Dear Knepflerle: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Wikipedia:Introduction
• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Frequently Asked Questions
  • How do you edit a page?
  • How do you revert to a previous version of a page?
  • What about copyrights?
• Community Portal

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk (discussion) page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!   -WarthogDemon 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy welcome! As I've explained on my user page, I'm not new as such, just absent-minded :) But thanks all the same! Knepflerle 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I saw that you have contributed to the German language article, so I naturally assumed you are familiar with German. If you would be so kind to answer a question I have, I would be greatly appreciative: is the word Benutzer (the German word for "user") singular or plural? I was thinking that Benutzerin was more accurate for the singular form of "user." Thanks...--_└^{A. Morris}_┘^┌_talk^┐  15:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's fine, I didn't expect you to reply right away. Thank you so much for your reply, that helped to clarify. --_└^{A. Morris}_┘^┌_talk^┐  14:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for letting me know about the second one. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 11:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on "Pronunciation of major geographical Japanese names in Chinese", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Alexf⁴² 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was simply that there were over 20,000 hits to it on a Google search and as it was mentioned in some recent professional correspondence about a conference there attended by my colleagues, I thought that it should be stated as common. Maybe it is only commonly spelt that way in Australia. How about simply "(also Gottenburg)" ? PeterChickenCampbell (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the overwhelming evidence presented by 2 different users, would you consider stopping by the Talk:Hors d'œuvre to strike or change your vote not to move Talk:Hors d'œuvre to Hors d'oeuvre. Check it out. Nearly all the culinary literature and dictionaries surveyed spelled the term without the œthel. BTW, it appears you were right and I was wrong about the pluralization issue.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Knepflerle :-) Thank you for bringing this up, I will deal with them. Longer answer in my talk page. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) Ev (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

should I start from the current situation or from the situation before the recent (yesterday and today) moves? I.e. just place the relevant templates, or revert recent moves first? Yaan (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why you chose to ignore my proposal and start off a separate section? If you had objections, would it not have been better to voice them in the proposal?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response brought up points to consider relevant to several discussions on the page, so I used the available flexibility of discussion formatting to create a new section as I felt this better served my intentions of highlighting general issues. Knepflerle (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please define a science article. You may point me to a discussion and consensus here on Wikipedia (preferred), or you may give me your own opinion, with justification. You may also wish to read WP:SULF if you have not already. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I may take up your suggestion of centralising the debate. I am of course familiar with ENGVAR. --John (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a funny one because it is not a simple ENGVAR issue; even in the UK "sulfur" is increasingly used in education. I'll think about the best way to proceed. Thanks for your thoughts and I'll let you know what I decide. --John (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on the article. I probably added that myself; apologies if you've already seen it. --John (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my comments on canvassing. I have been burned myself by accusations of canvassing (once when I was genuinely ignorant of the prohibition, a second time when I did everything conceivable to be even handed and transparent) and thus I guess I was a bit hypersensitive to someone doing what appears to me to be a way of getting around the policy. I too withdrew from a discussion after the latter incident because I felt I did nothing wrong (and, it turned out, so too did everyone else).

I still feel that such posts are often likely to have the same impact as canvassing, but I believe even more strongly in free speech. I am embarassed to find myself on the opposite side of the fence from the freedom that I hold so dearly. I ask your forgiveness, and will defend to the end your right to participate in the discussion in question. In the meantime, I will go back to my wikibreak. Unschool (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Knepflerle -- Good grief, since when is all of that posting of templates necessary? This is a routine request, like others I've made from time to time, to correct the capitalization. The only problem, as usual, is that I couldn't move it over the redirect. All of my previous similar requests were carried out without a fuss. Has something changed? Cgingold (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem now -- it's been contested, which wasn't clear from your template/message. Okay, thanks anyway. Cgingold (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knepflerle - I have made a few additional modifications to cover a situation like this in the future. Any news from the other WP:RM regulars? JPG-GR (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to see past Vorpommern. Either its the same as the current article or different. If it's different, we can have a new Vorpommern article and it doesn't matter. If it's the same, then it seems very odd to me to quibble over different prepositional or cardinal prefixes when we have the supremely used Vorpommern. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend you repost this critique to that template talk, and maybe add a link to the discussion we can start there to all existing articles on regions of Europe. I've taken a look myself and yes, it's a mess.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Knepflerle (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Too may of the region articles are written country-specific or have names that don't match up to general usage.

Ajh1492 (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion at Talk:Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edited and commented. The title does not define the scope of the article unambiguously. Knepflerle (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the move to take page from WP:Naming conventions please could we consolidate on WP:Naming convention as a compromise? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving it a try. Sorry that there was so little return for your efforts. Once more the wagons were circled. I wonder how en.wikt compares to de.wikt or any other wiktionary you have experience with. DCDuring (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about missing the discussion; I simply hadn't checked the talk page. I made the moves based upon the facts that some new links I was adding at Coppa Italia 2008-09 produced redlinks. Feel free to move back while we await consensus. —Ed Cormany (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The move was in the backlog. I understood that you were in favour pending the changes to the article? If not, I'm quite happy to re-open it. Requests which receive no objection are usually moved. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Knpeferle, Dreading further mess I did chime in earlier. There must be some binding reference somewhere stating that it's no longer convetion to bend pronunciations so as to fit phonemes in the phonetic system of the Observer's language. It's a tricky subject. --Joelemaltais (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Knepferle, that was a tough one. From what I get the issue is resolved - isn't it? Do they have barnstars for patience? :)) cheers and good job --Joelemaltais (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. I have replied there. - Darwinek (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I noticed that you referred to Scolaire's reasons in you oppose vote. Can you clarify in the poll your reasons for opposing? I ask this as Scolaire made a couple mistakes in his assessment. (which I've address underneath his oppose). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified; still cannot support. Knepflerle (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. Thanks for clarifying it, though. Would you go for any kind of combined approach by the way, or are you fully happy with ROI? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to think of a solution that avoids the problems I've laid out, and haven't been convinced by the arguments which state the use of RoI is particularly problematical. It is a shame there are so many "arguments" on that page on both sides of the form "I like it", "it suits me", "no way" that have gone completely unchallenged as yet, so my clarification comes gladly. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backing me up on that. It's frustrating as a logged-out user, as your words don't always seem to carry as much weight with some people. As you say, WP:ENGVAR is very clear on cases such as Coldplay. I've been logged out for just under a month dealing with wikistress, on a dynamic IP (it resets each time I restart my computer), firstly as 88.104.195.113, then 88.104.206.69, then 88.104.151.185 (edited quite a bit under that, and didn't restart my PC for a while), and now finally 88.104.241.79. I'll probably end up logging back in in the next couple of days, but it's just a little frustrating that had I been logged into my account, which has ~10,000 edits, then the other anon would probably have assumed I had a point, and spent a little longer than a few seconds glancing at the intro to the policy. Thanks again for agreeing with me and backing me up - the frustration was at risk of prolonging my wikibreak by a week further! :) 88.104.241.79 (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying here, as you'll probably be on a different IP by now): No worries; it's the right thing for the article. WP:ENGVAR is an important tool to prevent interminable strife and it's right to use it where necessary. Hope you start enjoying editing again soon! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Knepflerle, I replied on my talk page, but the "tldr" version is: I've decided to reopen the discussion, and see if we can determine whether English usage is more towards Plzen or Plzeň. Thanks for showing me those other sources. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it helps speaking Swedish in this case, although it was hard even finding sources in Swedish (I've noticed that Swedish clubs rarely provide birthplaces). And sources about football is notoriously unreliable, even big sites like Goal.com can't always be trusted. Cheers! Sebisthlm (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Remember Talk:Paul Moriarty (rugby)?. They're trying it again here.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reconsider your !vote - if you look at the Ghits, Bootham Crescent does actually appear to be the common name. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What positions would you suggest we create articles for? Where do we even draw the line? I was thinking that articles would be necessary for the following positions:

• Goalkeeper
• Full back
• Centre back
• Sweeper (includes liberos)
• Wing back
• Defensive midfielder (includes deep-lying playmakers)
• Central midfielder
• Wide midfielder (i.e. the David Beckham style player)
• Attacking midfielder
• Winger (i.e. the Cristiano Ronaldo style player)
• Second striker
• Striker

Articles for old positions would also be necessary. These would include:

• Goalkeeper
• Full back
• Centre half
• Wing half
• Outside forward
• Inside forward
• Centre forward

I realise that some of the old positions and the current positions overlap, and also that there are already articles for many of the positions. Nevertheless, I felt that a comprehensive list was necessary. Please reply on my talk page with your comments, particularly any positions that you feel should be added or removed from the list. – PeeJay 18:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on my own talk page in a moment.--Tznkai (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I was vandalising, considering the fact that I deleted an obvious slander to Polish people by removing a section which said that they smelt. Please don't sent me anymore condescending remarks like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.173.208 (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy mistake to make; that page was kind of a mess. I've taken the liberty of striking your vandalism warning on 130.88's talk page. Hope that's okay! -- Vary Talk 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what's happened - you cleared the same edit up at the same time I did, but your edit got to the server first and mine wasn't stored. I didn't spot this and so got mixed up as to who had made the vandalistic edit, and left the warning on your page.

Please accept my apologies, it was an oversight on my part. Glad to see other people are keeping their eye on the article and cleaning it up even faster than I can! Sorry about that, Knepflerle (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, like I said, it happens. Keep up the good work! :D -- Vary Talk 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the section! Together with the consonant shift table added by an IP, it now looks so much clearer and much more beautiful and delicate. [;-)] The "Cognates" table looks still a bit too long to me, but that may be my personal taste... -- megA (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you as reasons given in the edit summary. 78.149.236.151 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at your talk as to why this is not a reflexive pronoun in this case. Reflexive pronouns always refer back to a preceding noun or pronoun - that is exactly what makes them reflexive. Tu te laves is part of the conjugation of se laver (check here if you like). tu me laves is taken from the conjugation of the non-reflexive verb laver with the addition of a pronoun to function as a direct object which is not reflexive, as me does not refer to tu. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm overjoyed to be under your keen eye. I wonder what you want. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour has indeed brought attention to yourself. I want the articles to be edited and discussed according to our policies. Knepflerle (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Compromise offered at Talk:British Isles#Undue weight to this list and now (0009Z) showing at British Isles, failing which, I withdraw. Endrick Shellycoat 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC) PS Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.[reply]

The other alternative name of the Prekmurian is the Pannon Slovenian language (Slovene: Panonska slovenščina). I wanted write this, because the name Wends (Vend) partlay old traditional, political and polysemous name. This expression is right, but yet not general. Doncsecz 17:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Doncsecz 17:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, too, but as always it is not easy to exclude something with 100% certainty. That's why I asked someone who might know, maybe you have thoughts on this. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response - the IP's elaboration on the origins of the Vikings are very enlightening. I took this to Talk:Early history of Pomerania, if you are interested to get further into this, you are welcome. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see that user pay much attention to what I or anybody else have to say to him. I've often been annoyed with how unhelpful his comments are. Although I think he is much less incivil then some other users, I'll leave a note on his talk page (for what good it will be...), and if he keeps escalating, you may consider invoking Digwuren's sanctions on battleground creation on AE.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have used my notification of Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte by Pit Pietersen against me. Now it's obvious I was right, that the book was unreliable. You have written "That's not how WP:V works". According to WP:V the editor, i.e. User:Skäpperöd, was obliged to use reliable sources when editing the series of "Expulsion" articles but he didn't. You didn't check the author and the editors of the book before you made your conclusions about me. I assume German is your native language so you needed about 1 minute to do the task.

BTW this is an English Wikipedia, so Polish speaking editors are responsible for the quality of Polish language sources and German speaking editors are responsible for the quality of German language sources. Maybe German speaking editors should do some checking of German language sources if the History of German settlement in Eastern Europe contains 7 quotes from Pietersen introduced many months ago? The German Wikipedia quotes Pitersen only once.

The quoted table from www.z-g-v.de is a trash can made by anonymous editors. The table is biased, it minimizes Germany-made expulsions of Poles. No, I don't have academic sources discussing an amateur table on a secondary important site of a German organisation. The same I don't know any serious source quoting the table.

User:Skäpperöd is involved in a quarrell with User:Gwinndeith. Is it some kind of Polish conspiracy to annoy User:Skäpperöd or rather User:Skäpperöd is too assertive to impose his POV even if he isn't right? Xx236 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You have used my notification of Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte by Pit Pietersen against me" - no I haven't. It was your continued refusal to answer simple questions or requests for clarification.

"You didn't check the author and the editors of the book before you made your conclusions about me. I assume German is your native language so you needed about 1 minute to do the task." - it would have taken you 5 seconds to give the required information given you apparently knew it anyway. That's the problem with your conduct in a nutshell.

"I assume German is your native language so you needed about 1 minute to do the task. BTW this is an English Wikipedia, so Polish speaking editors are responsible for the quality of Polish language sources and German speaking editors are responsible for the quality of German language sources. Maybe German speaking editors should do some checking of German language sources if the History of German settlement in Eastern Europe contains 7 quotes from Pietersen introduced many months ago? " - if make complaints about sources in any language, be prepared for speakers of any language to ask you for information. Instead of typing everybody's "duties" according to what languages (you assume) they speak, try and help everyone investigate.

"The quoted table from www.z-g-v.de is a trash can made by anonymous editors. The table is biased, it minimizes Germany-made expulsions of Poles." - it may or may not be a biased representation of the truth, but it is a faithful representation of what a very high profile group believe to be true. As long as it is reported in the article as representing what that group believe is true, and not as "the truth", there is no problem. The very first line of WP:V reads "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - you still haven't understood this. Biased sources can be used in this fashion - as in WP:NPOV: "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted".

If you make well-sourced arguments, people will listen - as evidenced at WP:RS/N. Instead of complaining that people didn't take your word for it automatically, you should be looking at what Stephen Schulz did differently to you so that we listened to him. If you do the same as him in future, you'll get a lot further here. Knepflerle (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Knepflerle, du hast auf der Diskussion des oben genannten Artikels geschrieben, daß du dich in ein paar Tagen um das schlechte Englisch kümmern willst. Ich wollte dich fragen, ob du vielleicht ein Template kennst, das man in den Artikel einbauen kann, damit auch andere gleich sehen, daß hier was nicht stimmt. --Kazu89 ^ノート 17:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wie wär's mit Template:Copyedit oder Template:RoughTranslation? Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup könnte dir auch nützlich sein. Alles Gute! Knepflerle (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für deine Hilfe. Ich bin auf der englischsprachigen Wikipedia nicht so oft aktiv, und weiß nicht so gut, wo ich den ganzen Metakram finde. Also, danke nochmal. --Kazu89 ^ノート 13:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please get this move dispute sorted out, at Talk:Great Mosque of Cordova#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies about the Defaultsort. Have replied at my Talk page. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reverted some edits by Special:Contributions/69.225.251.134 in a couple of Germanic-related articles. I thought you might have liked to know that I'm also following similar edits by that user, and I have repeatedly warned them. If my understanding is correct, they're trying to gratuitously "de-latinize" the English used in articles. I consider that a form of sneaky vandalism, and intend to report it later on if the problem continues. --LjL (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these links makes it pretty clear that below her on 1978 and 1979 it says USA, which it comes from Wimbledon themsleves, and don't you think Wimbledon knows their own records? http://aeltc.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/rolls/ladiesroll.html and http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/rolls/ladiesroll.html TW-RF (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no I prefer to go to WP:TennisTW-RF (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Knepflerle. This is really impressive and detailed article, good work. I've added a category there - check it, please. Just one question: Would you consider renaming the article to Daniela Hantuchová career statistics or Daniela Hantuchová career and statistics? It seems to be a common practice on Wikipedia, see Category:Tennis records and statistics. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see other people have noticed this conflict of interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Knepflerle! I see you have been involved in the previous discussion about renaming the article Carinthia (province). I've opened a new discussion about the renaming of the article to 'Slovenian Carinthia' (see its talk page) and moving the material about the statistical region to a separate article (like it has been done for other Slovenian statistical regions; see {{Statistical regions of Slovenia}}). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how so? Cite which point you are referring to. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Good point. It's the infobox, then... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really large move request but RFC bot is, unfortunately, not going to let you do that:-( Possibly placing some kind of break at the move request itself would work so that the bot sees an end to that user's post but that would be altering another user's post (a big no-no). I think we'll just have to live with it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the RfC has to be neutral, without cherry picking and cheering for the result, doesn't this apply for the RM also. The request is not neutral, contains OR and sources that paint a preety picture over the one side of the medal. -- Imbris (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So whaddaya think? Have we amassed enough evidence at Kiev? What are we missing? (Taivo (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right: thank you for calling my attention to that. I know well that not everyone commenting on AN/I is an admin, so I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time. I've struck "admins" and corrected it to "established editors", as that's a better description. I do stand by my opinion, though: changing "help families" to "help and/or abuse families" is not a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, so WP:VAND applies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and I use Popups, which shows me user permissions, so I don't need to go looking for the list of admins. Thanks for the pointer, though...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thread is in danger of drying up and being archived without any firm proposal being put in place. Should we let it? Kevin McE (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your help in support of WP:V and stopping WP:OR WRT flags. I think I'm the only one left pushing for this and I'm about ready to give up. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just when I was about to give up, User:Gnevin had a great idea that appears to have satisfied everyone's concerns. Thanks for your early comments to the conversation that helped me decide to dive in and "fight the good fight". The outcome appears to be something that won't anger people while at the same time eliminating the problems caused by a lack of verifiable sources. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment soon. Knepflerle (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a new and expanded preferential poll created on Talk:Karkonosze similar to the recent Ireland poll. The votes from the previous poll could unfortunately not be transferred over to the new system and you may need to recast your vote. I apologise for the inconvenience. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, at least the AFD could wake up somebody able to fix the article. Lars T. (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the rule of three reverts, thank you. It doesn't matter what English speakers are used to, it only matters what is the correct way of writing it in standard British/American/Candadian/Astralian English now( as opposued to 50 years ago, 100 years ago or 2000 years ago). Therefore, my edits' only intention is to bring this Wikipedia article into compliance with the content policies of the English-language Wikipedia (in this case, mainly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which indicate that all articles mentioning the Ukrainian city Kharkiv should use the same form used as title in the article on the city itself - i.e. Kharkiv). — If you have any doubts regarding these policies, I will be happy to clarify them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkononenko (talk • contribs) 12:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it absolutely matters what English speakers are used to because this is the English Wikipedia, not the Ukrainian one. Wikipedia's naming policies are guided by common English usage and you will find "Kharkov" quite common in English. Add that to the fact that the majority of residents of Kharkiv are Russian speakers and you have quite sufficient reason to include the Russian variant in the article. The article is titled "Kharkiv" by naming conventions, but we are not discussing the title of the article, but variants listed within the text. WP:NCON doesn't apply to listing variants within text, but only to the title of the article. (Taivo (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Replied at User_talk:Rkononenko, let's keep discussion there or at Talk:Kharkiv. Knepflerle (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your suggestion, what do you think of User talk:Taivo/Ukrainian names? (Taivo (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'll comment there Knepflerle (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prob has spread slightly to the classification at Slavic languages. Again, presenting Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, etc. as equidistant SS langs.

There was an orphaned Serbo-Croatian grammar that was fairly well developed but not finished before being put on hold a few months ago. The authors intended to finish it before calling for merger, but it's still reasonably good as it is. Missing sections might be copied over and then reworked. kwami (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be spreading to Template:South Slavic languages sidebar. Don't know yet if that's going to be a problem, but probably. kwami (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, long time no see. Given your experience in the Kosovo area, it would be good to have your opinions about the suitability of this barnstar: Template:Kosovo je Srbija. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards#Barnstar requiring some discussion. Best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Knepflerle, I hope you're fine. That thing could serve as a textbook example of creating the wrong editing atmosphere and even a "battleground" mentality. I would gladly ignore all rules and delete it myself right now, if I had the time to reply to any subsequent concerns. Instead, I'm leaving for a much more pleasant afternoon at the Book Fair. :-) - Best, Ev (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That confirms my gut feeling about this template, so I've taken it to TfD for wider discussion. Enjoy the fair! Knepflerle (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly did, thank you. I have commented at the TfD discussion. - Ev (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some problem you want to address with your posts here? Cause you are being awfully persistent for someone who, from what I can see, has had no contact with me, Kwamikagami, or MarcusHookPa before, but when Kwamikagami is discussed, you jump at the topic in a back and forth pissing match. This was seen before at my thread when Kwamikagami misused his admin tools (of which he has a clear history of doing). But I can see no reason why you would. What's the deal? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The incorrect allegation caught my attention, and I am simply pointing out that the allegation is incorrect. Editors shouldn't be judged on incorrect information. Knepflerle (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right...and before? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A block was being proposed that was horribly premature. It's far better to give an editor advice and give them chance to act on it. Knepflerle (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, a history of misusing tools, nah, that just needs some advice. So, another one of them coincidences, eh? DUCK much? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an edit war, irrespective of any editor's history. You might disagree with his judgment, but even the worst of Wikipedia's editors shouldn't be punished for things they haven't actually done. Knepflerle (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But when an editor has done this in the past, it is just another example they can't be trusted to follow the rules and as an admin 3RR is an easy one. Hell, you and I learned that our first weeks here. Don't vandalize and 3RR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he could have dealt with the situation at Chichester, Pennsylvania much better; but no matter what he did there or anywhere else there was nothing inappropriate with his conduct at Darien, Connecticut. Knepflerle (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times can we say Kwamikagami "could [deal] with the situation...much better" and not start to look at patterns of misuse of tools and edit warring, even if they are small and slight? He did it on the page I was working on, he did it on Chichester....there is evidence he did it elsewhere. So, even if it is slight, it is evidence he tried to start another one. No matter what you want to call Darien, CT, the evidence he edit warred on Chichester and has a habit and pattern of it is grounds for a block this time around. No more advice, no more "aww, that's OK". Straight to banhammerland, even if it is just for 24 or 31 hours. That is a permanent stain on his record he would have to deal with for his actions. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it is evidence he tried to start another one." - no it isn't, that's just your interpretation of his motives. You're judging him on what you guess he was thinking, rather than what he did or what actually happened. That's not how Wikipedia works.

"Straight to banhammerland, even if it is just for 24 or 31 hours. That is a permanent stain on his record he would have to deal with for his actions.": WP:BLOCK, "[blocks] are not intended for use in retaliation [or] as punishment". Knepflerle (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word has stress placed on the first two syllables. Please respect the changes that were made because this word is commonly mispronounced. MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that actually did miss one very popular title which seems to outperform all others I have tried, so I actually rewrote move request now.--Staberinde (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal before the move request, which I think represents a decent compromise on the main issues.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, those three-letter abbreviations are standardised. FIFA and UEFA use a set list of three-letter abbreviations for each of their member associations. You can see FIFA's list here. – PeeJay 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I had touth that your opinion on this may be vary usefull for me. Resumingly, I´ve made this sandbox User:FkpCascais/Sandbox8. I initially did it with the purpose of having for me a list of seasons in top league for every team, so I could allways use it, for exemple, to see when to add top league categories, to know when a player has played, or not, in top league, while playing for some club, to see all clubs that ever played in top league, league titles in different periods, and many other usefull reasons. Initially, I had ony the first list, but I couldn´t refrained myself to continue with more stats, and to make it an article like. So, an experienced and wise editor opinion, like yours, could be very helpfull now to me, what you think I should do with it? Should I turn it to article? Are there any similar footy articles around? What should I name it? Should I add something else? Or, should I just keep it as sandbox? Should I delete it, and tell you sorry for bothering you with such nonsence? :) When you find a minute, please tell me what you recomend me to do. Anyway, this is also a oportunity to send you regards (before the World Cup begins, yuppy!!!) FkpCascais (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Knepflerle. I noted your suggestion for a general discussion on how Italian settlements should be named on Wikipedia. There was an extensive, and somewhat involved, discussion within the last year that resulted in the rewriting of the naming convention for Italy. The consensus that was eventually reached was that the primary disambiguator should be Placename, Region. Placename, Italy was specifically rejected as being too controversial in some regions, whereas use of the regional name was considered acceptable to both nationalists and unionists. The solution is, of course, similar to that used for the United States, Australia, Canada and South Africa. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For making 2010 FIFA World Cup a faster loading, page by removing tables and templates. Keep up the fine work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a very pleasant surprise... thank you very much, glad you found it useful! Knepflerle (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I hope Chris can come up with something acceptable to all parties. – PeeJay 14:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, --WFC-- 02:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted the comment, as promised. While I retain the belief that using FAC as a justification for the change could prove counterproductive, I sincerely apologise for the way I've approached the entire matter. Regards, --WFC-- 12:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay; only just started getting back into the swing of things. Have a look at template:football squad player/testcases for a look at the suggested new appearance. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(my guess is that you're watching this page Chris) That looks promising. Do you reckon there's scope to move your templates into the mainspace (for instance at {{football squad player 2}} etc), and use them on a small sample of articles where regular editors are happy to try it? After a trial period and discussion, we would then have the option of deleting/userfying the template, or rolling it out. --WFC-- 22:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather that it were brought to the attention of the community first and only rolled out if there's consensus to do so. Unlike footybio2, it's completely backwards-compatible with the present template, so there's no need for a fork which would only lead to inconsistency in the short to medium term. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Interest would appear to have waned slightly, so it would probably be worth a new thread at WT:FOOTY when you feel that the time is right. Regards, --WFC-- 23:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply to this when I can. Thanks for the continued interest, Knepflerle (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_tools_required_to_revert_mass_move - More specific than WP:AT is WP:NCGN. See Talk:District#Article_naming - "X (district)" is only used by German speaking countries. I strongly object that they get there own way of article naming. They can do so in de:WP, but not here in en:WP. Schwyz (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed somewhere far better advertised than this, but your understanding of the naming policies is not correct. WP:AT is the guiding policy, and using the most common anme is the guiding principle. If X is the common name used in English for divisions in one country, X Division in another country and Division X in a third country, then so be it - that is how we name the three sets of articles. There is no consensus for imposing little-used names on articles to obtain consistency over multiple categories. The names for the divisions within one country should be reasonably consistent, but forcing consistency between countries is neither needed nor consensus, especially when it violates common English use. Knepflerle (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made the changes you requested and taken this life at the above link. Dpmuk (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - to be continued. Knepflerle (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stevertigo has offered a great deal of advice on my talk page regarding the pages Code-switching and Code-mixing. The editor appears to have a great deal of interest, but not a great deal of academic background in linguistics or sociolinguistics. I have suggested that the discussion move to the articles' talk pages. Any comments you might make at Talk:Code-switching#Field template would be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal has been put forward to replace Tennis statistics with User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats and name it List of non-Grand Slam tennis statistics and records. Thoughts, comments and/or votes are encouraged. SilkTork *^YES! 08:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a list of issue and a stragtegy for the names of places in kosovo , User_talk:Mdupont#Naming_and_status_of_Kosovo_pages I would like to invite you to take part and comment, have seen your activity of kosovo articles in the past. Thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I have started a requested move discussion at Talk:Pączki#Requested move 2 January 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks — Kpalion^(talk) 16:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]