User talk:R9tgokunks

Welcome to my Discussion page, leave a message if desired.

2006 Archive

WP Munich membership

I'm giving WP Munich members a choice of being active members, semi-active members or inactive members. Please sign up for the correct one. Kingjeff 23:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

List of best-selling video games

Please discuss at the talk page instead of reverting, thanks. -- ReyBrujo 01:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again

Okay, R9tgokunks, you've come out cleared by the checkuser as far as the sockpuppetry goes, and I apologise for the wrong suspicion I raised. (Coincidences were weird, though.) - That doesn't change my stance with respect to your edits. I do not enjoy having to clean up after you every morning. I am not stalking you nor harassing you, nor am I committing vandalism, and I strongly warn you to stop claiming I am. I politely raised specific objections against specific edits of yours on your talkpage several times (above); you failed to react in any way. Please at least try to enter in a constructive discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Alsace

Again... What the hell you have to revert every move on this page... Please stop without explaination. Bye user:Paris75000 20:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Could you please add sources for the edits to rivers that you are making, such as for the Elbe and the Alle? Olessi 00:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

“There wasnt anything that i harmfully reverted in that.”

This is your response to my request—which you have chosen to delete—that you stop your reverts of edits on the Wrosław page.

I beg to differ. Your reverts are harmful because you are reverting 1) material that is better (more properly informative and better formulated) than what you replaced it with, and 2) the rendering of the city’s name that is typographically correct (i.e., including the “ł” character) with one that is, though acceptable, less desirable from an accuracy perspective. And finally, you give no explanation for your reverts. If I (we—if you’ll notice, several people have been undoing the same of your reverts for a couple of days now) thought you had a valid reason for your reverts, we might also find them acceptable.

So unless you can give a valid reason for reverting, please stop! Jim_Lockhart 08:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Once more: Please leave the Wrocław page alone for a little while. I can’t fathom why you have again changed the introduction: Olessi’s changes are both logical and consistent with other articles of similar nature. Rather than revert repeatedly, I suggest you track his changes so you can learn how it’s done! That doesn’t mean I unconditionally agree with all his changes, but they are neither absolutely wrong nor inconsistent; in short, they are constructive! I’m sure you’re trying to be constructive, too, but I think you need to learn more about editing processes. Regards, Jim_Lockhart 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What???

If you are unsure of what to work on, there are several possibilies at Portal:Germany/Things you can do. There are also plenty of things listed at Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. Olessi 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop boldening alternate names in introductions. The convention is to only bolden the current name or clearly-established English names. This is a convention that has been carefully developed over the last several years on Wikipedia by numerous editors. Using different styles is disruptive to other contributors, as you may well have noticed from French and Polish editors recently. I urge you to reconsider your editing style. Olessi 23:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing the German and Alsatian names of localities can be useful to readers, considering the region's history between France and Germany. There is no need to bold such names, however, nor should the names be included within infoboxes. The majority of readers probably do not even know about interwiki links, and I find it unrealistic to force them elsewhere to learn a simple name. Olessi 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to German

I am highly offended by your offhand assessment of my edits as vandalism. Please remain WP:CIVIL. Also, please participate in the talk page discussion to explain your edits. They do not conform to standard style guidelines described at MOS:DAB, and that is turning this article from an effective disambiguation page into a "kitchen sink" of links. Disambiguation pages are intended to help find similarly spelt articles, not serve as a navigation tool for similar concepts. Please understand the difference. Andrwsc 21:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean in this edit summary? The interwikilinks are perfectly relevant. For example the interwiki link [[it:Tedesco]] takes you to [1] which is clearly the Italian Wikipedia's version of the German dismabiguation page. Gwernol 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Those are not regular links they are interwiki links. These are special links that point to the equivalent page on a different language Wikipedia. Interwiki links do not have to have the same words as the disambiguation page. I am going to restore the links. Please do not delete them again or I will block you for disruption. Gwernol 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Börse

An editor has nominated Börse, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Börse and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting the Börse article while an AfD debate is in progress is highly disruptive. The AfD notice specifically instructs you not to remove it. Please respect the AfD process and do not further disrupt Wikipedia articles. Gwernol 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent disruption. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwernol 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't comment on the block, but your latest "additions" to German were in fact deletions, and they were unacceptable deletions. MOS:DAB clearly states that descriptions for each entry are "sentence fragments" that are "sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link". It does not say that you should have no descrption per entry. Please re-read that page and you'll see that almost every example, except for place names, has a descriptive phrase per entry. This edit follows the MOS guidelines for disambiguation pages nicely. Andrwsc 03:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ADDITIONS/IMPROVEMENTS:

1. REMOVED "__NOTOC__" SINCE IT DIDNT HAVE ANY SECTION SYNTAX
2. SPECIFIED THE VAGUE COMMENT: "* [[Germans]], a nationality" TO "*[[Germans]] of [[Germanic cultures]]" WHICH FITS THE GERMAN LANGUAGE CULTURE AREA OF EUROPAS COUNTRIES
3. ADDED German cuisine, FINE ISNT IT?
4. ADDED German Shepherd, FINE ISNT IT?
5. ADDED German silver, FINE ISNT IT?
6. ADDED Germanic peoples, FINE ISNT IT?
7. REMOVED [[::als:German]] SINCE IT DID NOT EXIST
8. REMOVED [[::IT:German]] SINCE IT ONLY HAD ONE DISAMBIG LINK PERTAINING TO GERMANY
9. REMOVED ", quarter of Sofia" SINCE THAT ISNT RELEVANT, DUE TO THE LINK ALREADY STATING THE COUNTRY IT IS IN

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 03:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You neglect to mention that you removed the short descriptive phrase from every person on that list. That wasn't helpful. Andrwsc 03:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

IT WASNT AN IMPROVEMENT AND IF I HAD NOT BEEN BLOCKED SO QUICKLY I WOULD NOT HAVE DONT THIS AT THE LAST SECOND: [2] IS ANYONE GOING TO ANSWER ME?....GOD, HAS WIKIPEDIA REALLY DIED?-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so you are clear. I told you quite clearly that removing the interwiki links from the German dismabiguation page was disruption and if you continued to do it you would be blocked [3]. A few hours later, you went ahead and deleted them [4]. You were then blocked for disruption. Gwernol 12:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not mark edits such as these [5] as "minor" - they are not, in fact some of them implicate major interpretative changes. They definitely are legitimate content edits and I am not going to revert anything, but please make sure in the future not to mark them as minor and explain your edits using the edit summaries. "bad format" doesn't explain any of the changes you brought. It is misleading for other editors. Cheers! Baristarim 08:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for your edits to German entirely escapes me. I cannot see any valid reason for removing (a) descriptive text that helps a reader determine which of several possible articles is most relevant to their search, and (b) interwiki links to comparable disambiguation pages in other languages. It seems likely, especially given the page history, that you are intent on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I am, however, posting here to give you an opportunity to explain your actions and, if there is some reason for your edits of which I am not aware, to indicate what it is. --Russ (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have further improved the article Strasbourg [6]. Be aware of my additions and don't delete them by reverting to your own previous version as you use to do [7]. If you have some changes to make, use the "edit this page" button instead. Now you are warned. RCS 17:25, 8 April 2007 (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).

R9tgokunks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

OK, I am going to try this again. I had been editing peacefully for 5 hours and then all of the sudden...I am blocked for "disruption". It was for my edits on the article German.Gwernol probably also blocked me because of my edits at börse, but I was trying to improve the situation by adding a redirect , which of course now i know actually worsened the situation and he got angry, thinking I added the redirect in an effort to annoy other users. All my edits on German, are in my opinion legitimate per WP:MOS. Further, i was disrupted last night by the block having been working on Template:History of English(history)

ADDITIONS/IMPROVEMENTS (in my opinion) to German:

  1. Removed "" since it (the article) did not have any section syntax
  2.
  3. Specified a vague comment: * Germans, a nationality to *Germans of Germanic cultures which fits the German Language/Culture area of Europes countries
  4. Added German cuisine, I hope thats not against WP:MOS.
  5. Added German Shepherd, I hope thats not against WP:MOS.
  6. Added German silver, I hope thats not against WP:MOS.
  7. Added Germanic peoples, I hope thats not against WP:MOS.
  8. Removed :als:German since it Did not exist
  9. Removed :IT:German since it 'Only had one disambig link pertaining to Germany
 10. Removed ", quarter of Sofia" since it isn't relevant, due to the link already stating the country it is in
 11. Removed the description links since it seemed irrelevant and, IMHO, a bit POV to have "German singer; Polish immigrant", after all they are all humans in the end.-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 16:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a pretty clear cut case of disruption. —-Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:03, 11 April 2007 (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.

This is flooding the IRC room. John Reaves (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:217.229.46.106

Strasbourg

Hi Rt9gokunks. I've corrected [8] the sentences you have added and moved "Gottfried von Strassburg" to Gottfried von Straßburg (remember the long "a"?). No hard feelings, RCS 08:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That IP doesn't look like R9t's. (Otherwise you'd now be accusing him of block-evasion.) I don't think that was him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that IP is R9t, according to his userpage he lives in the United States. Traveling to germany just to evade a ban is something I doubt anyone would ever do. --Wildnox(talk) 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. But the edits are definitely Rt9gokunks-like. Maybe he's on easter holyday in Germany? Besides, no German would ever write that the Franks spoke German, because they are taught otherwise at school. RCS 06:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)