User talk:Cretino

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Lumpkin. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Gwernol 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Ted Navarro. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Battles of Narvik. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 12:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your quotations are total fabrications, and if you actually believe them, then you don't belong here. Accordingly, I will make sure you are never able to edit here again. --Rodhullandemu 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that some of them may be real, however I was unable to check that since you didn't provide references. Even so, their wholesale use breaches our policies of

WP:UNDUE and they should not be replaced without balancing material. Accordingly, I have unblocked you. --Rodhullandemu 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The bull is on your side. --Cretino (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know anything about them? Answers are welcome. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move articles to new titles when there is a concensus on the current title. If you disagree, start a discussion on the talkpage _before_ moving any article. I have reverted your move on Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany and restored the original title. Bjelleklang - talk 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease making controversial page moves as you did to Nazi Germany. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nazi Germany, you will be blocked from editing. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We go by
  reliable sources and the terminology that is commonly used in those sources. If you have reliable, independent (i.e., not Neonazi propaganda) sources showing that this regime was most commonly referred to as something other than "Nazi Germany", cite them. If not, go spew your hatred somewhere else. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ron Rosenbaum: Explicar a Hitler : La búsqueda de los orígenes de su maldad, Siglo XXI Editores (Mexiko), 1999, Seite 179. «A veces se attribuye a Heiden el haber popularizado la palabra 'nazi'. En sus primeros tiempos, los Nacional-socialistas eran conocidos por la abreviatura convencional 'naso', hasta que Heiden, según se dice, empezó a usar en sus artículos 'nazi', que en la jerga popular de Baviera significaba 'bobo' o 'simple'» --Cretino (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • That source says nothing about whether the regime was most commonly known as "Nazi Germany" (over 3 million Google hits) as opposed to "Nationalsocialist Germany" (34 unique Google hits). NawlinWiki (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's time to make use of the correct term and tell the people. Being wrong in a crowd does not make things right. --Cretino (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is exactly the opposite of one of Wikipedia's core principles, as quoted at Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
This keeps us from having to decide which contributor is "right", or using the "correct term". The "right" term on Wikipedia is the one that's used by reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Lawless, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

it is a disambig for articles that do not exist.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's

Category Nazi Propaganda: Propaganda was created about the Julleuchter in Germanien, SS-Leitheft, and Celebrations of the SS Family.Nicholasweed (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I had to undo your edit on the "Julleuchter" article. You deleted relevant categories without even stating a reason or discussing it here on your talk page, my talk page, or even the article’s talk page.Nicholasweed (talk) 14:17, 06 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]