User talk:Pakaran/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

First archive at User talk:Pakaran/Archive1 created 10 December 2003.

It does link to the subpage, but that is an interwiki-redirect, so it's actually quite hard to edit the original (not that I would mind if someone did). I only kept it as that link instead of a direct Meta link because I thought it looked nicer in purple than that light blue of external links. Kind of silly, but I figured I'd get it away with it on my own user page. It used to be a subpage of mine until I moved it to Meta. Angela. 03:53, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no tolerance for vandals. RickK 05:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think sometimes it's ok to leave a stronger message for such edits, but that's just my opinion. I replied at Rick's talk page too. Angela. 06:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I corrected your wiki-link on Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki custom messages because it was broken: hope that's OK. Phil 16:29, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hey Pakaran, that vandal struck again under a slightly diff. IP address. http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=United_States&action=history WhisperToMe 23:57, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What's wrong with <br>? If you take if off the main page, the Anniversaries line just stretches the screen out rather than being in two rows. I've reverted it for now as it looked dreadful and the br has always been there. Perhaps a better solution can be found but I think it is designed for a minimum 800*600. I'm surprised anyone's still using 640x480! Angela. 23:39, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On the requested articles page, you reverted an edit earlier today (by 142.177.92.201) that looked fine by me. Why did you do that? --Raul654 07:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re all this Silesian nonsense, I wouldn't say that 24.2.whatever is a vandal, but he/she is certainly a problematical user. Besides getting repeatedly into edit wars with Nico, 24.2 (and Caius2ga) are simply rude and unproductive in terms of trying to work out problems on the talk page, and uses rather nasty ad hominem attacks. As far as which version is better, I'd say Nico's is slightly better, in that it reads a bit better, but in this instance I'm not really sure I understand what the edit war is about. john 03:16, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just read the article memory manager; you were the only non-anonymous edit. Anyway, I wasn't sure what the article is about. Hate to bother you, but I thought you'd be qualified to translate it into non-tech-speak. For instance, what does it mean to allocate or deallocate memory? What function in the program does this accomplish? Etc. Thanks. Meelar 04:32, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Pakaran, it sounds like you are editorializing on Linux User Group about the GNU/Linux vs. Linux issue. Try to remember to keep a NPOV stance on it. Dori | Talk 16:39, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

That'll work I think. Dori | Talk 21:42, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Nevermind. I was just surprised that the article hadn't existed previously. When it was deleted I thought it must be a mistake, but apparently not. Cheers, Evercat 00:31, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is that really a good reason to block someone? I wrote the entire US 7th Army article with incorrect information, and that was like 5 paragraphs, instead of two dates on his December 6 edit... it was more likely an honest mistake, and should simply be corrected and explained, not causing a block warning. ugen64 02:21, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't really think you would block him, I was just wondering. ugen64 02:23, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

He had done it like 20 times, so I assumed there was a reason for not banning him... guess not. ugen64 02:30, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

I also noticed... is that User:Michael? Similar IPs on the block log... interesting. ugen64 02:33, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the copyvio page - no votes can be taken as no objections, so those are ok to delete. Until fairly recently there was very rarely any comment or vote made about any of them. It's only now that Jamesday is arguing for fair use that the page has more traffic. Angela. 03:08, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No, that's fine. It was just his own talk page I thought I might as well leave. Angela. 03:23, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, looked at your contributions to the article on Internet-Encyclopedia. Of course there are alternative sympathetic points of view on some matters, for example the article, Continuation War can have two sympathetic views, a Finnish view and a Soviet view. On Internet-Encyclopedia I put them both up, here the partisans, one a group of Finns and a Soviet apologist are fighting it out. On subjects such as Nazism or slavery no attempt is made to present the subject in a positive light, any concept has its limits. Fred Bauder 13:26, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

agreed. Secretlondon 21:49, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone: the answer to your question is that the Sovereign makes individuals life peers, though all such appointments are political and therefore are made on the binding "advice" of the Prime Minister. Quintin McGarel Hogg was made a life peer so that he could hold the office as Lord Chancellor.

On a separate note, I am flattered that you should choose to contact me about the issue regarding peerage. I thank you for your kindness. -- Lord Emsworth 22:34, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

I have a feeling that User:What most surprised me was the arrogance of the administration may be a previously-banned user. RickK 05:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know, really, though EoT was just re-banned yesterday, but he/she came out of nowhere and immediately zeroed in on VfD. RickK 05:05, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not particularly relevant, just a point of interest: in some sense, it's almost fair to characterize Mormons as transhumanist, theists given their belief in exaltation or theosis...AND as a Latter-day Saint myself, I find it ironic that transhumanists are generally agnostic or atheist. B 01:46, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Time to unprotect Golan Heights? --Zero 02:00, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why are you reverting unoffensive edits by anonymous users on other people's talk pages? I find it a rude disrespect of User:Angela for you to censor what she reads. -- Waveguy 22:26, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The edit I reverted to Angela's talk page was by a banner user, EoT. All edits by banned users are to be reverted. Pakaran 22:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am bewildered. On what basis do you conclude the identiy of the user? What due process has been satisfied? Waveguy 22:42, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello. This is wikipedia. We don't have due process - we have itchy trigger fingers. Your friend, Morwen 23:06, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after my talk page. :) Angela. 23:43, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

216.254.160.220 made these statements 21 Dec 2003 (UTC):

• You changed the user's page and began reverting articles. Where is the justification?
• I don't think these are the same people. Please state justification and link to some evidence of this.
• Policy requesting "Please do not reinstate any edits made by this user" is problematic and controversial.

Based on above, Pakaran concludes 216.254.160.220 is EofT ? I don't see the connection. please inform me. -- Waveguy 03:05, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Pakaran - is moving the question to my talk page (that you asked me) a way of telling me you no longer wanted an answer? If so, saying so is clearer. Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 02:11, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Which question? Pakaran 02:12, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, that clarifies it for me. The Fellowship of the Troll 02:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

THANK YOU. Edit warring with religious cranks is so tiresome. —MIRV (talk) 02:15, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd kinda prefer if you left this page protected for a bit, and give us some time to decide in talk what changes should be made, etc... before unprotecting. The page has had a horrid past (take a look at the page history!) and seems ever so much better at the moment :). If nothing else, I'd like to have a couple of people (not ONLY mr. vogel) request it unprotected before you make such a decision. Thanks, Jack 04:30, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me breathe while editing my non nocere stuff. At least now you have something to cut or redirect. Thank you, thank you ! Crank irismeister 18:46, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)

I'm the one who should be sorry, I missed the incorrect caps. Always nice to meet a fellow Atheist. Bmills 16:36, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, there isn't a haggis animal, and the plural of haggis is haggises. We do, however, like to kid tourists that a haggis is a elusive mountain dwelling ducklike animal, with one leg shorter than the other (to allow it to run along a sloped mountainside). The truth, however, is far worse. -- Finlay McWalter 17:39, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, go ahead. :) Angela. 20:45, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I'll stop... I had just discovered the wiki project and I wanted to try its seriousness. I could see it is quite well protected against vandalism : well done !

I only know Puta as "whore", but I suppose it could be bitch, too. RickK 04:13, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have no familiarity with the subject; I was just doing minor editing, not giving the interpretation my stamp of approval. Revert if necessary. Cheers, Cyan 04:44, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Never get in a move war at 4am.

It's very confusing. I completely lost where the ridiculous page had gone! :) Angela. 04:56, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you don't mind but I moved some of your text from m:The Wrong Version to m:Edit wars as the issues of religion etc apply much more widely than page protection. :) I couldn't think of a good section heading for it. It's just under alternative view on that page at the moment so if you have any better ideas, you might want to change that. Angela. 19:52, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Oops, forgetful me. I'm glad one of us knows what they're doing :) Thanks!-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:56, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well. he DID change Makkah to Mecca, which is right, but he misspelled it. I didn't think the Arabic invocation that's used after Muhammad's name was appropriate, so I did delete that. RickK 04:28, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I had the exact same feeling as you on 1735 as vandalism, but there is indeed a Diana Spencer who was not Lady Di, who did die then [1] so I've reverted. Fuzheado 18:52, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on the administratorship. -- Emsworth 13:25, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to name names, but could our anon friend be someone rather familiar? Dysprosia 05:53, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. Banning logged in users... really. You should be de-admined forced to work with Wik. ;) I don't believe no one unblocked me. Lir was unblocked in minutes! Angela. 08:18, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree something should be done, but blocking aol proxies for any length of time is not it. Blocking them is fine if it gets rid of Michael, but they need to be unblocked not long after to avoid inconviencing other wikipedians who are unfortunate enough to choose AOL as their ISP. Blocking Michael is like playing whack a mole. Maximus Rex 00:17, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It was definately Michael. I've made a list of banned users that includes information such as their IP address(es) if known. It is useful to have such information located in one place. It's at User:Maximus Rex/banned users. Maximus Rex 00:21, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You stole Paul Levesque from my Dad! Compare [2] and [3]. :) Angela. 17:58, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] Since you have become involved (if not yet embroiled) in the sad events at DNA (of all places!), I thought you might be interested to know that I just posted this note for User:Angela:

Your help is requested, since a Sysop of whom you are aware has alas abused his sysop powers.

In summary, the 168.../Lir edit war restarted at DNA, but this time with the unfortunate twist that 168... has protected the page at his preferred version. (In case you haven't followed this particular saga at all, there was a series of three votes taken about which version of the two opening paragraphs should be used, and a version emerged which has the support of 6 out of the 8 participants. Basically, 168... and Lir insisted on their own versions.)

It is fine for the page to be protected (against Lir), but the "frozen version" should be the one that was agreed to by the community. (If you look at the edits, you will see that many people besides me have reverted back to this near-consensus version.) Thanks!

I am somewhat unclear about the "correct procedures" to be followed in cases like this (and in any case, my limited experience is that even when they're followed, the results can be disappointing), so any help you may be able to offer would be appreciated. Peak 01:34, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Peak hasn't looked up the word "consensus" in the dictionary lately, and omitted to refer to voting as his "preferred version" of resolution, in contrast to reasoned discussion, which is mine. The "consensus version" does not reflect even a consensus of voters and is Peak's preferred version, because it was produced by the process he initiated and has a stake in. 168...|...Talk 01:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am very sorry for my childish behavior. I take full responsibility for my actions, and I am extremely sorry for any harm I may have caused you. Please forgive me, as all I can do now is to promise that I will not repeat my past mistakes. Once again, I am truly sorry. Sincerely, AlexPlank

Hi, you voted on the issue of whether 168... should be desysoped. Following this, he was temporarily desysopped. Please participate in the new vote as to whether that temporary desysopping should now be reversed until the committees can deal with it properly. Thank you. Angela. 00:45, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

People have been asking to delete the "List of numbers that are always odd" page at Wikipedia. I deleted all the text, but then you put it back!

...for blocking User:205.213.111.54. But let's see if they are done with their foolishness for now. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:05, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not sure that I understand you. --Michael Snow 23:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No offense taken. I understand there was somebody named Michael who caused problems in the past. FYI, the reverts are all being done by 168.... I would prefer for him to join the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Main Page rather than just making this an edit war. --Michael Snow 23:51, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

hey pak this the 'red faction'/ 'jesus christ'/mr natural health (im not really but i told you that in my when imed you as joke) guy (sorry) i don't use disscussion pages...um i will stop my war againest wiki (i have declared a truce). Peace brother

PS you got one less vandel to worry about

Hi Pakaran,

You're a level-headed sort, so I'd like to ask you to weigh in at the new discussion of related matters that have come up in the last few days. There's a discussion starting at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)#Transliteration_of_Russian_place_names. See the intro paragraph for Boris Yeltsin to see an example of what's been going on with articles on Russians and places in Russia...

Also, if you haven't already done so, please take a look through User:Cantus's contributions.

Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 06:55, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Pakaran, just wanted to tell you I like the positive attitude you display on the membership page of AMA. Lately this place is getting complex due to the need for structure (becoming a not-for-profit organization for example) so keeping that commmunity spirit alive is important and that was why I started the AMA, to help foster that kind of interest rather than the interest in the various "official" committees of Wikipedia. If you ever have any questions about the process of advocacy don't hesitate to ask me for my opinion and any contributions you can make to the association pages will surely help other gain in the kind of positive spirit we need more of around here. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 07:09, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are now a bureaucrat. Please use this power wisely. --Uncle Ed 15:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

22:40, Feb 27, 2004, Pakaran blocked Michael (expires 22:40, Feb 27, 2014) (contribs) (unblock) (Adding last few forgotten PHP blocks...)

LOL. →Raul654 23:56, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

The expiration date - that's why I bolded it ;) →Raul654 01:16, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

It's probably just me being stupid. I found it funny because for all intents and purposes, 10 years might as well be infinite. →Raul654 01:23, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding DXM: The DXM page is getting a bit long now, I think it would benefit from a bit of reorginazation with headers and maybe a bit of history about recreational and medicinal use of DXM. Do you think this is worthwhile? I volunteer to do a rewrite to cleanup the page a bit. I appreciate your changes regarding CCC; recreational users should really consider downing Robo maximum strength or their newest CoughGels (comes in 20 caps of 15mg each), or buying bulk powder. ElBenevolente 03:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

hey Pak, im the old 'red faction' user i got my own wiki page. User:Jesus Chirst

Pakaran, any idea who Chirst is? At first I thought it was Michael, but he writes too well. He's about to be blocked if he really decides to start vandalizing. RickK 04:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your message to User:RickK to "feel free to block all addreses adding communist POV to the wikipedia," you ought to be aware that the ideological censorship of users that you're advocating constitutes a blatant abuse of admin powers. I'm going to direct a developer, who are responsible for suspending admin powers in the event of such overt abuse, to the note that you left on RickK's page. 172 11:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm a developer and a Mediator, and I see no cause to suspend Pakaran for anything. The note is a bit puzzling, but all users have free speech on talk pages. Before submitting a complaint or raising an alarm, you ought to ask Pakaran what he meant by that comment. --Uncle Ed 15:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you must have meant something different or just been joking, but of course you can't block people for ideological reasons. Jimbo Wales 18:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry about all of this. The issue in question was a "red faction" vandal. He wasn't just adding communist POV, he was replacing tons of pages with the words "RED FACTION" and simple variations. I would never suggest blocking people for being Communist/Christian/What have you. Pakaran. 18:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He didn't block me for my beliefs (which are odd) but for vandelism..which I used to do. User:Jesus Chirst

Actually, I never did block you. I've stated the opinion that you should maybe be blocked, but I'm emotionally involved to the extent that I wouldn't block you. I'd let someone else do it. Pakaran. 02:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

well..i must have forgot User:Jesus Chirst

I note you added me to vandelism in progress what is you goal in doing this are you trying to crucify me?? (not joking) I told you i was reformed, now I want to be your friends. User:Jesus Chirst

-- Hi! Thanks for your edit to electronic voting; it spurred me on to re-write the entire overview. I hope you don't mind. That one sentence seemed too hard on management: I also question the integrity of the developers of proprietary voting software and the entire chain from developer's keyboard to voting system. Then again, the rest of the overview seemed to cover important issues, but in no particular order, and it had too much of a slant in the order it was presented, so I re-wrote the whole thing. -- Ke4roh 20:01, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why are my disclosures of Randi's statements removed? If you are honest you edit and add them. I think they are important. I have nothing against atheism. But what about bigotry?

     charlesturek@comcast.net
       Magician, Order of Merlin IBM

I'm forwarding this e-mail to you:

"[edit]Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Pakaran. The reason given is this: Sorry, this range has been used by Bird a LOT."

This is the message I am getting despite not being bird I am a registered user and have come online to edit MY user page and continue working on articles. My current IP is 67.74.109.180 but it is dynamic so Pakaran is going nail different users like me and many others as long as he blocks everyone with those intial digits. I have e-mailed him twice but gotten no response your the first administrator on the list please help me. Thanks

In case this is a trick, I'd like to let you handle it. 172 13:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pakaran, I've taken the liberty of adding links at Wikipedia:Announcements and Wikipedia:Goings-on that the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates is searching for a Coordinator and I have started a new page dealing with the election. See: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election. You editing, comments and participation as an AMA member would be appreciated. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 20:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, there have been some suggestions that we need to start cleaning out the old requests posted to Wikipedia:Peer review. You are receiving this because you have posted one or more requests that have been there a long time. When you have a moment, please check it out and remove the request(s), along with any related material, if you have received adequate feedback. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 23:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The April Fools page (via MyRedDice) was both stunning and spectacular. Something to keep current on meta. -Stevertigo 17:23, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry - I just noticed the vandalism by anon 64.12.116.74 - I have wiped some of it, but more may be there. You should take a closer look. I will block him, if someone else hasnt. -Stevertigo 18:26, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry? What have I done that you would need to block me? I am not a user who has been previously banned. Thanks for your concern, The Trolls of Navarone 15:24, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure they are the same user? The Trolls of Navarone 15:42, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please go to Wikipedia:Quickpolls re 66.2.156.69 and 216.99.245.135 ThanksAndyL 02:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just signed it. Dunno if quickpoll is the way to go. I couldn't find a "Request to ban anonymous user" page or anything like that AndyL 03:15, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You may now vote for user:Ed_Poor or user:Alex756 in the first ever AMA co-ordinator election. Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure for more details.

AMA members who wish to abstain from voting must also e-mail wikipedia_ama_voting@yahoo.co.uk with notice of that intent.

To clarify anything before voting, ask user_talk:Zanimum or user_talk:Jwrosenzweig on their talk pages.

AMA members have until April 30, at 11:00:00 EST to vote. -- user:zanimum

Teehee. I know what you mean, but I'm picturing a line of girls in kilts while the nun checks that the socks come up high enough... moink 00:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

medal
To Comrade Nathan Russell , in recognition of his services to the Police-State the Red Faction awards you!

Hey remember me? I decided to award you! see the Red faction's main page for the reason why. Comrade Nick

I think you could construe this as a personal attack. - Fennec 12:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but what should I do about it? Pakaran. 14:54, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This "form letter"-style notice is being sent to you, to notify you that voting for AMA Coordinator will close at April 30, at 16:00:00 UTC, a little over 48.5 hours from the time this message was posted on your talk page. If you do not vote, following the instructions at Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure, your vote will be void. Contrary to concern, members who abstain from voting and notify the Inspectors of the Election, as well as members who abstain from voting and do not notify the Inspectors of the Election, will still be AMA full members. -- user:zanimum

We have received an anonymous request for AMA assistance from an IP address, I have directed that individual to contact me if they wish not to create a Wikipedia account. If you are interested in helping please let me know and if I hear from this individual I will try and put you in contact. See Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance. Thank you. — © Alex756 03:11, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just saw your name and realized I hadn't seen you around much. I came here to ask where you'd got to, but I see from your user contribs that you appear to be returned after a fairly long hiatus. Just thought you should know that I always liked what you did here, both in contributions and in policy discussions, and I hope you're back for good. :-) If there's anything going on here that's driving you away, I hope you'll let me know -- I'd want to see if we could clear it up. We need good contributors like you. Happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 19:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think you've returned with the right attitude - I took my own wikiholiday recently and feel refreshed by it. If trouble comes looking for you, please let some of us know so we can help. I don't know much about the Unification Church, but I'll gladly offer what I can. :-) Happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 16:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi I'm trying to figure out range blocks but I can't follow the explanation at range blocks at all :-( I noticed that you recently blocked 203.166.96.232/29 Now why the 29? ( I understand 8 , 16, 24 ,well i think I do anyhow it's the in between numbers I can't figure out) theresa knott 16:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is what I'm not sure about. You said "So /28 blocks all users with the address listed, and the 2⁴ -1 = 15 <addresses after it. Now this is where I get confused because Range blocks says that The last 32-N bits are not significant, and are automatically set to zero in the software

Let me give an example:

Suppose I want to block ###.###.###.187 --> ###.###.###.194

According to you I just block ###.###.###.187/29 right? But if we write 187 out in binary we get 10111011. Setting the last 32-N bits equal to zero gives 10111000 which equals 184. So it looks to me like the above range block would actially block .184 -.191 Is this correct? theresa knott 12:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I understand it now, i was just being extra overly careful to make sure I "got it" I don't want to go around blocking huge swathes of people by mistake (presumably I could block everyone in the entire internet by ###.###.###.###/1 ?)

Can you watch the personal insults in edit summaries in articles like Gdansk? Calling others Nazis is not acceptable. Pakaran. 01:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion the Nazis should be called the Nazis. The problem is some editors spread the Neo-Nazi ideas in Wikipedia, and they should be stopped somehow. The example is profanating Polish cities with the Nazi names, another example is calling the Nazi atrocities during WWII, the legal action of the legal German government. The Nazi atrocities should be called Nazi atrocities, people speading Nazi propaganda should be called the Nazis, don't you agree??? PolishPoliticians 01:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)