User talk:Crusader

Articles (decline and regeneration)

• 22 Oktober 2014: 20,302 articles
• 16 April 2021: 4,935 articles (after sabotage)
• 16 April 2022: 6,743 articles
• 14 May 2022: 7,005 articles
• 14 June 2022: 7,318 articles
• 30 August 2022: 7,428 articles
• 3 March 2023: 7,656 articles
• 12 September 2023: 7,878 articles
• 10 March 2024: 8,220 articles
• 20 September 2024: 8,495 articles

Email

I have just emailed you. Also, I have spoken to the technician about the photo problems. Matt58 (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Something, but we have had this problem before, is not working with you e-mailing me. Nothing was received, I also checked spam. I will now e-mail you, please let me know if you get it. --Crusader (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you get my e-mail? If not, then the internal function "Email this user" is defect ... and has been for quite a while. --Crusader (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No idea what is going wrong. I have just been told that the technical glitch with uploading photos is fixed. Matt58 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, pictures are working again. Please let them know about the long-term e-mail problem. --Crusader (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Please could you add your email address to the "email this user" page. It is entirely secret and no-one can see it. Matt58 (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Matt, my email address has been on that page since day one: "email address was confirmed on 7 June 2010 at 10:15" ... the internal function "Email this user" is defect ... at least a year or two. I do not receive your messages, you have not received mine. --Crusader (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Please register your confidential email address with Metapedia. Thanks. Matt58 (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Matt, I can only repeat myself, my email address has been on that page since day one: "email address was confirmed on 7 June 2010 at 10:15" ... SOMETHING IS DEFECT! How can we find a solution??? I have emailed you several times, but no reaction, so I am sure, you haven't received my mails either. I even wrote to metapedia@tutanota.com on 13 January 2025, no reaction. Something is very wrong. Can you send me an email address you normally do not use? Then I will write to you personally?! --Crusader (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I am overdue to chat with the boss so I will raise it with him. Meanwhile, what is the situation with the pictures uploading? Matt58 (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Matt. That would be great. I did finally get ahold of Daniel, after a few days the problem with uploads was solved. --Crusader (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with that (obviously modern: Gdansk instead of Danzig) map of the Holy Roman Empire in 1000AD on the Western Civilisation page. The Polish Duke Mieszko I, ruling in Posen, accepted that his sovereign Lord was the HRE. It was maybe 200 years later that the Poles bowed out. For instance Duke Boleslaw III 'the Wrymouth' (r.1102-38) died a feudatory of the HRE. We need a better map. Matt58 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it is sometimes hard to find good maps. Maybe you have a better one. --Crusader (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Admin

I have restored your Administrator status. Please be on your best behaviour with it. Matt58 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I will. Thank you sincerely, mate! --Crusader (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Please explain why you removed von Bock from the West Prussia page when he was born at Kustrin. Also, province is a small 'c', not a capital. Matt58 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

No Problem, but the article explains it: Von Bock was born in Küstrin, Kreis Königsberg/Neumark which belonged to the Margraviate of Brandenburg, later Province of Brandenburg, never to West Prussia. --Crusader (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah well. I wonder where I got that from. Apologies. Matt58 (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

No problem, Matt, we are exact and that is what makes us good. Too bad we are so few. --Crusader (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Query

I was thinking about the Arguments regarding the existence of races page. Is this a good title for this age? Would browsers go looking for this? Possibly not. They more likely look for "Race" or "The Race Question"? What do you think? We need to go for simplicity so that people can find without hassle what they're looking for. Matt58 (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest redirecting Race and genetics to Arguments regarding the existence of races. The only problem with "The Race Question" is the 1950 UNESCO statement with the same title ... of course denying "race". --Crusader (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Please take a look at this (Race: Racism; Anti-Racism), Matt ... this is not an article. Delete? --Crusader (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it is an article and it has been up for two years. It has some god points. Maybe we could merge the two pages but I still think no-one will type into the search box 'Arguments regarding' etc. Matt58 (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You're right, of course. We now have the page Race (disambiguation). This should be found faster and then the reader can see what we offer on various race topics. --Crusader (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)