achim Koerver

Debate about Red Baron's funeral on Missing man formation

Someone who apparently imagines that Von Richthofen is a figure from the SECOND world war is madly reverting over a silly idea that funeral flyovers originated from his funeral. His source indicates that it is a supposition, but he insists is "useful" and "accurate". Anyway, I would appreciate your having a look at this as we need to get a consensus.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"However" Manfred von Richthofen

I'm certainly not going to get into a revert war over this but did you read the whole paragraph? "However" is not only appropriate but its absence doesn't ring TRUE, somehow - what the text is trying to make clear is that he wasn't an exceptional pilot HOWEVER he was a superb shot. Somehow "He wasn't a great pilot; he was a good shot", while technically it carries the same meaning just looks strange - I mean why mention these two things together? - oh yes, they were contradictory aspects of the the abilities that made him a top ace. Stick a "however" or "but" in there and its just that little bit clearer though, isn't it? I suspect the editor who did the original "cut" didn't even read the paragraph as a whole - he probably has "however" on his list of frequently redundantly applied words and is mechanically going through as many articles as possible wiping all the "howevers" he can find, just in case they are redundant.

You might like to change it back yourself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All Right

All Right I'll try, thanks by reply. Knuckles The Echidna (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalise on Stephen Graham ???

What? Vandalise? ARE YOU KIDDIN' ME? I edited Graham's page (removed n. 23 as his jersey number) simply because Graham COULD NOT WEAR n. 23 with the Nets, as this number has been retired by Nets, honoring John Williamson. You'd better be informed about things before attacking me. Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.199.51 (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I accept you apologies man. I hate people who vandalise and I'm trying (as far as I can do) to add missing data and correct errors when I find ones. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.199.51 (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Correcting spelling of "Richthofen" on discussion page

We don't generally go editing other people's posts on discussion pages (there are LOTS of reasons for this!!) - even their spelling mistakes can be revealing, and are really best left as is. I nearly went back and reverted all your recent edits in fact - decided life was too short and that I had better things to do. Having said that that we had one brilliant genius who mauled this very page so thoroughly I HAD to revert him... just that a well meaning but careless or ignorant spelling mistake or two is a natural part of discussion pages! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry - I was just having a little stir (lol) - although it IS best to leave the ignorant idiots' stupid spelling just as it is (another case altogether in an article, as opposed to a discussion page, of course!). Having said that, I think I might have misspelled "Richthofen" myself on occasion. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

JACK OFF DUMMAY!!!

stop lying to yourself wikipedia has always been and always will be a WARZONE a war between vandals antivandal wikipedians and edit warmen with REAL wikipedians as overseers

if you keep insisting that it is not then i have to sincerely ask you to : JACK OFF DUMMAY!!!

also dont mess with my talk page i have been unjustly put in jail for a warcrime i didnt commit and the last thing i want is the record of it hanging around as proof TraviaNightmare (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

LG GS500v

Hi, I've removed your A1 tag of LG GS500v because context has since been added. When tagging pages for speedy deletion, I strongly recommend that you wait longer than a minute to slap a tag on it to give the author time to develop the page (I'd wait a minimum of 10 minutes usually). Of course, exceptions include blatant vandalism, etc. I also recommend reading WP:WIHS. Thanks for new page patrolling, though! There aren't enough people doing this, IMHO. Happy editing, Airplaneman ✈ 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

King Conquer

Hello, again. I don't really know how to do any of that citations stuff, honestly. So, I'm asking for your help so the page isn't deleted. Thanks. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikwnilsson (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes. Would you mind having a look? I would like to know what you think. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikwnilsson (talk • contribs) 22:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (Ludwik Kowalski)

Thank you for removing the quotes in the URL for Ludwik Kowalski. Whenever I create a new entry, those quotation marks stick. I don't know how to turn them off. --Aboudaqn (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The role of panslav factor in ww1

Panslavism

Read: Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.153 (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The most important nationalism in the topic is the panslavism. Panslavism had the direct interest to ruin the status quo of Europe. But it is not mentioned in this article. The enter of Russia against Austria-Hungary in the war,(due to panslavic-ideology) escalated the local war into a real world war.

The world's first race-based identity and ideology was the panslavism. Slavic nations believed that they are descendants of common forefathers, they believed that they are "racialy clear". Thus the race-based identities and societies were exclusionary. See: Genocides Ethnic cleanisings and forced deportations against Hungarian and German speaking populations after ww1 and ww2. However the romantic naive panslav beliefs and myths collapsed in scientific levels (remember : population genetics of 1990s and 2000s). However these false nationalist beliefs survived amongst the lesser educated common people of slavic countries until this day.

The Black Hand society was a state-supported terror organization of the Serbian government. Panslavism and slavic nationalism had a key-role in the extension of a local conflict to a real World War. The supporter of panslavism, Tzar of Russia Nicholas II would had been the first Hitler, he started progroms genocides against Jews before ww1. It's awfull to imagine what would happend with non-slavic nations if Nicholas II had won the war. However Tzarism couldn't survive the ww1. The new Soviet regime was strongly internationalist. After the WW1, the collapse and lack of a great slavic nationalist Empire (Russian Empire) prevented a large-scale new tragedy in the European continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.228.120 (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Learning Ubykh

Hi there - just responding to your question about learning Ubykh. Unfortunately there is no simple way to do so as of yet: no good dictionary exists, and although there are several monographs on the grammar, they are all written in French and are not at all geared towards learners. I can give you a bibliography of these if you'd like. I'm in the process of writing self-teaching materials for Ubykh, but this is proving to take longer than I'd anticipated. However, my sketch grammar of Ubykh (in English) is now complete and is only awaiting feedback from a couple of colleagues before publication; I've written it to be accessible to anyone with a general linguistic background, so it might prove to be of some use to you. I'd be glad to let you know when it's published - I anticipate that it shouldn't take very long at all. Thefamouseccles (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Garry's Mod (Nov 2010)

Otis107: The links lead to explanations in garrysmod. If you are part of the garrysmod team then show yourself and message me on steam. If not, stay out of it because you have no idea as to what garrys mod is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis1017 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Igny

I don't want to get into a revert/edit war over this, but I think his skewing of words and sources is getting out of hand. How do you suggest this content be handled?--Львівське (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really know exactly what to do here other than pick out each individual instance of POV manipulation and expose it on the talk page. If it really gets out of hand, an RfC could be filed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems that's the only option then because his reverts and POV sourcing (he's citing Party of Regions rhetoric now) don't seem to be slowing down.--Львівське (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the full-protect now placed on the page, I'd say that we are now left with no other course of action. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Holodomor

You have now exceeded 3RR within 24 hours on Holodomor. Could you please self-revert your last edit and avoid further edit-warring. TFD (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally consider the first three reverts to be one revert. The only reason that there are three of them is because of "conflicting intermediate edits"- I could not remove the main disputed content without first removing subsequent grammar tweaks. But I'll be reasonable and self-revert. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Baron, I'm kinda strapped for time as far as filing any sanctions goes at the moment. At least the article is locked for the time being.--Львівське (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Holodomor. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Defending your point of view is OK and great, but please stay civil. Telling the other editor to shut up or grow up is a personal attack which is inappropriate. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Historical facts not "discourse" characterize the revisions made to the UAP article... Your Reversions are baseless.

Response: Your "form" vs. "content" revision is a thinly veiled attempt to block legitimate, well-cited discourse on the subject of providing an honest look at Ukrainian participation in the Holocaust, of which the UAP was a prime mover. If you want to engage in an erasure or delete war on Wikipedia to continue to erase, destroy, and eliminate what little traces of Jewish Galicia remain, you merely prove my point.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for opinionated "discourse". I never said that your content wasn't valid, I am just saying that it was not written in a way that suits the project. Don't baselessly accuse me of obfuscating, that is assuming bad faith. Reverting again.

What you are doing constitutes vandalism disguised as editing. I intend to revert and to report you if you do not cease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmw112252 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not; you have no idea of that which you speak of. You are inserting material which is written like an opinion piece, not like an encyclopaedia entry. If you want to post your personal opinions on something, then go write an article or book and publish it elsewhere. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, you were the first to say that your edits were "discourse". The title of this section borders on dishonesty. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, academic discourse, is a term of art you should perhaps be familiar with. Next time I'll be more careful to spell things out, that is if you don't censor my writings first as you did to the edits I was about to make here...

Response by Editor GMW112252. Subject: Tag-team Ukrainian Holocaust Revisionism.

Please explain the SUBSTANTIVE reason for all the reversions done by yourself and/or your proxies in tag-team style, done usually before there was adequate time to publish the edits in question, while this editor's fingers were still on the keyboard.

Obviously, you have an adgenda and are using the system to vandalize constructive and good-faith additions to this article. No, not even edits - mind you - but goodfaith additions. This is the crux and the only crux of the so-called "uncivil" conduct. And in its totality, what you and/or your proxies have done amounts to straight-up vandalism. Vandalism for the distinct purpose of supressing the facts of history. The history of a very brutal, Nazi directed "police force" known as the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police (UAP), which played a VERY major role in the Holocaust against the Jews of eastern Poland, hundreds of thousands of them in Lwow (Lemberg) alone.

If you are so interested in encyclopaedic content, then perhaps you will add a section to this article, as I tried to do but was promptly stopped in my tracks (deleted by you), about all the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police who entered the United States and either concealed or hid their membership in the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police... grounds for summary loss of U.S. citizenship by the courts and then deportation. Now let me ask you, who do you think is correct about the mass murders comitted by the UAP? You and a couple of your cronies, or my statement of the facts as you have deleted - which mirrors the rulings of the judges of several United States District Courts?

The answer should be obvious, but you will continue to hide behind smoke-screen edits to supress the truth. And it shows because if you were acting in good faith you would instead correct errors of form, format, or other procedural matters if accuracy was your motivation. But it becomes obvious that your ruse is not about form but purely substance.

And then of course in the end, the truth about Ukrainians and the Holocaust hurts (though not as much as what they did to the Jewish victims)but it will be known, one way or another... here or there but it will emerge one way or another.

In closing, the Germans, as bad as they were have at least owned-up to their war crimes and their perpetration of the Holocaust. When will the Ukrainians be big enough to fill those same boots?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gmw112252" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmw112252 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read this book before coming to absolute conclusions on the overly complex nature of Ukraine during the war. There are no 'boots to fill' and its not as one-sided as German-Jewish reconciliation. --Львівське (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Lothar von Richthofen. You have new messages at Talk:Viktor Yushchenko#What to do with Dmytro Firtash calling him his friend?.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 04:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Outofsinc

Thanks for reverting, and sorry for the bother. Note to self: do not edit on mobile phone. Outofsinc (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. That explains a lot; I was a tad confused as to why an established editor would remove almost a whole page worth of content out of the blue. I'll strikeout my warning notice, given the circumstances. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Threats from a vandal

Lothar, What are your credentials to continue editing the garrysmod page. I'd be willing to bet you have never heard of the game, let alone PC Gaming. To revert my edits is one thing, to ban me is another. You've gone to far on something you know now. I'm persistent and will continue my revisions. I ask of you once more to wake up and know what you're doing before you do it, contact my boss Garry, at garry@gmail.com if you have any further questions of my credentials.

Sensibly, Otis. A. Anderson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.145.128 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sociomarketing

Well PRODded, but as this is the fourth time that user Sociomarketing (talk · contribs) has posted this, and as it is actually a proprietary term of one Joel Goldstein whose website refers to it as "Sociomarketing™", I think it is time to take it to AfD and get it definitively deleted and maybe salted. So I have over-ridden your PROD and opened an AfD here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Poetry in Latvian

Hello, nice to see you helping out at Div’ dūjiņas gaisā skrēja. You are welcome to chime in at our discussion at User talk:Vecrumba#Request if you have more inputs. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Zayuk

Sorry!, I was confused by my user page that I changed "es" to "en" in the url "xx.wikipedia.org", because I am from the Spanish wikipedia (in spanish user = usuario)

)

--Zayuk (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I figured as much. No worries. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Manfred Von?

See here. Bzuk (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)