the article's talk page
.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ talk) 09:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
That's fine with me. -- Linksnational (talk ) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
talk) 06:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
Welcome!
Hello, Linksnational, and
. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
my talk page
, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
talk) 06:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
After I already warned you for moving articles without discussion you have moved it yet again to another location without discussion. Can you please stop doing this.
talk) 14:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at talk
)
Having read the complaint at
WP:ANI and reviewed the article history I have moved the article back to its former location and restored an earlier version of the text. While we encourage editors to be bold, your edits removed content and references from the article and were contentious; it is very important in instances like this to establish consensus on the article's talk page before taking drastic action. Please ensure that you engage in a discussion on the talk page before making further major edits to this article or moving it to a new title. Thank you.
waggers (
talk ) 14:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
without discussion? Maybe someone respond to my arguments: [1] . -- Linksnational (talk ) 21:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
Can you discuss these please on the talk page ? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk > 11:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
I'm trying to discuss and bringing up arguments all the time. Nobody is interest in the talk-page. -- Linksnational (talk ) 13:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
Please don't remove cited material without an explanation as you did in this edit. I have also reverted the addition of this claim as it was uncited and highly questionable (the entire German campaign was based around rapidly advancing into the USSR and destroying the Soviet military). Nick-D (talk ) 10:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
The German troops went forward very quickly and were not prepared to take of so many prisoners. Reason: The russian troops weren't in a defensive, but in an offensive line. -- Linksnational (talk ) 10:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
Yes that only explains the "uncited claim" that Nick-D removed, not the main blanking which appears to be part of your ongoing efforts on wikipedia to try to show that the Nazis never raped anyone. talk) 10:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
It's part of propaganda due to anti-german sentiments from past to present. In the way of presenting I consider this as very doubtable, it's not approved by reputable literature. It seems like a continuation of propaganda stories, not uncommon in polish media. Since mass rape is a heavy accusation, it cannot be presented as fact, while being doubtful. -- Linksnational (talk ) 13:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
User talk:Polargeo. Comment on
content , not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Telling someone that they're out for fame (!?) on Wikipedia and that they aren't good enough to write is no way to start a talk page post, and your comments get worse. I strongly urge you to de-escalate and seek consensus. Insulting other users is the very essence of being counterproductive. Awickert (
talk ) 17:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
I didn't say he is not good enough to contribute to wikipedia. As he showed, he wasn't familiar with the basic facts, I stated, he doesn't seem qualified to write this special article. Maybe he is a very good glaciologist. I'm not and so I do not write on that subject. Elsewise he accused me of being interest in euphemizing nazi crimes. That's a personal attack. -- Linksnational (talk ) 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
That might be a personal attack; it's in a gray area. What you told Polargeo are definitely personal attacks. No matter who is to blame, this needs to stop, and I'll try to keep my eyes on it.
On another tack, in my professional life, I do a ton of physics and geology. But I edit articles here with people who don't have that background (but who have an interest), and strike up successful collaborations. I would therefore strongly note that working with non-experts is a good thing, not a bad one. Awickert (talk ) 19:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (
Hohum @ ) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
The House of Dolls. Before making any potentially controversial
edits , it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. (
Hohum @ ) 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
On the basis of your contributions to date, I have reached the conclusion that you are editing on Wikipedia only to push your personal views:
The common thread running through your edits appears to be a determination to soften material critical of Germany's conduct during the Second World War, regardless of whether it is supported by a reliable source and without discussion with other editors. As such, I have blocked you for an indefinite period on the grounds that this account is primarily being used for disruption. Nick-D (talk ) 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator , who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy ).
Linksnational (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log ) )
Request reason :
That's arrant nonsense. I'm not soften it, but quite the contrary. I'm giving it a scientific ground. Any other approach redounds to the revsionist advantage, who in fact try to whitewash the most terrible regime in history. That Nazi Germany incarnates total evil, is probably the common view, but shall not make careless in presenting historical facts and harm the scientific approach. A scientific approach means, every subject is treated the same way, not based on paradigm or mere conjecture. As Polargeo can attest, the articles contained nonsense as "rape camps". Nazi Germany was arguably the darkest chapter of German history. That doesn't give the right to spread rumours and conjectures. How can you know, what's right or false? We have to stick to the reliable literature. If there are different views, both views are regarded. At last Polargeo used a original document from the nuremberg trial as a reference. That's original research and problematic, cause it's missing the source criticism , usually done by scholars. Counsellor Smirnovs demonstration at nuremberg, Polargeo refered to with the document, is not approved. Mainstream scholars of the Holocaust consider a lot of his accusations as part of WWII folklore and atrocity tales. That's not my opinion, that's not whitewashing. That's the status quo of scientific discourse on the holocaust. I'm not always able to communicate my concern in the proper way, I'm not a native speaker. That might lead to missunderstanding. I hope, that I could dispel doubts on my contributions. If you have questions, I can explain and justify my last edits detailed. I've learned, that I have to expect disaccordance and cannot run over it. The problem is, as I'm not a native speaking, discussing gives me a hard time. I didn't want to be disrespectful and do not want to whitewash history. Regarding my sooner contributions, I do promise to proceed slowly and will not provoke conflicts. -- Linksnational (talk ) 12:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
Decline reason :
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia works on
]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first , then use the {{ unblock }} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator , who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy ).
Linksnational (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log ) )
Request reason :
Neither I'm unable do discuss, nor do I have a lack of desire to discuss. I just wanted to point to the actual problem as I see it. But having a hard time to cope with the language is my problem and shall not be yours. In future I will respect the rules - that means to discuss - no matter if it costs me special efforts. -- Linksnational (talk ) 13:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
Decline reason :
This does not address the reason for your block. It does not convince me that you understand why you are blocked and will not repeat the conduct for which you are blocked. Sandstein 07:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first , then use the {{ unblock }} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please note that this editor has continued to edit as 82.76.59.131 (talk · contribs ) in evasion of his block. — Malik Shabazz Talk /Stalk 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
Very likely further block evasion as talk) 11:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
I've semiprotected the article, to give this user time to accept that he really is blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs ) 11:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
I've just indef blocked Zaki Papadopoulos (talk · contribs ), who appears to be another sock of this editor (same POV pushing and use of German language sources). Nick-D (talk ) 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
Cretino (talk · contribs ) just came out of inactivity and started editing the same articles. (Hohum @ ) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
Interesting because the POV of Cretino fits very well with Linksnational talk) 09:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]