User talk:Aurvandil

Enigmatic elimination

As Yoshamya (i.e. doc.Dr. A.Z.Lovric), I participated in en.metapedia yet a decade ago, and before 7 years I proposed and realised its Croatian wiki, then being so far its founder, bureaucrat and administrator, i.e. contributing in with ca. 2/3 of all its texts.

However, on April 24, 2017, I was suddenly blocked, eliminated and erased from this Cro version - without any logic and reasonable explanation. Then now its new self-declated sysop & leader became 'Horouathos879' (a former Bot).

Then since that overthrow, this one now eliminated out from Cro-wiki a majority of its other contributors, now becaming its nearly unique writer: thus something must be made to stop his devastation on Cro-wiki leading shortly to its end. Please, can you me explain what it was and why happened,- but something must be made urgently to stop that devastation. Yoshamya 15:30, 27 April 2017.

Test. --Aurvandil (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Topp bannern

Kan du inte ta bort topp-bannern på svenska Metapedia också? Glöm inte den. --Spoof (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixat! --Aurvandil (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User rights

Please restore my user rights. NatAll75 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You have inserted errors and harmful, false information in numerous articles as well as material that can be interpreted as pro-violence and supportive of crime. Your are likely one of several editors who have rather successfully in the past attempted to destroy Metapedia by filling it with ridiculous, unreliable, and dangerous material. Upplysning (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. These reasons of yours are almost identical to what you say to everyone whom you wish to get rid of.Matt58 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you restore my previous user page? It is good to be back.NatAll75 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing. Done. --Aurvandil (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you NatAll75 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you restore me as Administrator and stop the harassment from Estellenation/Upplysning?NatAll75 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Harassment? I have just removed broken links and done some improvements. I have barely removed any content. Maybe you should learn to View history (compare selected revisions). --Estellenation (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Upplysning and everyone else

Take a look at the recent activities of Upplsysning. He has deleted my user page and most of the articles I have contributed since 2007. He needs to be removed from Metapedia.NatAll75 (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Upplsysning has once again deleted my User Page which can now be found here. [1]

He has spent considerable amounts of time attacking me also for wholly non-academic and personally opinionated reasons. Moreover, you need to look at this talk page too: https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Identitarian Matt58 (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

See also this User who has sadly departed, bullied by Upplsysning: https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lamprecht

Retirement

There are, as you have told me previously, when there were more private forms of communications, other considerations than those stated in Metapedia publicly, such as not openly stated considerations regarding Arktos and individuals closely associated with it. There may well now be additional such considerations, but which I do not know of. Matt58 has now declared his own dubious personal views to be the undisputed and final truths as well as deleted many talk pages with my arguments and also deleted other materials, such as disputed templates, so many of my arguments and even what issues I criticize (which are not limited to topics involving Poland and Slavs) can longer be read, making further discussions pointless. Furthermore, removing my administrator status also makes participation by me in Metapedia pointless, as I can no longer edit the many important protected pages, despite that most are not part of any dispute with Matt58. I hope English Metapedia will now not just stagnate into non-activity and irrelevance, as is the case for so many other Metapedia language versions, those few that are active seem to often depend on the contributions of one or a few very active volunteer editors, with most editors quickly becoming inactive. Or maybe English Metapedia will again be infiltrated by more or less subtle trolls (if they do not consider the changes by Matt58 to already be sufficiently harmful), aiming to again make it Metapedia a burden rather than an asset for the mission stated in Metapedia's mission statement, again adding more or less subtly incorrect and ridiculous material, possibly even again going to the extent of including material that is, more or less subtly, crime and violence glorifying, quasi-illegal, and/or illegal, making it dangerous to risk having any associations with Metapedia.

I retire from Metapedia, wanting no further associations with it, and request that my account should be permanently blocked. Upplysning (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe Metapedia will experience a renaissance of new activity, now that — after almost two years of zero (0) new contributors being able to join — new accounts can finally be added again. I know for a fact that there is a huge backlog of volunteers who're waiting for a chance to get started.

Furthermore, I'm sure Matt58 is a reasonable fellow who is willing to accept justified modifications to articles created by him if he is treated with due respect. I don't share your pessimistic view of Metapedia's future at all.

In any case, I will grant your wish and permanently block your account. In spite of my criticism, I thank you for the time and hard work you have invested in this important project. --Aurvandil (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If I may add a footnote here: I cannot see that anyone has any dispute with Metapedia's Mission Statement. We are all pro-European etc. It also says Metapedia should be used for research. In this respect myself and others have painstakingly provided countless references for providing researchers with the truth rather than the "established" and "official" histories. Metapedia provides a brilliant platform for guidance on the true facts about, for instance, the world wars in which tens of millions of Europeans were slaughtered and which people still ask why, unconvinced by "victors' histories". In addition Metapedia provides a huge amount of insight into other subjects, such as the Holocaust, which would be banned anywhere else. Given that Upplysning has spent most of his time editing these latter subjects it seems incredulous that he speaks about people posting criminal comments. He did good work, but became uncontrollable. Matt58 (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hello, Aurvandil, seeing Upplysning has "retired", is it possible, you once again upgrade me to "Administrator", many pages are blocked and cannot be worked on. Thanks! --Crusader (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I will upgrade you right now. --Aurvandil (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Now the work begins. --Crusader (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, could you do the same for me? I would like to restore my articles. NatAll75 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Done! --Aurvandil (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Short question

I haven't been around for a while, therefore: When we add books to an article, do we list them under Literature, Further reading or Bibliography? I see, that in many articles the "References" are placed BEFORE "External links", that doesn't look right to me, but if it is the rule (?), I will surely adjust. Thanks! --Crusader (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia for example its normal to have the "References" placed before the "External links", but i dont think there are any rules about this here on Metapedia. I prefer to place the "References" before the "External links". --Estellenation (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, good to know. I prefer them last, it just looks terrible having them "inbetween". WP (English) is pretty much the only one doing this, but not always, as you can see here, of course without "External links". Maybe I am just used to the German way, where they are always put last. --Crusader (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It is true that we do not have any fixed rule about this in Metapedia's style guide. But maybe we should have? So far, we have mostly been following Wikipedia's model by putting the references before the external links. I agree, however, that it looks much better to place the references at the very end of each article. --Aurvandil (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. Looking at the German section of Metapedia references at the end looks well arranged and makes, at least for me, more sense. Article → See also → Further reading → External links → References would be my prefered sequence. --Crusader (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Runes

User:Crusader is adding the algiz rune into many articles instead of "b." (for birth) or "d." (for death). No-one knows what these runes mean. Two of us have discussed this with him (see my Talk page) to no avail. He cites an obscure German-language genealogical handbook, but whatever they do in Germany this is not done in the English-speaking world and this is the English-language Metapedia. Maybe you could arbitrate here? Matt58 (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Runes

Hello, Aurvandil! I was surprised to hear, that Matt thinks "no-one knows what these runes mean", so I asked around, especially US-Americans and Brits at the website "Gentleman's Military Interest Club" (I'm a longtime member), and they all knew what is meant. I admit, runes are in comparison rare, but not "obscure". Why shouldn't we do things different? Does everything have to be Wikipedia conform? Why does every innovation have to be questioned so long until it becomes a philosophical stillbirth? If a visitor goes on the page Hanna Reitsch, why shouldn't they automatically understand, what "(ᛉ 29 March 1912 in Hirschberg im Riesengebirge, Silesia; ᛣ 24 August 1979 in Frankfurt am Main)" means? Is it so wrong, to teach something new? Aren't we doing this every day? There was a time (before the christianization), where no one knew what "* and †" meant, now they do, why shouldn't we achieve the same with ᛉ and ᛣ? Just a question. --Crusader (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think runes should be used in English Metapedia. On a similar subject, I think there should be a separate dating style one European and the other American depending on the topic. Example, September 11, 2001, not 11 September 2001.NatAll75 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with UserCrusader, and I couldn't care less what Americans think about anything. They are Europe's enemies. "b." for birth and "d." for death are universally known worldwide, and it is ridiculous to suggest that because Wikipedia happen also to use them (correctly IMO) that we should not. I have emailed Gregory Lauder-Frost a renowned British genealogist of considerable standing in that field and he agrees with me. Matt58 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course he does.NatAll75 (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

They use these runes in german Metapedia. I dont know, b. and d. seems more appropriate for the english version. --Spoof (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Matt58, Spoof and NatAll75 that "b." and "d." are more appropriate for English Metapedia. If for nothing else because they are more easily understood for most people. --Aurvandil (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your help in restoring my articles.NatAll75 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrator

May I ask, why those, who work the most, are stripped of their rights? --Crusader (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Who has been stripped of their "rights"? Matt58 (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Rights of duty. I. Tried to delete a picture (children), not possible. --Crusader (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I see now you are no longer an administrator (that didn't last long!), but there is some degree of reorganisation afoot. It is not a right to be an admin, and it is very arrogant to say so. It is a privilege. And it certainly is nothing to do with how many posts people make. Just because you have been an eager beaver this past month means nothing. Over the years we have all made thousands of posts. I will see if I can help, but there is nothing stopping you continuing with your work. Matt58 (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Cologne

Cologne must be restored! --Crusader (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Matt58 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Now files (flag, coat of arms and so on) must be restored. It will be impossible to work like this. I can't wait 24 to 48 hours until an article is restored in order for me to work on it. I was slowly but surely restoring hundreds of deleted Knight's Cross Holders, that is now impossible, but I will resume this as soon as I am an administrator again. If not, then I will rely on the other administrators to take over this honourable duty. --Crusader (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What is it that you cannot edit, and why? Matt58 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I cannot restore files (flag, coat of arms and so on). --Crusader (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been rectified? Matt58 (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Pictures

On 3 February 2023, we were able to upload the last pictures, since then sadly not. Can you help solve the problem? Thanks. --Crusader (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This remains the situation today, Feb 9th. Matt58 (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Change of language

My metapedia account closes when I try to change language, my native language is Spanish but I also know English. If possible please put me in both languages. Thanks in advance. (If I log in from Spanish, my account does not work either)

Intropage update

We need to update Metapedia and Template:Intro, the text is outdated ("The project is still in its early stages") and the pictures too old. Here, my suggestion, if approved, just copy and paste. The pages are protected, otherwise I would have renewed them myself. Thanks! --Crusader (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. I will update them. --Aurvandil (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Matt beat you to it, thanks anyway. --Crusader (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit war (November 2023)

Good Morning! I would have contacted you privately, but I couldn't find an email address. I need help with a problem that I can't solve on my own. As in the past, User:Estellenation has once again deleted a picture without any explanatory discussion. I didn't agree with this step and reversed it. This has been going on since 28 October 2023‎. I have been active here since 2010, in the last couple of years, I have worked hard every single day. Don't worry, I don’t want any thanks or recognition, but I would like to work in peace. For 13 years it has been understood that in the event of major changes, especially deletion, this should be discussed with the other authors beforehand (excluding User:Upplysning, of course). That's the point of the discussion pages. Of course, at the moment we hardly have active users. I would have liked to comment, but User:Estellenation, active within the English section since 10 June 2021, apparently does not believe in this practice. Further discussion with him, as the past shows, is sadly pointless. Since 2 November 2023 he is an administrator, and I am fine with that, I am sure this sysop decision was necessary and cleverly considered, but what cannot be accepted, is that his new power is used to threaten to protect an article if I disagree with a deletion decision. I would be grateful if you could intervene in this regard, such "working constructively together" has no future. Sorry to take up your time. --Crusader (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I can deal with User:Estellenation, who, by the way, is an admin on the Norwegian Metapedia and here also. Maybe he thought your picture was inappropriate? Matt58 (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Reasons have been given several times about why the picture has been removed! Crusader doesn't agree and add back the picture every time. My response to this is that the article will then be protected if this doesn't stop (Talk:White supremacism). And also, to have a big debate about a picture (which is obviously bad optics) is ridiculous. --Estellenation 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to condemn a picture as "bad optics" and then delete it. Maybe others disagree, as I did. This should therefore be discussed beforehand. This is a question of mutual respect and of collegiality with one another. Estellenation deleted, as so often in the past, without any type of consensus. He deletes and then adds under summary "Bad optics" as seen here. I once re-organized, not deleted, re-organized pictures added by Matt within an article. I was reprimanded and was asked not to do this without prior consultation, which I did. That was the end of the matter. Demanding such polite behavior from others is not disgraceful or demeaning for either side. ... by the way: Estellenation wrote his short reply, and seconds later, without any use of the discussion page, deleted the picture once again. No willingness at all to find a common solution. I am sure, he will now abuse his very new administrator rights and block the page for others. This is detrimental to this project. --Crusader (talk)

His rights as an administrator have nothing to do with you and are irrelevant to this discussion. Matt58 (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't delete it but removed it. Reason was given. Optics and presentation is important, you don't seem to understand that. Since this picture is so important to you why didn't you contact admin Matt58 to look at it? --Estellenation 21:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You deleted it from the article. Reason was not given. Discussion page was not used. Summary note "Bad optics" is not an argument, you don't seem to understand that. --Crusader (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please direct me to the picture(s) in dispute. Put all links separately and say which page they are/were on. I shall have to arbitrate here. Matt58 (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The page: White supremacism, top picture on the page. Page history: Revision history of "White supremacism". Discussion page: (Talk:White supremacism). Picture:

A white patriot wears a shirt with the slogan "European Brotherhood" at a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S., 12 August 2017

--Estellenation 12:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The picture is passable. I have changed the caption to make it more neutral. Matt58 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt. --Crusader (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It's great to see how well you resolved this issue! In case you need to contact me privately on any matter in the future, please use the official Metapedia email address visible on www.metapedia.org. --Aurvandil (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Portuguese Metapedia

Is there a Portuguese site? Are you able to assist this fellow? User:Gnommann. Matt58 (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User:Gnommann! Sadly, the Portuguese section has shown no activities for weeks, even months (and once looked a lot better). Normally, there should be an e-mail address here (https://www.metapedia.org/), but that is gone too. You will have to be a bit patient, User:Aurvandil is the only one who could resolve this for you, but he is only present sporadically. --Crusader (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Right, waiting. Gnommann