Talk:Germany

I removed the Lonely Planet map of Germany from this site - it is a copyrighted work posted without permission.

Thank you! I just deleted the image. ~ SharonS ^Talk! 19:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The whole Text was taken from Wikipedia without respecting any aspect of the the GNU-FDL, wich is a copyright violation. --Germany07 05:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I deleted the first part of the first sentence in the "War on terror" section because it was not an objectively true statement and was not supported by sources in any way.

Wikipedia started their German article with "History" first, as is here. Most encyclopedic works begin with current government, area of land, education, income, and the like, and leave history for last. I suggest the same thing here. Karajou 19:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I think we can expand the contemporary section, which does and should come first, but after the overall summary, I think history should come next, going up to and including the present moment. Boethius 23:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The picture of Rothenburg ob der Tauber seems to be misplaced . It does not have any revelance to the point of article there.

• If you see problems with an article, why not try to fix it yourself? Also, please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ in the future. ~~~~ will automatically sign with your username, current date, and current time. DMorris 18:20, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

Information from this source is all PD. It's not ideal but it's a start.

I also tried to upload a map from the same source but got the error "Could not copy file "/tmp/phpxAUb49" to "/home/conserv8/public_html/images/4/4c/Germany_map.gif"."

From - https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/faqs.html

"Can I use some or all of The World Factbook for my Web site (book, research project, homework, etc.)? The World Factbook is in the public domain and may be used freely by anyone at anytime without seeking permission. However, US Code prohibits use of the CIA seal in a manner which implies that the CIA approved, endorsed, or authorized such use. If you have any questions about your intended use, you should consult with legal counsel. As a courtesy, please cite The World Factbook when used."

I think to say the Universities have deteriorated since the time before hitler is a bit of a vague statement . First there was over 500 years of history of university education before Hitler so what time do you mean ? Weimar Republic? German Empire? Secondly it is also vague to just say that they have deteriorated, numbers would be a good support.

In the very first version of this article Adolf Hitler was listed under 'Famous Germans'. This caused some confusion. It is right that he was born in Austria, but he applied for German citizenship later, which was granted in February 1932. So should we list him as 'German' or 'Austrian'? My source is the NS-Archive in Germany [1] (German).

Since Hitler is a historical figure as a German (not an Austrian), I reinserted him in the list of notable Germans. --Hojimachong^talk 23:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Adolf Hitler was a dictator in Germany and should appear on historical paragraphs on this page only. It will hurt human and religious feelings calling him a famous person! I took him away from the list. Ffrree 14:04, 24 April 2007

(I'm not so much responding to an old post as re-raising a previous point.)

Perhaps the "Famous Germans" section should be retitled "Famous and infamous Germans"?

Philip J. Rayment 07:25, 18 November 2007 (EST)

This subsection is so long, and so detailed, that it derails a balanced article about Germany. It seems to be a long quote from one of Conservapedia's history lectures, but for that very reason it is not encyclopedic in tone -- it reads like a lecture. I think that a succinct description of these events might be a *part* of the main article, but such a lengthy treatment has the effect of unbalancing the whole entry and making it far less useful for reference purposes. Boethius 22:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Feel free to trim as you see fit. I plan on doing some trimming and adding citations in the future. --Hojimachong^talk 23:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Hoji -- I have put in a relatively brief starter section here, which we can grow on our own. It's adapted from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (which is PD, and also a source for WP's entry), but I've taken some care to update the phrasing and added a few additional details. Boethius 11:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

WWII is casually dismissed in a sentence and a half... needs some expansion, no? GodlessLiberal 21:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

"European power struggles immersed Germany in two devastating World Wars in the first half of the 20th century..."

I agree, apart from anything else, Germany played a rather more active role in the outbreak of World War Two than is implied in the above sentence. Orgone 21:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This table can be edited to add addtional info as needed, or correct info due to elections, population changes, etc. Karajou 19:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Looks nice! I think this would make a good template. Unless somebody implements it in the next x hours (it's 5.40am and I really should go to bed soon), I could work on it tomorrow. --Sid 3050 23:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind. Starting to get complicated, I have little time, and my motivation is at a low point right now. I still think we should have a "country-info box" template, though. --Sid 3050 13:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I would think an effort has to be made on the article itself; pics and the table can come later. I'm concentrating on the US Civil War right now, and then I'll detail those pics for it. Karajou 17:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry about hasty revert. [2] Maybe I should go far a walk now. --Ed Poor 19:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

No harm done, just two letters that needed correcting :) --Sid 3050 19:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

This article could do with a lot of work. We could have it so much better, if we tried. I'll attempt some expansion of it at some point. Hans E. Mann 13:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

As long as they don´t have their own articles I would like to make a classification : writers, artists, sportsmen etc. Would that be ok? Toolsyoucantrust 17:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

That would be the best thing. That list is getting long, and will only get longer, perhaps we should think of making an article called "Famous Germans"? Bohdan 17:17, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

A newly-added section includes this sentence: "From an exchange rate of the Germany current of 3 to the dollar, it eventually fell to over 1 trillion to the dollar."

This doesn't make sense, unless perhaps the German currency was called a "current", which I doubt was the case. It seems that there should be a mention of the deutschmark in there.

Philip J. Rayment 07:22, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Typo, thank you. And I'll put in the formal name as well. Learn together 12:16, 18 November 2007 (EST)

That section was a bit simplistic, and got rephrased. Anyway, the currency was not Deutschmark (or Deutsche Mark in German) but Reichsmark. Deutschmark is post-WWII. Order 22:36, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Some comments:

• Learn Together, I did discuss the change, and I did it here, and you changing Deutchmark to Reichmark indicates that you've read this. So, don't complain that I changed it without discussion.
• The reparations that were agree upon were never fully paid.
• The hyper-inflation was only in part caused by reparations. These had to be paid in foreign currency, so printing money wasn't done to pay off these. It was done to pay domestic obligations.
• The Reichmark was introduced after the hyperinflation (I got this wrong too), to end hyper-inflation (with an intermediate currency the Rentenmark). Before the times of hyper-inflation it was simple called Mark, or to distinguish it from the Reichmark, it was called Papiermark.
• Hitler wasn't a struggling artist when he rose to power. He was a struggling artist in the 1910s. In the early 1930s he was a well known political activist and successful writer, in terms of money at least since his "Mein Kampf" sold reasonably well.
• Hitler didn't seize the power, he got power through a power sharing deal with established political forces. Of course he didn't share once he was in power. Order 18:58, 27 November 2007 (EST)

• That's not a discussion. That's saying it's simplistic and you're changing it.

• So. You could have asked why I changed it. This is how wiki's work. If you see a mistake, you change it, and if necessary start a discussion. Before you revert a change, what you did, it is customary to discuss the reversion, something you didn't do.

• You are thinking of a different Wiki, namely the one we are competing against. Here you don't replace another user's work without first going over your proposed changes and then tell him how dare you intervene when he reverts it back. You are out of bounds. Learn together 03:46, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I think [User:Philip_J._Rayment| Philip's] comment at the bottom of the page says what has to be said about this. Order 07:29, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• Yes, please read the section he highlighted. Thank you. Learn together 13:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• The reparations were to be paid over 42 years. Of course they were never fully paid, but that's a misnomer isn't it? Discussions on postponing or changing payments occurred after Germany's financial collapse, and often did not include France. You are aware of the French occupation of the Ruhr and shooting German workers who tried to walk off the job, right? While I don't think we need to go into great detail in the Germany article, anything that whitewashes the severity of the reparations as they were put into place and implemented is counter to history.

Discussion about changing the terms of the reparation payments were already going on before the hyper-inflation. Some even accuse t the German government of causing hyper-inflation on purpose because to prove the point at the negotiation table that the payments were unreasonable.

• The discussions to change it did not bear fruition until after the German government was on the verge of collapse, and even then only in spite of the strong disapproval of the French who had already occupied German lands and took over factories to force repayment. Learn together 03:46, 28 November 2007 (EST)

So what, Germany still didn't have to pay all of it. Order 07:29, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• Domestic economy is directly related to external conditions. One of the "nicer" terms was a 12.5% tax on all exports. If that was done in America, do you think it would have an impact on our Domestic economy even though it only deals with exports? They're all inter-related.

Sure they are. But saying that Hitler was caused by hyper-inflation, was caused by the treaty of Versailles, is just an excuse. Neither of them was inevitable.

• Just out of curiosity, where do you believe you see the word inevitable used? Learn together 03:46, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Nowhere, but the explanation was fairly mono-causal, even "inevitable" wasn't used, while it is generally accepted that quite a few quases came together. But all we have to do is to make sure that the article says clearly that it wasn't inevitable. Order 07:29, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• Following that logic, every article dealing with a historical event should clearly say it wasn't inevitable. Only those articles on hard sciences such as chemistry or math would be exempt. I think you will find this is not a standard that is used - and is getting quite silly. Learn together 13:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• Hitler was a struggling artist who was able to found a movement that slowly gained power. Political movements are formed over time. Based on what you are saying above, the occupation of any person in power would always be political activist. Hitler's attempt to rise to power predated the 1930's by many years. Mein Kampf sold because he was in prison because of his earlier unsuccesful attempts at activism. And he was, in those turbulent times, one of many.

When did his struggling as an artist happened? In the 1910s. At the time of the depression he was not struggling, so it wasn't a struggling artist that got to power, but a political activist and politician, who he made money selling his book and by donations from political friends. Just like others, indeed, but he wasn't struggling as an artist when the Depression started.

Hitler's efforts to overthrow the government began well before the Depression as you know. Before trying to take over the government Hitler's occupation was a struggling artist. You are well aware of this. Learn together 03:46, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• Hitler seized power as soon as he was able.

Hitler was able to seize power, because certain people let him seize power. There was no coup, he legally got into power, partly through elections, but in the end by a deal he struck with von Papen who was a tad naive about Hitler.

• And your point is? Hitler seized power as soon as he was able. Democracies (or Republics) allow leaders within their structure, but Hitler destroyed the Republic and made it a dicatorship. At the same time he arrested/killed over a thousand political opponents in a single day. Learn together 03:46, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• I am open for discussion on any of the word choices I made to the article, but don't just change it and have us work from your version. There was no section at all until I put one in last week. If it was a topic that you have to see written a certain way, then perhaps you should have entered it sometime during the many months it was vacant. Learn together 19:33, 27 November 2007 (EST)

I think that this the interbellum shouldn't be discussed in to much detail this article. We got articles on Weimar, Hitler, and WWII. We should keep it brief, link to those articles, and avoid the simplistic myth, that the 3rd Reich was an immediate cause of the treaty of Versailles. And I see now reason why we would be able to agree on that. And btw, I did work from your version, and merged it with bit I took from other articles on CP. Order 20:08, 27 November 2007 (EST)

• Interesting considering your version actually increased the size of the section. Learn together 03:46, 28 November 2007 (EST)

That is what happens if you add and merge different bits. It grows. I get the impression that you just cannot stand it that someone worked on you version. Order 06:49, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• Yes, my 7,000 edits working with many different editors over several months certainly shows that. Do you always swing blindly just hoping to get a hit? Learn together 13:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)

To save us some time about what I know and what I do not know about Hitlers rise to power, take some time an look at the talk pages of the Hitler article, and see what I said there about Hitlers rise to power: Talk:Adolf_Hitler and Talk:Adolf_Hitler/Archive1. You might also look at the history of the Hitler article, and look who introduced mayor things about the beer hall putsch, and the night of long knives. This might tell you that I do know that Hitler was active before, and that he killed his opponents. And now, act like you name suggest and work together on this rather short paragraph.Order 06:49, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I have not questioned your knowledge nor will I do so now. I have questioned your editing "style", which mirrors WP form and not what we adhere to on Conservapedia. Even the way you suddenly forget how to sign your work so it is confusing to see who is speaking is a WP style. We won't tolerate it here. I stand by my earlier efforts to work with you which have still not been rescinded. Learn together 13:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Learn Together. Why did you revert my version? I even accommodated some of your changes. If you don't want to work together, say it. Order 20:10, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Because you attempted to usurp the section I wrote by overwriting it without discussing your proposed changes first. This isn't a surprise. You are acting like this hasn't been discussed above. I will not tolerate you creating theatrics or a "crisis" where simple conversation and following proper etiquette would suffice. Learn together 03:46, 28 November 2007 (EST)

In particular I would like to know what part of version A isn't covered by version B in you opinion, that justifies your reversion:

Version A

Germany's involvement and eventual defeat in World War I led to a harsh turn in German fortunes. The resulting "peace" where Germany had to pay huge reparations and take full blame for the war left the nation in tatters and bitter. From an exchange rate of the Germany reichsmark of 3 to the dollar, it eventually fell to over 1 trillion to the dollar. The monetary system had collapsed. A stabilizing of the economy again collapsed when the Great Depression hit. The stage was set for a struggling artist to rise up on the scene and eventually take control in a country that was desperate to look up to someone who could deliver. Their economic boom and decision to fight World War II once again left the Germany in ruins, and this time it was split in two.

Version B

Germany's involvement and eventual defeat in World War I led to a harsh turn in German fortunes. As part of the Treaty of Versailles here Germany had to pay huge reparations and take full blame for the war. Although the terms of the treaty were never fully enforced, the psychological damage was immense, since they were perceived as a grave injustice. The republic was also struggling with the rejection by monarchists, who were still occupying important position in the state. Although the Weimar Republic enjoyed a time of economic resurgence after the early years of hyper-inflation, during which the exchange rate went from 3 Mark to the US Dollar to over 1 trillion to the Dollar, it failed to gain deep public support. A stabilizing of the economy again collapsed when the Great Depression hit. During the great depression the stage was set Adolf Hitler to rise up on the scene and eventually take control in a country that was struggling with political instability, and that was desperate to restore restore national pride and statue, which eventually led to World War II.

Se see no reason what is so wrong about the second version that it requires reversion. Order 20:23, 27 November 2007 (EST)

• 'Although the terms of the treaty were never fully enforced' Along with your other wording this can imply that the conditions were relatively minor. If you are going to say they were never fully enforced, then you need to describe just what was enforced, such as the French occupying the German factories and the shooting of German workers who walked off the job in protest.

Were the terms fully enforced, or weren't they? If you think that there is information missing on the Ruhr occupation add it, but it factually correct that the full terms were in the end not enforced.

• 'The republic was also struggling with the rejection by monarchists' Firstly, you haven't yet discussed the Republic so you're bringing it up before introducing it. Secondly, this appears to be rather unimportant as the monarchists didn't stage a coup or any other direct confrontation. All governments have their opponents, especially after government changes.

For the Weimar Republic this was a problem, because it was rejected by large parts of the elite. Sure the monarchists didn't stage a coup, but the election of Hindenburg as president was supported by monarchists, and people nostalhic for the good old times.

• 'economic resurgence' That reminds me of when Priceline went from $80 to $1.25, and then back to $1.50. I suppose the move from $1.25 to $1.50 could be described as an economic resurgence. And again, you describe the resurgence before you describe the crisis, so it is the wrong order.

The economy in Weimar grew from RM 70 billion in 1925 to RM 88 billion in 1928, more than 20 percent in 4 years. This period is know as the golden years of Weimar, and for a good reason.

• 'great depression... Adolf Hitler to rise up on the scene...' Hitler was active well before the great depression and the conditions that allowed him to be active existed before the Great Depression. This skirts the first 10 years of hardship in Germany from the end of WWI until the Depression itself.

First, the sentence that Hitler rose to the scene during the great depression is from your version; I left it as it was, only changed "struggling artists" to "Adolf Hitler". Because he wasn't a struggling artist, anymore.

If you don't believe me, here is an article from Die Welt. Hitler was not a struggling artist. First, he claimed at the tax office that his occupation was writer, and not artist. Second, he wasn't exactly struggling. In 1925 the taxation office got suspicious when Hitler bought a luxury car for RM 20.000. While he claimed to have had an annual income between somewhere between RM 11.000 and RM 19.000 during those golden years. Apparently he didn't report all of his income, because he managed to incur a tax debt of RM 400.000 until he got into power. You need to earn quite a bit, if you can incur that much tax debt. Needless to say that this debt was waived when he came into power. Anyway, he wasn't struggling, but claimed to have an income worth half a luxury car a year, while in just a few years he managed to amass a tax debt worth 20 luxury cars. I don't call that struggling.

• This is a red herring and you know it. Hitler's monetary gains were coming because he was gaining followers. When he was first becoming a revolutionary his previous means of support had been as a struggling artist. And as you are also aware, it doesn't have to be an either/or. His struggling artist and revolutionary paths can both be mentioned, and are. Learn together 13:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)

He was a struggling artist in his Viena and early Munich years. It would be fair to call him struggling then. But when the depression set in, he was at most a former struggling artists, because he was a writer who didn't earn badly. But the current version of the article reflects this. Order 18:40, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• Even if your section was perfect, the idea that you see nothing wrong with the section that requires reversion misses the point of the proper way to discuss and implement changes. But that is already discussed above so I will leave it at that. Learn together 04:54, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I saw quite some mistakes and omissions myself, and was and still am happy to cooperate. And you might have noticed that quite a few of your sentences survived my changes and additions. None of mine were kept in your reversions. And i saw nothing wrong inserting bits from other articles that are already on CP. Sorry, if that was wrong, but I figured that citing other articles on CP, wouldn't be problematic. Order 08:38, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• If you are happy to cooperate then do so. What you have been doing skirts away from cooperation. I see grandstanding even now "None of my (sentences) were kept in your reversions" "I saw nothing wrong inserting bits from other articles that are already on CP. Sorry if that was wrong..."

That is not grandstanding, that is an observation.

• No, it is drama. For instance you were already well aware that I incorporated your additions of the Treaty of Versailles and the Weimar Republic. So instead of you acknowledging that, you try to play games by making the stating that none of your sentences were kept in the reversion, as I changed some words instead of copying your sentences directly. While that is very WP, it will not be tolerated here. Your statement below that also comes across as melodramatic. Be aware that since you have been sufficiently warned, that if I see any attempt in the future to circumvent actual cooperation with more of the same drama, I will take action to prevent any repeat of the same nonproductive and misleading tactics. Learn together 03:11, 29 November 2007 (EST)

• What bothers me that I am not sure you see, is that in the end the article will look pretty much like it would have without all of the theatrics. If you presented your views at the start in talk the end result would have been arrived at far quicker and with far less work. Please remember that method for the future. Learn together 13:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Its good to see that it was a waste of time to flat out revert the entire piece, and that it is indeed more profitable to cooperate.

• Why don't you try a little test. Go to an article where Andy has just inserted a section and change it all around on him without discussion first except to say that you did it. Do you want to guess what the results would be? If you are going to go out of your way to cause trouble, then you will bear the consequences of your actions. You are well aware now of proper editing technique. If it is not something you feel you can adhere to, then there is another pedia that revels in that type of action where you could feel more at home. Learn together 03:11, 29 November 2007 (EST)

First, I didn't revert your changes, nor did I change it all around, I started from them. Ask somebody you trust to compare the version I quote above, and simply to count the number of phrases in your version that made it into the following version. And I have worked with Andy on articles in the past, and it never happened that he reverted some changes without giving reasons that referred to the actual content of the changes. Order 08:02, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Why would I have someone look at the versions above when that wasn't what I originally reverted? And that is exactly the type of thing that bothers me. We aren't about grandstanding or slights of hand. We work as a team here. If you make alterations that aren't accepted then you move to discussion. Due to the volume and tone of your original edit, it was not unexpected that it could be controversial. When you had it confirmed, explanation in the talk section is in order, especially since I specifically requested you to do so in my original reverting.

(Removed all mention of the exchange rate dropping to 1 trillion to the dollar? If you want to rewrite the section, take it to talk first)

Trying to force back through your changes without first working together was inappropriate. I am pleased we reached an eventual accommodation, but the method used is counterproductive and not the preferred one. I wish to reiterate again that I am not questioning your knowledge. I believe that you could and did bring constructive information to the table and I hope you will do so again, but in a form that respects long term editors and what we can bring to the table as well. Thank you Learn together 01:19, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Okay, that's the end of this present discussion. Now for a couple of observations of my own.

• In line with Editing Etiquette, Order's alteration of 25th November was proper, if he had "a reasonable expectation that other editors [would] accept [the] change". LearnTogether's reversion of 28th November was not proper, because (a) it was not reasonable to assume that Order, having made the change, would accept the change without a good reason, and (b) so such reason was provided, only an edit comment that said that Order should have discussed it first, which was not in fact required.
• LearnTogether seems to be be implying that he is a "long term editor" and that Order is not such, being a more recent editor. However, this seems unsupportable given that (a) Order has been editing Conservapedia since 11th March, compared with LearnTogether who has been editing since 8th May, and (b) although LearnTogether has been editing this article for longer (14 weeks compared with Order eight weeks), Order is not exactly a newcomer to it.

Philip J. Rayment 09:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

That's giving me the last word?

The initial edit changed the nature of the impact on the German people to psychological in nature, and removed the sentence about the drop in the German currency to a trillion marks to the dollar that would have shown otherwise. It was inappropriate. I have over 5,000 main page edits to help build CP and I've been in the trenches and paid my dues. I've been reverted and I've come back and explained my position so that we could get concensus. I don't try to force my version back, and I certainly don't try to walk through other long term editors. As for the idea that talking is not required, I think we both know that is a common practice that makes editing at CP go a lot smoother. I have certainly found as much.

Learn together 12:04, 30 November 2007 (EST)

It was the last word in your debate with Order. I had not been part of that debate.

I'm not suggesting that Order's initial edit was a good one. I simply don't know, because it's not something that I know anything about nor am I interested in, although given that you and I have a similar ideology and Order has a quite different one, I might side with you on that if I knew anything about it.

I'm saying that it was not out of order for him to make his initial edit without discussing it, and that if you disagreed, then you should have (a) edited it further, (b) discussed it on the talk page, or (c) reverted it whilst supplying a good reason for reverting. Instead you revered without supplying a valid reason, something that should be kept for occasions when the reason is obvious, such as vandalism. Saying that he should have discussed it before making the edit not a valid reason, as he is not obliged to discuss every edit before making a change.

Philip J. Rayment 01:39, 1 December 2007 (EST)

The conditions for the last word were that you didn't open a new topic. You even took the freedom to have two last words. It try to keep my second last word short. I didn't expect that the number 1 trillion was so important to you. In my opinion the word "hyper-inflation" covers what needed to be covered. A characteristic of hyperinflation is that the exchange rate become meaningless. It is nevertheless an illustrative factoid, so I'm not at all opposed to mentioning the exchange rate.

The first version, and the current version still to some extend suggests that hyper-inflation was caused by the treaty of Versailles, which in turn caused Hitlers rise. This is a monocausal but debunked theory that you hear fairly often. But LearnTogether was so kind to clarify that he too knows that history is more complicated than that, and it appears that we a both on the same side on this issue. And Philip, I hope and I even believe that it is the case, that with respect to the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich we are all on the same side. This was second last word, and I hope my last on this matter. Order 08:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I'm sure that we could find some point of difference if we tried, but I don't plan on trying. Philip J. Rayment 17:28, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Perhaps one (or both?) of you need(s) to reread Editing Etiquette. Philip J. Rayment 20:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)

I think the religious background can be better explained. for an example Free Churches —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nandus (talk)

How about we call this discussion quits now?

However, it would be unfair of me to cut the conversation off after Order's last comment and his request (on my talk page) that I say something, so LearnTogether, if you'd like one last reply to Order, go ahead, but keep it very brief and don't raise any new issues, as that would only give Order fair reason to respond. And Order, if you can't resist having the last word, write a reply offline, keep it for a day, then decide that you really don't need to post it. Okay? And if you still want to get it off your chest, e-mail it to me. (LearnTogether can do the same if he wants to make a more extensive reply.)

Non-compliance with this instruction risks a short block for either offending party. Okay?

Philip J. Rayment 08:32, 29 November 2007 (EST) (writing as an administrator)

This word is being blocked by the spam filter for containing f u k, so I had to paraphrase it in the section about the green party. Could someone with the rights to do so please change it? Thanks! GregorSchmitt 14:57, 2 February 2013 (EST)

Done brenden 15:40, 2 February 2013 (EST)