User talk:Saddhiyama

Welcome!

Hello, Saddhiyama, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

transwikied articles

When copying an article from another Wiki, please make sure that it includes proper sources. To not do so creates a huge burden on other Wiki editors. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-delusion

You do not seem to like the facts, about Hume's racialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.155 (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all its called "racism", second of all I would say you are welcome to write about this particular issue in the article, but the reference needs to be placed following the specific statement in the article itself. Personally I think it is a redundant bit of info, the general Western outlook at this time period was inherently racist. In fact I would say that it would only be relevant to state whether a person was anti-racist, because that was a stand that really was against the general current of the time and therefore noteworthy. But as I have said you are welcome to add the bit of information, if you reference it properly.--Saddhiyama (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Copenhagen

If you look later down the page, those exact surveys and polls, ranking the University of Copenhagen as I have stated, are referenced. I have therefore put back my statement as it is appropriate in the introduction, and not a weaselword. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.177.61 (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first mention of a statement should be the referenced one. Furthermore, the wording "It is generally recognized as the best..." is weasel-wording. Instead it should say exactly who thinks it is the best and why. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Please ensure vandals have received a full set of warnings, including a final warning, before reporting them to AIV. لenna vecia 12:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and the user I reported did have a final warning. Which was why I reported him.--Saddhiyama (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pantone

Hello, I see you voted to keep the Paul Pantone article. You noted it needed rewriting. I've made several attempts to do this, but everything was reverted. I thought perhaps you can review my last version of the article. I'm not sure if there really is anything wrong with it, it looks to me like the article has 3 owners who do not tolerate others to edit it. The page is here:[1] My review of the situation is here:[2] it's a bit long. You don't really have to read it, just glance over my version of the article and the archive if you have time. Thanks, Resess (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick III of Denmark

Hi! I didn't intend my edit of Fred III about his fetus collection to be taken as vandalism. I read the article "pickled punks", saw it mentioned him, and when I saw his own article didn't mention it, I decided to BE BOLD and add it myself. I think you owe me an apology. 76.105.183.62 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You edit was unreferenced and thus impossible to verify. I apologize for the vandalism warning, as yours was obviously a good faith edit, but the entry stays deleted until you can come up with a reference for this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...

...why did you undo this edit? I really wonder what bothered you. Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, retrospectively an undo was probably overkill, because there was a lot of relevant familiy info added by you, and the problem was only one sentence. The problem was the "{{Infobox Norwegian Royalty|majesty|consort" edit. IIRC this edit was part in a long series where you added this title to a series of Dano-Norwegian royalty biographies. These edits were later undone by me and others, and this one must have been part of this. I would not object if you reinserted the family info in the biography. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! There are two infoboxes: Template:Infobox Danish Royalty and Template:Infobox Norwegian Royalty. It's really irrelevant which infobox is used for Kings of Denmark-Norway. First I placed Infobox Danish Royalty, but then I decided to replace it with Infobox Norwegian Royalty because red is associated with both Denmark and Norway. As I said, it's really unimportant. Surtsicna (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I do not have a lot of experience with info boxes (and none with designing them), but since the list of Dano-Norwegian monarchs and their consorts (not to mention their offspring ) is relatively long, would it not be more expedient to make an infobox particularly designed for the Dano-Norwegian royalty? --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly solve the which-kingdom-was-more-important issue, but I'm afraid we would have too many similar infoboxes. Perhaps I can make something up out of the existing infoboxes. I just need an idea - which colours to use? Has Denmark-Norway ever had a specific flag (like the Kalmar Union used to have)? Surtsicna (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, and yes my thoughts exactly regarding it being a nice way to get around the problem of "king of which kingdom?". As far as I know they never made a flag for the Denmark-Norway union (I think possibly they used the kings arms for the navy and armies?). If it is technically possible then it would be nice if it could be in two colours (maybe just the blue and red of the other infoboxes?) to symbolise the two kingdoms. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know (and I don't know much about templates), the only way to do it is to use one colour as background and the other one as the colour of letters. I've tried the blue-red combination for Infobox Norwegian Royalty and it looks rather... hideous. I'll see what I can do. Surtsicna (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. Another (possibly impossible?) solution could be to somehow include the two flags of Denmark and Norway at the top and then using some third colour of your own choice. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's agreat idea and I can't say it's impossible. I just don't know how to make it work... Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Race

The Nordic theory is an ideology of racial supremacy that claims that the Nordic race - the Scandinavians and Germans constitute a master race. This would also include the Dutch. Why do you think it's wrong? User:VeronicaPR 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that it is wrong that that you included the peoples that you have mentioned. But I do think it was wrong that you forgot that the Anglosaxons (which was in effect UK (and the commonwealth) and USA) was also included. I noticed that in one edit you deliberately separated the English from this category, and that was clearly wrong. If you feel like clarifying the distinction that the Nazi ideology made concerning the Aryan peoples (which I dont think is necessary as it is made in the article on the Aryan race) in numerous articles then you better define it correctly. --Saddhiyama (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British people are not considered part of the Nordic race, not by Nazism at least. The English are the only ones which barely qualified because the Germans believed that they intermixed too much with those non-English Britons, and as such were "tainted". This is actually true. The English are much more "mixed" than the Swedes, the Germans, or Danes, etc. User:VeronicaPR 03:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to cite some sources for that claim. The "tainted" and "mixed" theory seems to have been used rather indiscrimenately depending on the political circumstances (especially later on in the war), but when it comes to the actual theory behind the claims I would cite Arthur de Gobineau and Alfred Rosenberg to the contrary of your "tainted" claims. --Saddhiyama (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STOP REVERTING EDITS TO MY TALK PAGE

72.228.150.44 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if it caused you any inconvenience, but it is preferred that you archive the talk page rather than blanking it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stats for dasource

Hello Saddhiyama,
see answer at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wiki_Traffic_Statistics_Tool, see also http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikisource/da/ --- Best regards, Melancholie (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:moves

Why fuss unless someone else does, then? He is virtually never called Canute in modern scholarly texts, i.e WP:RSs. I'd have some sympathy if it was Knútr, but Cnut is the common English form (Canute being archaic). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I wrote I do not disagree with you, and I have no intention of taking this any further. My message was more meant as a heads-up, at least judging by the passionate discussion on the talk page, that a lot of users would likely protest to the article move. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Amdi Petersens Armé

An article that you have been involved in editing, Amdi Petersens Armé, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amdi Petersens Armé. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Europe - Denmark section

It doesn't seem like a joke page to me. It is freqently used on various message boards inside Denmark and abroad. If you are a foreginer, it could look like a such, but you have to remember that most Danes with good reasons consider their nation to be superior to most Covergaard (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As it is quite normal here in Denmark a diplomat drove his car after some drinks. In Copenhagen the police often functions as drivers for foreign diplomatic staff when they have too much to drink and are found behind their own wheels." I am not responsible if anyone chooses to state this as a source on message boards in Denmark, that would be their own problem. Even if it is not meant as a joke page (it certainly reads like one) then it is definately not a reliable source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a Danish newspaper "Diplomats dont pay fines." and "During the last 10 years the diplomat and their families have committed 1,143 crimes. In all cases none were charged due to their diplomatic immunity". There was 27 cases of DUI's alone. It was even discussed in our parliament where they concluded that those crimes cases are a cost we has to cope with so our human aid industry can bribe themselves inside countries and help people. Endelig besvarelse af spørgsmål nr. af 224 af 15. februar 2007 fra Folketingets Retsudvalg. (Link til the Danish parliament). Crimes done by diplomats living Denmark is quite ordinary and a price to pay to keep up diplomatic relationships. It is not a joke page Covergaard (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crime rate of diplomats in Denmark does not have a direct connection with claim that the website makes about the role of the police in this matter, nor can it be said that it is the culture of Denmark to accept DUIs. As such it is clearly an opinionated site with an agenda, even though the website does not state which organisation is running it or to what purpose (which makes it even less reliable). As I wrote even if it is not a joke page, it does not meet the standard of a reliable source as it can not be said to be a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox of styles

Well, that was fast, thanks! I tried to find out when this clearly ridiculous infobox was placed in the article. That was on August 19, 2005, by a contributor named User:Jtdirl. Now it turns out the infobox was a compromise on a long and bloody series of Wikipedia discussions called the Style Wars, see here. So I'm curious what happens now. But it seems plain silly to put an English infobox on non-English royals, especially if they are dead. Glatisant (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question about my history

I have a question concerning this edit. Not so much the discussion about the relevance of the "benevolent dictatorship" section which was mysteriously added without consensus at some point, but rather about your comment that "the most recent user has a history of removing relevent information". As I was the most recent user that had edited that article, I can only take it to mean me. Would you care to elaborate what that alleged history of mine consists of? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Read this talk page beginning at the top. Thank you. TeamZissou (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the condescending answer. So I take it that means you have nothing to back up your claim with. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...you obviously haven't read your own talk page. Nevermind. TeamZissou (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says he who threw the first stone. Unlike some editors, I do not delete talk page sections (unless they are pure vandalism). Relevant info here.--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as I expected this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. You sure showed me. Sadman, it's not a big deal. Just don't go deleting large sections of articles that pertain to the topic of the article, especially when it comes down to an interpretation of semantics. Now, add your comment below and then get back to Wikipedia'ing. TeamZissou (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once more I urge you to refrain from taking disputes as personal insults and please leave out the snug remarks and namecalling. As I learned from all this, despite your attempts at hiding it, it is apparently far from the first time you have had problems in this area. My intention is still to remove the section from the article. I am just allowing you the usual time to come up with verifiable sources. I will get back to you on this, but it will be on the talk page of enlightened absolutism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam patrol

Hello. The edit I had reverted was part of a mass-reversion of spam. User:Sxhpb (Contribs) had added a lot of links in articles, all linking to books from the University of Chicago Press. These are the only edits that account has made. It looks like advertising to me. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my bad then. I see it has already been reverted back. Just a little hint: By providing an edit comment you will most likely prevent these kind of misunderstandings from happening in the future (and its no problem with mass reversals, a cookie will remember the edit comment, so you will only have to press the first letter to reuse the comment). --

Query

I did not ask for your opinion on how i should socialize. When i want it, i shall ask. And i do not know any of you people.Liamr9983 (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection on Marie Antoinette

Bonjour Saddhiyama, please go to Marie Antoinette talk page where I left a comment. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks are and what not

Calling someone a troll, and claiming that someone is a sockpuppet despite the investigation not even having begun is a personal attack and a transparent attempt to smear other editors. Pantherskin (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fisk

Stating one person's conspiracy theories as a fact on an article page is completely unacceptable according to Wikipedia policies. I stated my opinion about Fisk's theories, and such opinions do not amount to personal attacks or insults, and certainly not on editors. The article on Fisk is very thin and biased, and it is bizarre that such a strange view (which does his career very little credit) should get such attention. So save me the lecturying. --Leifern (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robespierre's talk page

Bonjour/Bonsoir Saddhiyama: How can we stop anon IP 174.6.26.254 from reverting the Question/Answer on Robespierre's talk page? The question may have been from a teenage student (where is the crime?) but the answer was from me (far from being a teenager!) & I am a regular wikipedian doing extremely serious work (throwing roses at myself!), so I cannot understand why my answer & its related question should be deleted. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just read your warning on IP 174.6.26.254's talk page. FW

Yes, as the IP-user has ignored several explanations and warnings, it is my belief that we can only treat this as vandalism. If the IP-user deletes the section again we will have to report it to WP:AIV cheers --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saddhiyama: The section was again deleted, someone - Oskar71 - put it back & I just left a note at bottom of Q&A section. Please go read it. Bonne journée! Frania W. (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Antoinette

Bonjour Saddhiyama! Since the recent back & forth reverting sessions with previous editor, the lead in the article of Marie Antoinette has become a heavy mess as stuff has been added that was not there before & is not necessary in the lead.

Details that need to be only mentioned are too developed.
The "let them eat cake" Rousseau's quote has no place in the lead. In my opinion, it should be either somewhere in the article - in the period leading to the Revolution, or at the very end in the section Historical legacy and popular culture.

What do you think? I just worked on portions of the article & do not feel like doing it now and, besides, I wanted to ask you about it before touching it. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I support the move of the "let them eat cake"-bit to the legacy section. Although this should perhaps be discussed at the article talk page, as it might be profitable to hear the opinions of even more editors. Cheers --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I already did! Moved the brioche down... I feel it does not belong in lead, but you can revert if you like: I won't send you to the guillotine. Bonne journée! Frania W. (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the edits seem sensible and uncontroversial. No need to do anything unless someone objects. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking. Frania W. (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Talk:Maximilien Robespierre

Hi. I'm an administrator here on the English Wikipedia. As requested, I have looked at the edit war on that talk page. Please do not restore the misplaced discussion on Talk:Maximilien Robespierre that you have been edit warring over. It falls under Wikipedia:Forum#FORUM and does not belong on that talk page. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen Edit

Sorry, my bad. I'd looked on the talk page but I couldn't find any discussion for this wording. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Reversion of edits by Dgroseth to Tycho Brahe

Hi, First I want to note that Dicklyon appropriately reverted the final of four edits by Logicus.

Regarding This reversion you made of my reversions. The first edit was reverting an earlier edit by Logicus who replaced a word on a hunch and I may have poorly described the reasoning in my comment. It can be sourced that he sometimes made multiple measurements of stars as well as perhaps planets, to test out the accuracy and calibration of different instruments, as well as bias.

See Victor E. Thoren, "New Light on Tycho's Instruments", JHA 4 (1973) 25-45 1973JHA.....4...25T

Also see Walter G. Wesley, "The Accuracy of Tycho Brahe's Instruments," Journal for the History of Astronomy, 9(1978): 42-53, table 4. 1978JHA.....9...42W where there are multiple observations of meridian altitudes of stars not planets considered.

There is a big difference between a single measurement and constructing an astrometric catalog, which requires multiple measurements, assumptions and an accurate stable clock really helps. Really good clocks did not exist then, nor did established values for refraction. Tycho's adoption of values (plural) for obliquity were biased by multiple ancient values from another method. (Obliquity changes slowly)

See Wittmann 1979 A and A 1979A&A....73..129W and Rawlins page 54, footnote 190 for obliquity values Tycho used.

I made the second edit because the next edit by Logicus is a legitimate complaint. The article currently contains:

To perform the huge number of multiplications needed to produce much of his astronomical data, Tycho relied heavily on the then-new technique of prosthaphaeresis, an algorithm for approximating products based on trigonometric identities that predated logarithms.

My comment is in agreement with the rest of the article, as well as I understand it to be true. It pains me to agree with Logicus. I don't want do revert your edit. My wording here might be poor, am willing to delete or replace the clause with something else as I have not verified it. --Dgroseth (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that my edit comment was probably insufficient to explain my reasons for the revert. I am not qualified to question your knowledge on the subject, and neither was that my object. My problem with the edit was simply that the result was some questionable prose: "Tycho is credited with the most accurate astronomical observations of his time, and the data was used by his assistant Kepler to derive the laws of planetary motion. No one before Tycho had attempted to make so many redundant observations, and the mathematical tools he used to multiply were inferior." There is no obvious connection between the two sentences, even though they are the only ones in that paragraph. I would not object to the information being added (with sources), as I stated I am not qualified to judge which claim is correct, but please try and fit it into the text. After looking at it again it seems that it may be as simple as inserting a "However..." at the beginning of the second sentence. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the first edit restored a fairly bland, even lame reading to a lead that is already longer than it should be. It cries out for something better. I have just found some more cool stuff out (at least for me, Lunar theory!) for the body of the article to post initially on its talk page for now. Perhaps next week I will try to actually help improve the lead also instead of just preserving cruft. I am interested in any criticism good or bad on my writing as I know it is something I really need to work on. That's why I'm pushing myself here. Thanks in advance, --Dgroseth (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your changes

Hello there. You recently posted on my talk page that you removed my changes under Voltaire. I'm glad to see that Wikipedia is as active as ever! Anyways, I'll take note to the problem and correct it. I plan on adding the information under a newly-created "Trivia" section, if possible. Thank you for your quick response, by the way.

Here is the revised section, if you will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#Legacy

--Fruit.Smoothie (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Land of legends (Sagnlandet Lejre)

Dear Saddhiyama, When checking the page "Land of legends (Sagnlandet Lejre)" I get a message. I understand now that I tried to move the page not according the rules, still I don't understand. I didn't tried to move the page from "Lejre Experimental centre" but from "The Land of legends Lejre". Now I don't know what to do to repair the whole thing

Kind regards

Vaagthund (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the template which I placed called for an admin to fix it, as there is nothing us regular editors can do in that situation when it already has been moved. I see it has also been taken care of now. I am not sure what the problem was that you mention, but I hope the message I left on your talk page explains how you should go about it next time you want to move an article. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Spectator (1711)

Dear Saddhiyama, The edits to The Spectator (1711) were not vandalism at all. A link from The Spectator (1711) to the opera based on Alexander Pope's famous Mock-Heroic poem, "The Rape of the Lock" would show how several editions of The Spectator were directly used to create a scene in the opera which corresponds to Pope's line, "Snuff and the Fan supply each pause of chat with singing, laughing, ogling, and all that." The scene where The Ladies have lessons in The Use of the Fan was taken from Spectator 102 and modern readers would enjoy seeing it inserted into an opera in a comic scene. The Lords have lessons in how to manage their snuff-boxes, as described in another Spectator issue. These scenes prepare the Lords and Ladies for The Battle of the Beaux and Belles later on, and is a proper Mock-Heroic use of the text. I hope you will reinstate the useful and proper link. Debmason1 (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debmason1 (talk • contribs)

I apologise and retract my warning, as it is now clear that your edit was not vandalism. However there is a couple of problems with it. By writing [[ro:The Rape of the Lock]] you added an interlanguage link to the Romanian Wikipedia, saying that they have an article that is equivalent to Spectator (1711) called "Rape of the Lock", which is not true. Furthermore you may benefit from reading the Manual of Style to learn the proper way of adding external links to an article. Following this feel free to add the link once more. As you seem to be the proprietor of the website linked, I must warn you that someone may find the link to be a conflict of interest, or perhaps just that it is not relevant enough to the subject in question. Hope this helps, regards --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

I was only offering my opinion, as you and others did. Please, explain this to me further. While it is clear many of you support gays and atheism, kindly remember not all societies are so open. Thanks, 63.117.244.182 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can not speak for the others, but I was offering my opinion on whether the subject was relevant for the article. Your comment, besides being trollish and totally non sequitur, had no relevance in connection with the improvement of the article at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why cant I add new stuff to the Aryan page?

The Stuff I wantead to add wasn't wrong information, and some of the stuff that I wanted to add can be learned here on Wikipedia then. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome to add new information to the article, however at least parts of your edits consisted of test edits and it broke an existing template in the article. Please experiment in the Sandbox (for example try to get to know the citation system) if you are unsure about the results of your edits. Also it would be nice if you used the edit comments, it will make it easier in the future to determine what you are trying to achieve. But as I said you are welcome to add edit constructively in any article. Hope this helps--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of edit did I?

I didn't any kind of edit in your Censorship just adding my Wikilink.Nothing more, at all... I'm very surprised by your censor's reaction... Friendly yours, however... Adieu-siatz... bye... Patric Sans...--an Occitalonian Trobador 11:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patric SANS (talk • contribs)

I am not quite sure what it is that you are trying to say below. But please do not translate parts of articles on this Wikipedia into Occitan (or other foreign languages for that matter) like you did here. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's censorship?

I think really I don't deserve your totalitarian reaction, leaving a robot working for you!! Bye... and sayonara...--Patric SANS: an Occitalonian Trobador 11:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patric SANS (talk • contribs) What's that? A no signature? Patric SANS: an Occitalonian Trobador 11:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's really happening... indeed?

How can I do for linking my article Censura with your Censorship if you don't want I " introduce " your so " private game preserve "... However, I stay linked with the other Vicipædiæ Mundi... So...
So long...Patric SANS: an Occitalonian Trobador 13:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So sorry, indeed...

I do apologize... I saw you linked " my " Censura with " your " Censorship... Thanks... Friendly yours... Bye...Patric SANS: an Occitalonian Trobador 13:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Salomon Isacovici

An article that you have been involved in editing, Salomon Isacovici, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salomon Isacovici. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rousseau discussion page edit

Hey there, I was just removing references to my own user name. I wasn't logged in. If I do this again, this time while logged in, will you revert my changes? Am I breaking a rule in editing my own posts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark7714 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. There should be no problem with you removing your username from your own posts as far as I know. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck did I do that?

I haven't the slightest idea how I managed to do that! I was trying to add a two-sentence comment to the section "Emergency disruption help needed," and I really didn't touch anything else that should have caused problems like that. Something got bollixed up somewhere. Sorry! Glenfarclas (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, it was then most likely an edit conflict or something. Please disregard my warning (feel free to remove it. I was as surprised as you probably were, and on second thought should probably have left a customised message, sorry about that). --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I guess this is why I should use Show Preview more often than I do. Thanks— Glenfarclas (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

François de La Rochefoucauld (writer)

Hello. I am trying to modernise the prose of the above article and could use some help. I see that you have shown an interest in the past. Would you like to be involved again? Rumiton (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something weird

Bonjour Saddhiyama,

Would you mind checking the last 36 revisions done to Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans? I find it strange that the editor stuck this at his 25th revision & left it there: [3]. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have taken a look, and that is weird indeed. But apart from that one sentence I can't find anything wrong with it, though I am no expert on the Duke of Orleans so I can't be sure regarding the finer details in the addition. A personal note with the dif on the editors talk page, asking what it was about might be useful. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did not read all the revisions to see if work done well, and the turkey walk happens to be some type of mischief by a child around the computer. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It was a forgotten page marker. Aurevoir ! --Frania W. (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danish cartoons

I am about to get off-line, but this: http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article23085.ece , might help you.--Supertouch (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is indeed a good source with lots of details. I have written a short section about the criticism, but as the incident progresses it probably needs to be expanded. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page and warnings

Hi Saddhiyama, I noticed your edit summary "Warnings need to stay visible on the talk pages of IPs" on User talk:122.106.250.0. That is not correct: see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. Thanks for the heads up. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of coups d'état and coup attempts

Another anon IP is attempting to insert the unsourced March 5, 2010, Italian Government change in law--Work permit (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested page protection. Let us hope it will be accepted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gestapo (March 2010)

But no action taken on the preceding snarky comment about "right-wingers" and the slap at US healthcare? Solicitr (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed that the preceding comments was also from today, they have now been removed and the IP given a warning as well. Just some friendly advice: Next time please ignore obvious trolls or even better, give them a WP:FORUM warning yourself. It is a lot more constructive than stooping to their own level. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal Of My Last Question

Could you explain your removal of my last question?174.3.98.20 (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Questions that are obviously asked with the intent of trolling are removed and warnings handed out. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, that is not the purpose. Please put back the question so it does not look like edit warring. I am interested in what is referred to by Curry in the article.174.3.98.20 (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen. You can repost your question with a proper header and phrasing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As requested I have provided references for my claim as to the editor of Mein Kampf.

References: - ~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books, 1977, pp.237–243. Also: - Hitler A Study In Tyranny (1962) by Alan Bullock and from page 198 of William L. Shirer's THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH : - "The body of Father Bernhard Stempfle of the Hieronymite Order, who, it will be remembered from earlier pages, helped edit Mein Kampf" and from David Irving's The War Path (Focal Point) Page 71. "He learned that somebody had killed his old friend Pastor Bernhard Stempﬂe, an almost daily acquaintance of earlier years, who had helped edit Mein Kampf for publication". Do you require more references or are we in agreement now? I have provided references from five books that include respected works on the topic. Mrfh (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good and reliable sources. I have replied on the talk page. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADDING THAT 'RELIABLE SOURCES SUGGEST STEMPFLE MAY HAVE REWRITTEN MEIN KAMPF?'

Dear Saddhiyama, I wondered if Bernhard Stempfle was in jail with Hitler because he was involved in the Beer Hall Putsch and have been able to confirm that the assumption was correct from a first hand source, Otto Strasser. In regard to his contribution: -

This is from Otto Strasser's Flight from Terror (NATIONAL TRAVEL CLUB New York 1943. Page 99). "In its original version, Mein Kampf was a rambling, almost incoherent expression of political commonplaces and hackneyed socialistic theory lifted from the philosophies of a dozen minor politicians and obscure statesmen. There were passages taken from Houston S. Chamberlain and Lagarde, men whom Dietrich Eckhart used to quote in conversation and writing. The finished manuscript was given to Father Staempfle, a priest of brilliant intellectual attainment who was also the editor of a newspaper at Miesbach, and he twice rewrote it for Hitler, editing it extensively and making it both coherent and readable."

ALSO - Dr. J.H. Lehmann points out in his book Behind The Dictators (pp 133) that the Jesuit Father Staempfle wrote Mein Kampf for Hitler. "Hitler's Mein Kampf was edited and, according to Alberto Rivera (Former Jesuit), ghostwritten, by Bernhardt Staempfle, a Jesuit priest." This is less reliable as Alberto cannot be considered as such. However, Otto Strasser, despite his obvious antagonism towards Hitler was party to the events at the time and cannot be easily dismissed. Other sources also suggest Staempfle played a major role in writing Mein Kampf and his leading role in the Thule (a contributing editor to it's publications) also supports the contention. I am working on finding other references that confirm (or otherwise) this hypothesis.

Do you feel that some mention of his 'considerable contribution' to the book is in order, even if we qualify it by saying 'based on some reliable sources?'. Let me know your thoughts in this regard. Mrfh (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== Bernhard Stempﬂe ==

As requested I have provided references for my claim as to the editor of Mein Kampf.

References: - ~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books, 1977, pp.237–243. Also: - Hitler A Study In Tyranny (1962) by Alan Bullock and from page 198 of William L. Shirer's THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH : - "The body of Father Bernhard Stempfle of the Hieronymite Order, who, it will be remembered from earlier pages, helped edit Mein Kampf" and from David Irving's The War Path (Focal Point) Page 71. "He learned that somebody had killed his old friend Pastor Bernhard Stempﬂe, an almost daily acquaintance of earlier years, who had helped edit Mein Kampf for publication". Do you require more references or are we in agreement now? I have provided references from five books that include respected works on the topic.

Rollback

Would you like Rollback? I just saw you at AIV and thought I'd check your contribs- I'd be happy to grant it for you if you want. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to granted rollback rights. Hopefully my vandalism-fighting efficiency will increase from this. Thank you for offering it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies- I must have missed your reply earlier. I'll give you rollback in about ten minutes- I'm just in the middle of doing something on the Main Page! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, mate. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that took me longer than I planned, but the box is now ticked! ;) Just a few little things to remember:

Rollback is only for blatant vandalism (though you can use it for self reverts)
Having the tool doesn't give you any special status
Misuse or abuse can lead to it removal by an admin

WP:RBK and Help:Reverting have more information on the technical side of things, you might want to have a read over those before you start using it and you can test at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Have fuin and let me know if you have any questions, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :) --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhardt Staempfle page.

Dear Saddhiyama,

I am considering writing a page (link is blank at this time) for Father Bernhardt Staempfle. It is already clear that this will prove to be highly contentious as Staempfle is, arguably the most mysterious character, associated with Hitler's early inner circle.

Many popular 'myths' surround Bernhardt Staempfle and can be found repeatedly on the web but seem to lack any reliable sources that support them on close examination. These include the contention that he was a defrocked Priest and that he was murdered on Hitler's orders because he was talking about the murder/death of Geli Raubal.

In view of the many contradictions, even in the accounts based on reliable sources, my feeling is that all credible versions should be offered and the final conclusions left to the reader.

I would greatly appreciate your guidance and assistance in this endeavor, as between us we may be able to author a page that does justice to this important player in history and provides a balanced perspective on his role in the rise of Adolph Hitler.

May I count on your participation and considerable expertise?

Mrfh (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good idea to create an article about him, he is certainly notably one way or another. I would be glad to help, however this next month and a half I am going to cut down considerably on my wikitime due to real life obligations. I can still be of assistance but expect some delays. My knowledge on Staempfle is inadequate as I have only read about him a few times in passing in other works about the Third Reich, so I must consider you the expert on the subject itself. Still, if you think I can be of help in keeping the article within Wiki-guidelines I will give it a try. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saddhiyama,

Thanks for the response. The major problem I face in this regard is Wikipedia is based on assertions backed by reliable sources but in the case of Staempfle many of the source contradict each other. Setting ones self up as judge and jury on accredited historical works is asking for trouble so the approach I would like to take is to offer all serious opposing views in an unbiased manner. Do you feel this is the way to proceed? The Thule Society was design as a 'smoke and mirrors' front organization in the first place and my guess is even if one could bring it's members back from the dead and let them edit this page the accounts would differ greatly. This should be interesting at the very least. Best wishes, Mrfh (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is starting to take shape and I have managed to reference almost all the existing contentions regarding the 'good' Father. And to eliminate those without historical foundation. I am now trying to fill in some key missing facts such as his date of birth, introduction to Hitler and involvement in the Munich Putsch. As he is a contentious character I will not publish until I have rock solid references to all significant facts and some degree of continuity. Mrfh (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you working on this? I have been looking at your contributions, but I can't seem to locate your Staempfle-page edits. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been compiling the data in a Word document and Excel spread sheet and have not published anything on the Wikipedia page yet. I have a mountain of information but it is punctuated with glaring omissions, in particular his exact role in the Munich Putsch. I have been able to verify that his date and place of birth remains unknown and sadly no picture of him seem to exist. Once I feel I have exhausted all avenues of research, I will create a first draft of the page for you to look at. Best wishes, Mrfh (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that you create the article in a Wikipedia test environnment, preferably in a sandbox-page like User:Mrfh/Sandbox/Bernhard Staempfle or something similar. In that way, other Wikipedia editors would have a chance of commenting and contributing on the article, ensuring it would be acceptable before it was posted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saddhiyama, That is a great idea and I will do exactly that. I have a list of 132 books that pertain to the topic and have now gone through about 64 of them. I have also written to a number of the leading historians in the field to see if they can point me in the right direction to fill in some of the most important blanks. Bernhardt Staempfle is, in my opinion, the key to understanding most of the remaining mysteries about Hitler's early days (if the full truth could be uncovered). As I believe that absolute accuracy in the history of key political events is of the utmost importance, I am leaving no stone unturned before presenting my entry. It may take another two weeks before I am ready to post the first draft for review.

QUESTION. If one has three accounts of a particular event, one from a first hand participant (i.e. Otto Strasser) who may have a basis (but that being unlikely in the case in point), one from a respected historian and one from a 'historian' with a clear agenda (clearing the good name of the Catholic Church), which account should be given most credibility?

Mrfh (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been peer reviewed it is generally the "respected" historian, however be aware that it is perfectly possible for several respected historians to have differing opinions, so it may be a good idea to write something like "According to [respected historian] Staempfle did this..." etc. Only if there seems to be a general consensus in academia is it possible to write something like "Most historians think that...", but generally such wordings should be avoided. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Westergaard

I reverted this edit of your bot, as there seems to be no reason for the deletion of the image. It seems to have deleted the image from all the articles it is in use in. Surely this is a mistake?. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted by User:TheDJ in violation of policy. The subsequent removal of the image from all articles was an unfortunate side effect of this. Reverting the edit was the correct thing to do. --Carnildo (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Supertouch (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a warning... Anyway, I reported the ip at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Supertouch (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't help but think that you are accusing me of edit warring, when in fact I was reverting personal accusations levelled against me (1, 2 and 3). --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a WP:3RR after I saw that you had three reverts regardless of the content of the ip's edits... that's it, if you are not edit warring, then you are not edit warring, it was a warning.--Supertouch (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]