Talk:George Lincoln Rockwell
Too much excellent content has been removed from this article. I am placing it under protection. NatAll75 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Further discussion is then required, not arbitrary protections. Matt58 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I have added back the pictures and removed dead links and some questionable content (less than 1% of the content of the article). If there is a part that you think is important that has been removed, add that then back in the article instead of undo everything. Thanks. --Estellenation (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Upplysning, the content you removed from this article came from Rockwell's autobiography, This Time The World. NatAll75 (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Upplysning? Then add that part back or parts and references. Dead links and words like racist (Is that something you want to add back?). --Estellenation (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Upplysning is long gone from Metapedia. If there is a problem here could it be clearly outlined? Matt58 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Johnny Bravo
- Avenge Ole Miss! Work are to be included cursive (Avenge Ole Miss!) and with date. --Crusader (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- What if there is no date? --Johnny Bravo (talk) 17:58, 2 Jnuary 2024 (UTC)
Pic
That New Order pic (of odd bods) does not benefiting the article. I don't understand why you want to add pics like that to as many articles as possible. It already exists on the New Order page and should be enough with that. I have added one that feature Matt Koehl instead. --Estellenation 23:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Once again, you delete a picture without discussing beforehand ... but NOW you want to talk. Yes, the picture benefits the article very much. It shows perfectly how the legacy of Rockwell is still honoured by some/many today. So incredibly strange: I add a picture, and you delete it, you add a picture. and that is just great. More than strange! --Crusader (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- The reason was given why I removed the pic (superfluous). Please dont lie. --Estellenation 23:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- It was removed and reason was given. Not deleted, you could still find it on the New Order article. --Estellenation 22:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Administrators and bureaucrats have the last word. Matt58 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Calling all bureaucrats (Matt58, Aurvandil, Johnny Bravo)
Once again, as so often in the past, new administrator User:Estellenation has deleted (and again shortly before midnight on New Year's Eve) a by me uploaded very suitable picture (in my humble opinion) without any discussion beforehand, adding one word to his edit: "superfluous" and finds his opinion to be completely sufficient, as has often been the case before, to remove a picture. Therefore my question: Do you have any problems with this picture commemorating the death and legacy of Rockwell? The people shown seem well dressed and well mannered. What is your opinion? I have been with Metapedia since 7 June 2010, but I am nevertheless willing to ask for other opinions before the edit war gets out of hand ... again. Thanks. --Crusader (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to me the photo of a ceremony 50 years after the death of GLR demonstrates the impact he had, and therefore the photo is not superfluous. That is my opinion. --Johnny Bravo (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- A pic of some unknown and bad looking people (from New Order) is not benefiting the article. Thats why I added a pic that feature Matt Koehl instead. You seems to not care about optics. --Estellenation 22:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
We have to face simple facts. Our enemies refer to us as a neo-nazi site. We are trying to present ourselves as credible and to just make our enemies look a bit stupid. I can understand placing some insignia etc where it is absolutely necessary for an encyclopaedic article. When we are putting up pictures which lend some kind of credit to a cause we have to be very selective, bearing in mind what I have just said. I also think it very bad news putting up pages which are clearly in favour of today's totally obscure neo-nazis whom the overwhelming majority of people have no knowledge of. That is because most of these people are cranks. If you want an article about, say, Rockwell, fine. He is at least known. But just a thumbnail photo of him as the subject is all that is required. We do a lot of encyclopaedic and good revisionist work on Metapedia. Don't let crap drag us down. otherwise we will never influence anything or anyone. Matt58 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
