User talk:Ecelan/Archive 2006-2016

---

Landes

Thanks for removing the Landes reference from the Spanish Inquisition page.

Numeration system of the Urnfield culture

WikiThanks

Thanks for your help cleaning up the Numeration system of the Urnfield culture article! I appreciate it. —ShadowHalo 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Semidespedida

Hola Ecelan. Soy Diilviish (perdona que varía las letras pero estoy esquivando motores de búsqueda). Esto es una semidespedida , en teoría dejaré vivo mi usuario de la wyki española y aunque me he creado otro en la inglesa todavía no sé si lo utilizaré, pero creo que mis contribuciones a la wiki hispana van a irse terminando. Simplemente no soporto el ambiente que se respira (mención especial a mis relaciones con Pyetryonas, Dyodyo y Escyarlatti) donde los bibliotecrios con poder pueden hacer comentarios insultantes, descorteses y provocaciones continuamente sin reprimenda alguna y cualquier crítica a la situación se ve recompensada con un bloqueo. Su comportamiento es inaceptable y me ha hecho perder toda la fe en el proyecto wykipedya. Fíjate que a mi argumentación de que se estaban haciendo sanciones injustas: Dyodyo ha escrito en mi discusión que tomarán todas las decisiones injustas que haga falta!!!.

(Nota: lo de bibliotecrios era una errata, pero parece oportuna).

Mucha gente protesta del tal Dyodyo y todos reciben lo suyo (bloqueos a Zyósimo, por una crítica moderadísima en comparación con los comentarios vejatorios que ha recibido y su posterior linchamiento moral son lamentables, lo mismo he visto con Soupersoousi (o algo así, reprendido con un MES!) y con Locutus. (si miras mi página de discusión no te pierdas los comentarios borrados, supongo que para borrar pruebas). La condena a Supersss... es tmbién increíble, pues él se lamentaba de que islamófobos vandalizaban sus páginas y hacía una comparación con qué pasaría si hicieran lo mismo con páginas de judaísmo, pues condenado porque no es un altar ni un púlpito.....

Francamente, estoy tan harto que lo que lamento es no poder borrar mis contribuciones anteriores. Casi estoy por pedir a la gente que abandone el proyecto, pero sé que es algo que no debo imponer a los demás, solo decir que, en mi opinión, no se merece el esfuerzo contribuir para que esta gente se lleve el mérito y avasalle a los usuarios.

En fin, mi user yanqui es Diilviish 10 words (simplifica las ies) o algo así, mi página de duiscusión hispana y mis contribuciones son monitorizadas constantemente para ver si pueden encontrar alguna excusa para echarme (Dyodyo en mi página de discusión ya me amenazó con ello, le pedí explicaciones a Pyetryonas y acto seguido me bloquearon por ataques personales e insultos (¿qué insulto? ¿grosero lo es?). Ahora porque dije que algunos errores que se cometían recordaban el estalinismo, aunque he explicado detalladamente que no acusaba de tal sino que advertía de un peligro potencial con la idea de evitarlo se me dice que insulto por comparar con el estalinismo. mi opinión clara desde entonces es que Dyodyo es un grosero y que Pyetronas o tiene graves deficiencias en lectura o es un mentiroso. Sea como sea la wiki española está perdida.

Lo mismo me ha comentado gente de otros países, que en sus países cuando se equivocan los usuarios con experiencia les ayudan y aconsejan, pero que cuando colaboran aquí no hacen más que criticarles y meterse con ellos. Igualmente he comprobado con una sencilla búsqueda en Google que los individuos que me han dado problmeas tienen una fama muy mala.

En fin, perdona este largo excurso. Sé que nunca es bueno venir con este rollo, pero creo que debo comunicar a la gente del proyecto la situación en la que está.

Aunque mi participación en la cosa esa se disminuirá o cesará, mis páginas de discusión siguen abiertas a mensajes, aunque no puedo prometer que los conteste rápidamente.

Saludos

Welcome

Hello Ecelan/Archive 2006-2016 and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple guidelines but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules.

You seem to be a veteran in the Spanish Wikipedia, for which I salute you, but if you need to know more about the English wiki, Wikipedia:Tutorial is the place to go. Eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style

I noticed your recent work in the Spanish Translation of the Week. The SpaTra is one of my favorite projects, so thanks a lot for the contribution. As you toil in the Spanish wiki, please be sure to nominate any decent articles you see that have no English equivalent. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 01:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses to the To-Do list questions for La Seo Cathedral. Rodney Boyd 13:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Petición de ayuda

Saludos. Me dirigo a ti, porque no sé a quien recurrir. Soy un antiguo contribuyente de la Wikipedia en español, que hace alrededor de un año volvió a ella. Se encontró entonces con que la Wikipedia en español estaba dominada por administradores que violaban sistemáticamente las normas de wikipedia, como la de la neutralidad y la de no borrar informacion útil. Me he rebelado contra su censura, y he reivindicado el sentido original de las normas. Uno de mis contertulios en mi página de discusión y que ha renunciado a participar en la wikipedia hispana resume así la situación que se vive en la enciclopedia en español:

Una vez que me convertí en escritor y no sólo en lector comencé a descubrir la realidad que esconde este proyecto. Ediciones honestas que buscaban enseñar a quienes quisieran aprender fueron eliminadas inmediatamente. Mis intentos de diálogo se vieron contestados por insultos y acusaciones injustos y por la extendida costumbre de recuperar la versión "oficial", es decir, la de eliminar todo incluyendo la corrección de errores ortográficos. Sólo he sido capaz de conseguir algún avance tras interminables discusiones, mediante la búsqueda de docenas de referencias a revistas, periódicos o documentos oficiales capaces de demostrar la insensatez de las críticas absurdas que con frecuencia se hacen y, principalmente, recuperando una y otra vez los datos que se intentan ocultar. Es decir, la cantidad de esfuerzo que hay que hacer es inmensa.

El gran problema es que las causas de la situación son muy profundas. Por ejemplo, es verdad que hay artículos larguísimos que describen cómo aplicar la política de neutralidad pero no hay ningún sitio donde se establezca breve y claramente qué es lo que no se puede hacer. Así es absurdo que se permita eliminar una edición completamente recuperando la versión anterior sin dar ninguna explicación. Si yo añado algo como "el 12 de marzo Aznar dijo que se estaban siguiendo dos líneas de investigación" cualquiera lo eliminará inmediatamente sin dar ningún motivo. Si lo vuelves a añadir y preguntas en la página de discusión por qué lo han borrado, que lo que has escrito es verdad, que se miren los periódicos que tienen edición digital accesible de ese día y todo eso el resultado es que te lo vuelven a quitar. Y no puedes hacer nada salvo volver a recuperarlo hasta que tú o ellos se cansen. Y es absurdo que esto sea así, porque la política de no neutralidad se resume en dos puntos: sólo se pueden incluir (1) hechos objetivos o (2) teorías existentes descritas indicando que son teorías. Si alguien elimina una contribución que no es puro vandalismo debería justificar que lo ha hecho porque no es ni un hecho objetivo ni una teoría existente. Si no se está eliminando el esfuerzo de una persona que ha querido participar en la Wikipedia lo que desincentiva dicha participación cuando se debería fomentar ya que en realidad se trata de generar un enciclopedia seria.

Yo no quiero rendirme. Y no he dejado de debatir con esos administradores. En mi página personal, he escrito un ensayo donde denunció las practicas que se cometen en la wikipedia hispana. Lo puedes leer en [[1]]

Temporalmente he conseguido algunas mejoras, consiguiendo, por ejemplo, que algunos usen la página de discusión antes de borrar lo que no les gusta o no concuerda con su ideas. Ayer estaba añadiendo información al artículo del 11-M y acababa de discutir con un administrador que quería borrar el artículo dedicado a Leonor de Borbón Ortiz, primogénita de los Príncipes de Asturias, Felipe de Borbón y Letizia Ortiz, y segunda en la línea sucesoria de la Corona española. Este administrador decía que en la wikipedia no debía haber artículos sobre la recién nacida (cuando otras wikipedias lo tienen). Puedes leerlo en Discusión:Leonor de Borbón Ortiz. Ahora no puedo escribir en la wikipedia hispana, porque otro administrador, llamado FAR, que se declara amigo del administrador con que discutía, me han bloqueado la IP, tachándome de vándalo. No me dejan ni el derecho a réplica. ¿Puedes ayudarme, por favor? ¿Con quién debo hablar para solucionar esta situación?

Usuario:Visitante, 12:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC). I Blocked him because he did vandalic editions in another article. I even unknow he was in that discussion (although I have just read it, and he wrote offensive words) And be care, here, we think he is a troll.--es:Usuario:FAR

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 17:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hola de nuevo

Hola Ecelan. Dos notitas, como puedes ver Dodo tiene muy en cuenta esta página (http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario:Dodo&diff=prev&oldid=9076620). Lo ha puesto como cosas para no olvidar, por lo visto soy la persona más importante de su vida :-D :-D

Por lo demás, ha decidido inventarse una acusación para clausurar mi cuenta: o# 18:30 27 may 2007 Dodo (discusión | contribuciones) bloqueó a "Dilvish (contribuciones)" (desactivada la creación de cuentas) durante un plazo de "para siempre". (el usuario no tiene ánimo de colaborar en el proyecto, sino más bien al contrario: http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario_Discusi%C3%B3n%3ADilvish&diff=9013351&oldid=8875607)  :

Creo que el muchacho cuando se siente superado y ve que no está a la altura tiene miedo recurre a las trampitas. En fin, sé que hay gente buena como tú en la wiki, pero también gente como Dodo que están hundiendo el proyecto con su infantilismo y egocentrismo autocomplaciente. Yo ya no sé si recurrir e intentar salvar la wikipedia del desastre o pasarme a la Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español. En fin, suerte y gracias por todo. Dilvish.

Striking your vote

Hello Ecelan,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling

For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

Re:Jumpaclass

Thanks. ;-) Will try to make it a FAC here too! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Translations

Hola :) thank you for your message, of course, I will let you know once I have some Danish articles done! I'll probably translate them into English first, if that is ok? I'll get started on LBL asap :) Cherryleaf (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey again! I have now done Danish National Association of Gays and Lesbians - the original article had no references, but I gathered a couple. They are probably not very good, but in any case, they do not show on the page. I have no idea how to get them to show, and someone has already slapped a banner on the top that there are no references, in less than one minute!! :'(. I am going to bed now!!!!!!! :D :) Cherryleaf (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You are a star!!!!!!! Gracias, gracias, gracias!! :) Cherryleaf (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You made my day

Thanks for your message on my talk page. If a person looks at my contributions, they will see I stay away from the politics and try to focus on high-quality content. You know what? The work that is most important to me is my stock photos, such as the one found on Breathing or Physical trauma. The celebrities are more noticed and glamorous, but it's really not at all like I am "hanging" with them at these big events. It's all very professional - I'm there to photograph, and they are there to be photographed (not bond with you). Plus, with celebrities you have to continually snap from the moment they walk in, to when they leave, because you may only get one good one out 15 you take. But, it's stressful, the big events, and I think stock photos like Portable toilet have more practical use. Thus, I illustrate over 4,000 articles on Wikipedia, but I have only photographed around 500 people.

Anyway, I wish I took more time to write people nice notes about their contributions. It was really appreciated to receive your message. Thank you. BTW - your contributions are really good as well. I'm so glad we have you! --David Shankbone 09:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk Photo

Thanks for moving that over to commons. I wasn't sure if OTRS derived images lived here or there. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoax: Vittorio Alberto Francisco Barrios del Esparza

Ecelan,

The author has used as a base the Wikipedia article “Bernard Freyberg, 1st Baron Freyberg,” a New Zealand Victoria Cross recipient who was the Allied Commander in the Battle of Crete.

He has taken most of his reference list from the Freyberg article. This explains the unusual combination of land-based Battle of Crete references, especially Australian, New Zealand and Greek titles.

He uses some phraseology direct from the Freyberg article:

Barrios del Esparza: “..are buried in the churchyard of St Martha on the Hill near Guildford, Surrey”

Freyburg: “..was buried in the churchyard of St Martha on the Hill near Guildford, Surrey”

Other obvious problems:

Barrios del Esparza: “Commander of HMS Greyhound”

The actual commander of Greyhound from 1939 until the ship was lost (1941) was Commander Walter Roger Marshall a’Deane, D.S.O., D.S.C. He died while attempting to rescue a crewman from HMS Fiji, and was awarded the Albert Medal.

Barrios del Esparza: “Awarded Victoria Cross” The author has also attempted to edit the WP page “List of Victoria Cross recipients (N–Z)” to include Barrios del Esparza.

Barrios del Esparza is not in the official or any VC register – an undiscovered VC appearing out of nowhere is akin to an undiscovered Nobel Peace Prize. The author is obviously not aware of this.

The rest of the article smells of a very naive boy's own adventure. Tied in with the other two articles Francisco Barrios del Esparza and Francisco Vittorio Barrios del Esparza, it looks like a precis for a novel - although not very well done. John beta (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoax: Francisco Barrios del Esparza

Ecelan,

The reference list has been directly lifted from Michael Duffy's website at http://www.firstworldwar.com/references.htm There appears to be no logical connection between the references and Barrios del Esparza.

I've looked him up in the quoted Bourne's Who's Who in World War One, but his name doesn't appear anywhere in the 1000+ entries over 326 pages.

I don't have a copy of Dunn's The War the Infantry Knew 1914-1918 - A Chronicle of Service in France and Belgium but I find it hard to believe that a one legged Italian general is going to figure in a medical officer's Western Front trench diary of the 2nd Battalion His Majesty's 23rd Foot, The Royal Welsh Fusiliers, or in Barrie's The Tunnellers of the Great War.

The three interconnected articles have the same problems. Each of the three characters would be notable by themselves, but there appears to be no verifiable evidence offered in the articles or anywhere else that this extraordinary family ever existed!

It's like a novel - or maybe that's the point? John beta (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoax: Urnfield culture numerals

Seeing that you are still active, please note that I consider this article a complete hoax that you apparently made up back in 2006. I find no trace of anything called a numeral system associated with the Urnfield culture anywhere in literature. --dab (𒁳) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond here, as answering on your talk page might make the answer more difficult to find.

Instead of coming here accusing me of making a hoax, you could have politely asked what the source for this article was. I have now added the source on Urnfield culture numerals. I guess the Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte in Halle, the Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archeologie Sachsen-Anhalt, and Dr. Meller, editor of the catalogue, are serious enough to satisfy your demands. The book is the catalogue that accompanied the exposition "Der geschmiedete Himmel", that could be seen in the aforementioned museum, in the Historisches Museum Basel and the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museum, Mannheim, where I saw it.

Of course, you can buy the book and look if my interpretation of the text is correct, or look if Mr. Sommerfeld has done a good job on the catalogue by reading the additional bibliography he mentions:

• W.A. v. Brunn, »Der Schatz von Frankleben und die mitteldeutsche Sichelfunde«. Prähistorische Zeitschrift Band 36, 1958, s. 1-70.
• C. Sommerfeld, »Gerätegeld Sichel. Studien zur monetären Struktur bronzezeitliche Horte im nördlichen Mitteleuropa«. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen Band 19 (Berlin, New York 1994)

Hope you enjoy your readings. Cheers, --Ecelan (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the easiest would have been answering on Talk:Urnfield culture numerals. Or perhaps, had you considered including your sources along with the articles at the time you write them instead of five years later when challenged? It's more or less the suggestion contained in our WP:CITE page.

The sources you give are acceptable for discussing "Sickle (European Bronze Age)" or "Frankleben hoard". I am far from convinced that you have cited evidence that there exists a hypothesis that the symbols on these sickles are "numerals".

I grant you that these sickles and the symbols on them exist. I want to know who proposed the base 5 numeral system. Once you have a decent reference on that, the idea can become a single line mention, or at the most a short paragraph in the article about the Urnfield culture, or possibly the article about the Frankleben hoard. Specifically, your article contains the text:

Another series of symbols exists which appears around the sickles and still has not been interpreted. However it is clear that these symbols follow determined rules that are valid in all the influential territory. Some of those symbols can be put in groups from one to four by what has been proposed as a type of base five numeral system.

I want to know who, in which publication, on which page, has said that the "symbols follow determined rules that are valid in all the influential territory" and who is the author of the proposal, which you reference in the passive voice in order to avoid making its author explicit, that we are looking at "a type of base five numeral system". If this proposal is made in the exhibition catalogue, that's fine, let's see the title of the relevant article and the page number. Just don't throw an entire catalogue at me as "reference" for a claim as specific as this. --dab (𒁳) 11:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out without your help. Please try to pull your own weight next time. Fwiiw, I retract the "hoax" allegation, you seem to have acted in good faith. You did base your piece on quotable sources, you just made a fine mess of representing them. --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fwiiw:

1. I did put the chapter ("Mondsymbol »Sichel« - Sicheln mit Marken"), and the exact pages (118-123) where you can find the information.
2. I don't follow the article in the English Wikipedia. I wrote the Spanish version, and the English version was a translation, that I did not do. So if you write something in Wiki en, asking for sources or whatever, I will not see it. Not everyone moves or writes in the English Wikipedia, and it would have been very easy to ask the information in the talk page of the original article: the probability of success would have been a lot higher.
3. The Spanish version has the source since the creation [2]. So if it didn't make it to the English Wiki, you will have to ask the translator. Anyway, it would have been very easy to look up the original article and see if it has any sources.
4. About the article you just deleted, I guess you see that you have deleted an article with sourced information that explains a scientific hypothesis form a reputed source. I'm not familiar with the rules in the English Wikipedia, but is it a habit here?

Cheers. --Ecelan (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that the source was there, until you deleted it, because "Meller (2006) is cited for no apparent reason". Wow, this is really a piece of work! --Ecelan (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you still think your "Urnfield numerals" article was anything other than patent nonsense? You think it was about "a scientific hypothesis form a reputed source"? I will assume that you just have a strange sense of humour and this is your way of making fun of the encyclopedicity geeks on Wikipedia.

The topic here is "knob-sickles", and the debate on the significance of their markings. Sommerfeld (1994) presents a coherent discussion of the literature on this topic, and adds some amount of archaeoastronomical speculation. Your article (a) fails to even cite Sommerfeld and (b) bears no relation to the content of this scholarly article, pretending that there is a topic of an "Urnfield numeral system", citing an exhibition catalogue on the nebra sky disk(!) which probably made some passing allusion to Sommerfeld theories (but we don't know that, because you just cited the catalogue as a whole, without bothering to give any hint as to what bit in the catalogue motivated you to break down and write this fantasy piece about Bronze Age runes. Your article was either a deliberate distortion (that's a kind way of saying 'butchery') of the topic, or else it is a sign of almost incredible ineptitude. I'll leave it to Hanlon's razor to decide which was the case. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So you admit you have no idea what the source says, but you still allow yourself to make up the wildest accusations, basing yourself in what you don't know and what you don't admit knowing (as the real source and the pages it is in). And then you use all this to delete a referenced article using a loophole in Wikipedia's rules. And then you come here to accuse me of being stupid or being a crook (I can choose which one). Have I understood everything right up to now? (I'll be generous and ignore the cheap tricks in your argumentation) --Ecelan (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

not quite. You have by now convinced me that you were not deliberately creating a hoax. So it would appear that you simply have no idea what Wikipedia is about. I am sure your "article" on Spanish wiki would be deleted immediately if anyone attracted attention to it. For the purposes of en-wiki, kindly review WP:ENC.

briefly, the situation is that you have taken a reference to Sommerfeld (1994) in your 2006 source to write a complete fantasy piece without proper references. Not only did you report Sommerfeld's idea of a "lunar" signification of the numerals "0 to 29" on the Frankleben sickles, you have added freely invented speculation of your own, without bothering to distinguish your own ideas from the ones based on your source (short of saying No deja de ser una hipótesis interesante que quizás nunca pueda ser confirmada).

it is one thing to try to get away with stuff like that, it is quite another to erupt in a stream of complaints (at WP:ANI no less) if you are caught doing this. Not cool.

So, instead of deleting your article as patent nonsense, as most other Wikipedians would have done, I have taken the trouble to figure out what you were trying to write about and have written an actual encyclopedia article about that topic, recovering the tiny kernel based in fact which was the origin of your article. In other words, I have done your job for you. If you still think Wikipedia needs a separate article on "Urnfield numerals", go ahead and recreate it, and I will see that it is deleted following due procedure. --dab (𒁳) 13:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

How often do I have to tell you that the source is a text by Sommerfeld from 2006, written in the mentioned catalogue? The whole article is sourced on that text, including the speculation about the runes. Just in case you have not seen it, I'll put it here again:

• Sommerfeld, Christoph (2006). "Mondsymbol »Sichel« - Sicheln mit Marken". In Meller, Harald (ed.). Der geschmiedete Himmel. Die weite Welt im Herzen Europas vor 3600 Jahren (in German). Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archeologie Sachsen-Anhalt LANDESMUSEUM FÜR VORGESCHICHTE Halle. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag GmbH. pp. 118–123. ISBN 978-3-8062-1907-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

What do I have to do to make you understand that the source is a text by Sommerfeld from the catalogue Der geschmiedete Himmel printed in 2006? Is it really that difficult to understand? If you don't believe it, just get the catalogue in your local library and read it!

--Ecelan (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice way you have to treat problems here: just ignore them. Too bad, as you might have learnt something interesting from Sommerfeld 2006. And now, with your permission, as you won't believe anything I say anyway, even if I give you the sources, I'll go back to my retirement. --Ecelan (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ecelan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)