User talk:Drogo Underburrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 WW2 3 Middle English? 4 World War II 5 Soviet Losses 6 Polish-Soviet Losses 7 Soviet Casualties 8 Some of the nations that Germany conquered also sent military forces, particularly to the Eastern front, while others joined the Allies. 9 Jesus Page, 2nd Paragraph 10 Plagiarism 11 Copyright 12 Hans von Salmuth 13 Ernst Schröder 14 Stalin 15 The Longest Day 16 wikilinking 17 You deleted to much and what is left is wrong 18 Stalin intro 19 Hello I made a small change to the ww2 article 20 Gramma 21 WWII edit 22 Stalin 23 Your reverts 24 New compromise 25 Jesus article 26 World War II revert 27 malta 28 Hitler 29 Personal attack? 30 Hitler and ISBN 31 My RfA 32 Origins of Dagger-thrust legend 33 Joseph Stalin 34 My Edit Summary 35 Cuba 36 Puppetry on Adolf Hitler 37 WP:3RR on Adolf Hitler 38 Cease Fire 39 Enmity? 40 3RR 41 For conspicuous rationality 42 Han Solo 43 Input please 44 Vermes 45 Bismarck Talk Page 46 Fair-use images removed from your user page 47 Smiley Award 48 sandbox categories 49 Good Day 50 AfD

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Drogo Underburrow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  The Neokid talk 12:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WW2

Hi Drogo!

Regarding your note on Talk:World War II, I agree that the sentence you commented on looks confusing. Please do improve it by editing the article. I don't know why your comment didn't get any response, but it could be that it was packed in quite far up on this very long talk-page. Many people just read and comment at the bottom, even if following the structure by commenting in an already relevant existing talk section many times seems more appropriate. And I do it myself many times. But talk pages on wikipedia can be very confusing, and I find them quite messy at times, especially talk pages on large topics like this one.

Anyway, this is just a heads up and thanks for your comments end edits, and a "please go ahead and edit" from me. If you have any questions about how stuff on wikipedia works, or just need help with anything, please ask! Thanks! Shanes 11:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Shanes! :-) --Drogo Underburrow 23:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle English?

Dude, the Angles and Saxons were still on the Continent when Jesus walked the earth. The name obviously goes back farther than Middle English. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to the English name "Jesus". In Modern English, "Jesus" has been a name. In Middle English, it perhaps was imported from the Greek. Since "Jesus" has been a name in English for at least 500 years, there is no need to treat it as a foreign word. Drogo Underburrow 05:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just English, it's also French, Spanish, German, Italian and other languages...and probably entered those languages from Ecclesiastical Latin, which the western Christian Church used, and back to Koine Greek from there. But, Jesus of Nazareth himself was probably named in Aramaic. People on the Talk:Jesus page are debating whether Hebrew was a common or sacred language, but I fail to understand why Latin, Greek and Aramaic shouldn't be included. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My only point I am trying to make, is that all references to other languages should be made in the body of the article somewhere; the Intro should not be cluttered with telling the reader where the English name of Jesus came from. Drogo Underburrow 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Does the introduction of the Socrates article tell the reader where the English name of Socrates came from? Oh, wait, it does. If Socrates, then why not Jesus? The confusion over Hebrew can wait, as can a fuller entymology, but I'm not sure why people are objecting to showing the original name in the introduction, or the original Greek form of "Christ." It just seems more honest to me. I don't think it really clutters up the intro, since people tend to skip over parenthesis anyway.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War II

Your "scuttle" change is appreciated. The difference between "sunk" and "scuttled" in an article like this one is very important to those those examining the sequence of events from that time. And, of course, you are correct.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-12 06:07Z

Thank you :-) Drogo Underburrow 06:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Losses

You can order the Vadim Erlikman book from -http://www.eastview.com. It is a goldmine of data on casualties from every country on the planet from 1900-2003, mostly from Soviet and Russian sources.--Woogie10w 13:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't read Russian though. That's why I am asking you all those questions. Thank you for your answers. Could you answer 'yes' on the WWII Casualty talk page, though, for clarity? That way when others read it, they will know you agreed.Drogo Underburrow 13:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I smile when I see WW2 casualty lists(without footnotes) that list 27.0 million total Soviet losses including 8.6 military and then list Poland's losses as 6 million. These folks don't take the time to analyze the numbers and check the sources Berndd AKA--Woogie10w 14:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The guy from the Briticanna may have used this logic to derive his figures. Military losses- Actual deaths of 6.9 million plus 700,000 estimated MIA; plus 400,000 partisans; plus 5.7 million POWs less 2.7 million POW freed in 1945 - Net loss 11 million. That makes sense. Erlikman is close to that at 10.6 million. Civilian losses of 7 million are more than likly only direct losses such as executions ect. Famine deaths of 5 million are excluded, Erlikman includes famine losses. At least 700,000 died in Lenningrad of starvation, I think they should be counted as war dead along with the millions of Soviet children who starved in the interior--Woogie10w 16:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-Soviet Losses

For those people who have doubts about a double count of Soviet and Polish losses the following analysis of the population should settle the issue. The Soviets pick up an additional 19.6 million in their population base as a result of the annexations and population shifts of 1939-46. This is broken down as follows: Poland 10 million; the Baltic States 5.3 million; Romania 3.5 million; Czechoslovakia 700,000 and a slice of Mongolia (Tuva) 100,000.
In the case of Poland they occupied territory of 13.2 million in 1939 and gave back 1.5 million in 1945 [1], 2.0 million left to live in Poland(this is per 1950 Polish census data), 300,000 fled to the west as refugees and 600,000 Ukrainians were expelled from Poland to the USSR. The net pickup by the USSR is 10.0 million before war losses are taken into account. The first postwar Soviet census of this region in 1959 yielded 9 million for these territories, the population of the USSR grew 22% from 1945-59. That yields a post war 1945 population of 7.4 million, 2.6 million less than what the Soviets picked up from Poland. The difference of 2.6 million are losses due to to the war and the post war Soviet deportations( about 300,000). The Polish pick up these losses as "Polish Citzens" and count them with Polish losses in modern day Poland of about 3.0-3.3 million. The total losses being about 5.6-5.9 million. The Soviets also pick them up in the total of 26.6 million war dead. We must decide on which line to put the losses, we can't count them twice. I hope this helps.--Woogie10w 22:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Casualties

Can you read Russian?--Woogie10w 17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I wish I could, but I can only read English Drogo Underburrow 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some of the nations that Germany conquered also sent military forces, particularly to the Eastern front, while others joined the Allies.

TRAITORS do you understand TRAITORS. For example some french and dutch and other would join the axis for example in the SS or in the regular army they were traitors they joined with the axis. (Deng 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

And also Alot of polish people who escaped joined either the french army or the british army do you understand now (Deng 18:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Ok, mention this in the appropriate article dealing with that subject. In the introduction to the WWII article there is room for only the most broad information, no detail. Drogo Underburrow 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont like it when people delete information if you delete it you must also add it otherwise it will be gone forever and not all were traitors atleast some 350k ploes were able to escape and join with the brits or french the same goes for other countires. (Deng 19:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

No offense, but its written so badly that it makes no grammatical sense. So, its not only out of place in the intro, but its horrible English. That's why it must be deleted entirely. Drogo Underburrow 19:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You cant go around deleting stuff just because you feel like it. I dont care about the stuff you have deleted but I am telling you if you go around deleting stuff left and right without replaceing it you will be banned and that will be that. (Deng 11:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Jesus Page, 2nd Paragraph

We're getting ready to post a new version of the 2nd paragraph. I'd appreciate your input:

talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate --CTSWyneken 03:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a peek. :-) Drogo Underburrow 04:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

I probably overstated calling your statement about plagiarism in Jesus "ridiculous" in my edit summary here. I still disagree with you about it being plagiarism but I didn't mean to say it so strongly or rudely. : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Dear Drogo:

I was able to open the first paragraph, but no more. From work, I'll be able to view the whole thing, however. I am not need the whole thing to answer you informally. I must, of course, tell you I'm not a lawyer, you are not a client and I don't even play one on TV. 8-)

Just, in general, copyright covers that actual words of the article -- the way the information is expressed. So, if you paraphrase the info, look at several other sources and summarize them, etc. You are not in danger on the copyright side.

On the plagiarism side, if you cite the encyclopedia, no matter what SL says, this is legitimate. IIt would be better for you to use the books from which they got the info, however. You may even quote a sentence or two without permission, as long as you tell where it came from.

If you have difficulty finding something, let me know via email. That is confidential communication. I'm pretty good at finding a copy of things near folk and helping them get it. --CTSWyneken 14:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I am interested in. There are many people, like this German general, whom I wouldn't mind putting into Wikipedia. I don't have access to a military history research library, and if there is a way of getting info that is in the EB, like in this case, I would like to do it. I created an article, Hans von Salmuth. Already, based on what you have told me, I guess I have protected Wikipedia from any copyright issues, which is my main concern. Take a look at the article when you get a chance, compare it with the EB version, and let me know what you think, I'd appreciate that. Drogo Underburrow 14:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

All I can get at this morning is the first paragraph. You are perfectly fine that far. Remind me tomorrow and I'll open the full article. If you've done the same throughout, there is no copyright issue at all.

You may not need a specialized library to get more info on the generals. Try histories of WWII and Germany in general. Do you have a sizable public or university library near you? --CTSWyneken 11:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Drogo Underburrow 11:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hans von Salmuth

I announced your article in the appropriate Portal:Germany/New article announcements page and also on Portal:Germany. Please add any other Germany-related articles you create to the announcement page. Thank you! Kusma (討論) 14:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow..and here I thought nobody would notice this obscure article. Drogo Underburrow 14:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernst Schröder

Can we create a disambiguation page for Ernst Schröder, so as to distinguish the actor from the German mathematician? Can someone help me on this? Drogo Underburrow 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a note at the top of Ernst Schröder instead, since I wasn't sure that a disambiguation page was needed. If you did need a disambigaution page you would move Ernst Schröder to Ernst Schröder (mathematician) and create the dab page at Ernst Schröder. If that's too tricky just ask me, disambiguation is my speciality around here. --Commander Keane 16:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm new at this. No need for the DAB at this time, I'm just going to create a stub page for the actor so that my link to the actor works. Thanks. Drogo Underburrow 16:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin

The article is now being re-written according to Stalinist views. If you think that the previous version was better, then please help in restoring it. Ultramarine 01:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How many active Stalinist editors are there? Drogo Underburrow 01:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Longest Day

Didn't delete the quotes, just moved them over to WikiQuote (Most of them were already there), which is linked from the article. It makes the article too burdensome for casual readers if movie articles contain more than a single quote, typically. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

- Ah, ok Drogo Underburrow 07:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikilinking

Thank you for the notice. Regards. Shawnc 09:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You deleted to much and what is left is wrong

By December the German Army had reached a line at the gates of Leningrad, Moscow, and Rostov, at the cost of about 23 percent casualties, while almost the entire western Soviet army had been destroyed in huge battles of encirclement. The Germans however had badly under-estimated the size of the overall Soviet army and were now dismayed by the presence of new forces, including fresh Siberian troops under General Zukhov, and by the onset of a particularly cold winter. The Germans were stopped literally within sight of the Kremlin in Moscow, then forced to pull back, the first German defeat of World War II.

This is what is left

Ok first thing that is worng

while almost the entire western Soviet army had been destroyed

It never got destroyed it got reinforced many many times a better way to say it is that 1/3 of the red army hade been destroyed. Also the Red army at that time was 9 million so 6 million were left but you cant put it like that because the red army started the war with a total of around 5.1 million and at the end of nov it was about 6 million. Also it allways keept about 1.5 million at the east part against manuchuria.

The second part that is wrong

The Germans were stopped literally within sight of the Kremlin in Moscow

First use Axis second only a few forward scouts were in sight of Moscow the rest that were close were atlest some 25+ miles away

Also to use just 23 % dosent say alot it would be better to say that even before winter hade set in the Axis hade lost 23% of its men which is about 750thousand. Or maybe you can put the music to it to make it sound better but just saying 23% dosent say much.

So you deleted so much now you fix it

(Deng 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps your English is not so good and you don't understand what short pithy sentences imply and don't imply. To say that the entire western Soviet army had been destroyed does not mean it was destroyed all at once; it simply means that Soviet casualties were equal to the original Army strength. Secondly, you agree that a few forward scouts saw the Kremlin....that is all that I wrote. The forward-most Germans saw the Kremlin. Finally the 23% figure is accurate, so what is your complaint? Everything I wrote is true and the prose is in correct English. Nothing untrue is implied, don't worry, the article isn't wrong. On the contrary, its short, factual, and in good English. Please accept it. Drogo Underburrow 05:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The things I dont like are first this The Germans were stopped literally within sight of the Kremlin in Moscow They never saw the Kremlin they saw the tops of the cathedrals also when you say that one can assume that the Whole army was very close when in reallity the whole army was never that close

The Kremlin IS a cathedral, and a recon unit saw its spire. Drogo Underburrow 07:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The % assumes that you know the number of Axis

No it doesn't. On the contrary, its emphasizing that the Germans lost about of a quarter of their army, not the size of the army. Drogo Underburrow 07:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also when you say that the entire western army was destroyed one can assume that the Soviets were close to defeat but in reallity they counter attacked

Not true. The material specifically states that while the Russians lost their original army, they had MORE and pushed the Germans back.

Also since the battle In the Soviet Union was so much bigger then all other battles combined it should get a bigger part in the article and since it should get a bigger part in the article one could add more information

I sympathize with this point. Eventually this will happen, but for now, can you accept it? I am trying to cut ALL sections down, and when I am finished, I'll go back and add some to the Soviet section, ok? But for now can we leave it? Drogo Underburrow 07:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For example the africa campaing and the D-day campaing are much bigger then the the europe camping in the article but in reallity the axis lost many more men in the first 6 months in the SU then they ever did vs the western allies (Deng 07:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

I agree. I havent' gotten to D-day yet but will soon, and will be cutting it down. Drogo Underburrow 07:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ofcurse I accept it otherwise I would have changed it, I am just pointing out the things I dont like Also the kremlin isnt a cathedral but the cathedral the scouts saw was the Saint Basil's Cathedral which is inside the Kremlin (Deng 07:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Technically you are correct, the Kremlin has cathedrals but isn't one. I thank you for your patience, accept your criticism, and will keep it in mind as I continue to work on the WWII article. Drogo Underburrow 08:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin intro

I believe this is our first run-in on this website. I welcome your criticism and feedback of my edits, as I see you a relatively new editor making positive contributions.

Responding to your comment directed to me in the Stalin edit summary, I still see my edit as a necessary stopgap markup of the article. The intro that I scrapped was terribly composed. I was very surprised to see it in such poor shape since the last time I had read it around a month or two ago.

After a few sentences identifying basic details like Stalin's name, birthplace, birthday, and the like, the version of the intro that I replaced proceeded no coherent order-- neither chronological or thematic. First, it summed up contemporary Western historical assessment of Stalin's rule. Then it went back in time from 2006 to 1956, mentioning Khrushchev's 1956 20th Party Congress speech. Then, from 1956, it backtracked more than three decades to 1922, when Stalin became general secretary of the party. Then it jumped ahead to the Great Purges in the 1930s. Then it moved back to present, delving into more contemporary Western historical assessments. Then it made another jump back into time to the late 1920s and the end of the NEP. Then it jumped way ahead in time to Second World War. Then it jumped to the Cold War without a transition sentence linking World War II to the Cold War. Finally, the intro abruptly ended by mentioning Stalin's death in 1956.

The alternative version that I restored does a much better job tracing key events much more concisely and chronologically. Perhaps some information was lost in my edit. As I understand it, on that basis you reverted my edit. While I understand your objection, I still think that I think it makes more sense work within the framework of the version I restored, as opposed to the the version I scrapped, as it should be easier to make new annotations and modifications when the editor finds a much better composed and clearly structured write-up.

Again, I welcome your comments. 172 | Talk 09:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your second edit summary, which criticized the alternative intro. I disagree. That version isn't great, but it's satisfactory. The first paragraph identifies the subject, stating his name, birth date, place of birth, and the fact that he was a Soviet leader. The second paragraph gives a brief chronological summary of his rule: becoming party secretary in 1922, the power struggles following Lenin's death in 1924, and collectivization and purges in the 1930s. The third paragraph summarizes Stalin's role in molding the features that characterized the Soviet regime for the next five decades; while this paragraph disrupts the chronology, it is not out coming out of nowhere thematically, as it follows a paragraph noting the events in which Stalin was leaving his most dramatic marks on the Soviet system. The next paragraph deals with the 1940s. It does jump back in time to the end of the NEP in the 1920s. Still, like the last disruption of the chronology, this digression is not coming out of nowhere. The paragraph manages to relate the end of the NEP to key events in the 1940s. In that sense, it is a coherent paragraph. The final paragraph is a satisfactory wrap up, concluding with Stalin's death, while relating discussions of contemporary historical assessments to Khrushchev's 1956 speech condemning him. Again, this version of the intro is not perfect. Had I been the sole author, I would've have mentioned the NEP later; and I would've moved the paragraph on Stalin's role in 'molding the features that characterized the Soviet regime' down to the bottom. Still, at least that version consists of a series of blocks of text that a grammarian would recognize as paragraphs. 172 | Talk 09:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your version unfortunately hides many of the problems with Stalin's undemocratic rule. "Since many wealthier peasants resisted collectivization, the government under Stalin's leadership often resorted to violent repression against the "kulaks"." The vicitms of the Holodomor were not simply wealthy peasants. "Stalin tried to crush all opposition by commencing a bureaucratic and usually arbitrary network of terror, involving over half the country, that resulted in tens of millions of deaths and deportations to labour camps." Misleading, tens of millions of deaths. Also excluded is the view that the War was won despite Stalin, your intro states that Stalin was responsible for the victory.Ultramarine 12:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop personalizing matters here. It is not 'my version.' You had last edited that version before I had. At any rate, I will remove the reference to "wealthy" peasants. I did not add that description myself and I disagreed with that discription. "Misleading, tens of millions of deaths." I do not follow your point. I will reinsert a version of the intro adding the view that the war was won despite Stalin. Thanks for your feedback. I will now post a version of the intro that does not sound like one written by a middle school student. 172 | Talk 20:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello I made a small change to the ww2 article

Helo I made a small change if you compare these 2 version "Revision as of 03:40, 7 April 2006" and mine directly after that You will see the change.

Why did I change it?

Because it was not absolutely clear that the 23% casulties came before winter also I wanted to stress when they happened. And I added the date when the Soviets counter attacked to give more info, I also added how far the axis were pushed back to show that it was a german faliure. So do you like it or will you change it back? (Deng 10:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

I have no objection, but please correct your changes so they are in proper English. Also, one sentence now says both November and December; both cannot be true at the same time. Drogo Underburrow 10:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I gave another shot at it and tried to make its as accurate as possible, if you dont like it then just change it but I think it is as accurate as can be. (Deng 14:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Gramma

Yes you can change it. --Molobo 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWII edit

I guess you could argue both way on whether it's minor or not :-\ I removed the Italy reference intentionally because it was not phrased appropriately. Italy switching sides had nothing to do with the end of the war, and the statement also did not provide the context that Italy switched sides before the war started. (Seemed to me, the way it read, that they were saying Italy switched sides mid-war.) It seems more of a point that should be illuminated later in the article, but not in the intro.

So, my marking it as a "minor" edit was mostly because I felt that the changes were grammar and phrasing related. Guess we'll see where it goes from here, though... Thanks for the heads up. --Wolf530 02:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

See if that change floats your boat. Second paragraph, now, of the World War II article. Basically just say that Italy was an Ally in WW1. --Wolf530 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Italy did switch sides in the middle of the war, which as you noted, was what the article was trying to say. Italy began the war as part of the Axis, fought until 1943, then the Italian dictator Mussolini was kicked out, and the new Italian government surrendered to the Allies, then joined them, declaring war on Germany. Mussolini was held as a prisoner, then rescued by the Germans and flown out of Italy. Later, he was sent to German-occupied Northern Italy where he was re-instated as the leader of a separate Italian puppet state, giving Italy two competing governments; though only one was recognized by the Allies, the one fighting the Germans. Drogo Underburrow 02:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL seems that your deletion spurred Bukkia to add the Italian bit I just mentioned into the article. Drogo Underburrow 03:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what was intended now. Yes, you're entirely correct with your statements on Italy. I suppose I was thinking that the Italian state of affairs occured more towards the end of the war than it did. Although, I'd still say that Italy's "change of sides was more forced than willing. Not like Mussolini had a change of heart ;) Nonetheless, the current article (including Bukkia's changes) seems to reflect an accurate and better-placed snapshot of the Italian situation. Agreed? --Wolf530 03:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but since Italy is mentioned in the intro as an Axis power, I think that the short sentence you deleted should be re-instated, and the note about Italy in WWI be deleted. Drogo Underburrow 03:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree. The introduction will become overladen if we try and get into the back-and-forth of Italy. Per the Military history of Italy during World War II article, Italy was not unified in working with the allies. And indeed, I don't see that what occurred in Italy was much more than a surrender and then partial stabilization by a pro-Ally government. Italy was clearly defeated, and attempting to state that Italy assisted the allies for the last bit of the war wouldn't entirely be true. They just weren't opposing the Allies -- and again, as stated, they weren't even completely unified in that.

Furthermore, I don't see anywhere that such a statement would fit. Paragraph 2 is about who was on who's side, but more how they entered -- not about surrenders or mid-war events. Paragraph 3 would be the best candidate, but I honestly don't see Italy's contribution to the war as large enough to include there. Germany and Japan were the two driving forces, and pp3 is mostly referring to the events that closed the war. The remainder of the intro simply wouldn't be fitting.

If we want to delete the phrase about Italy's involvement in WW1, I'm fine with that. But trying to shoe-horn in the back-and-forth is not going to work in the intro. --Wolf530 03:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your points are all valid, and I agree. I assume you do not object if we say in the intro that Italy surrendered in 1943, and just leave it at that? We should say they surrendered, since we mention them in the first place. Drogo Underburrow 03:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How's this?:

The war began between Germany and the Allies. Germany was later joined by Italy (a member of the Allies in World War I), Japan, and others, jointly known as the Axis. The Allies at first were made up of Poland, the British Commonwealth, France, and others. In June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and in December, Japan attacked the United States. China, which had been at war with Japan since the mid-1930s, also joined the Allies, as eventually did a number of other countries.

Italy surrendered in September, 1943, with Germany following in May 1945. The formal surrender of Japan marked the end of the war, on 2 September 1945.

--Wolf530 04:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Japan was also a member of the Allies in WWI, so I think it best to drop mention of WWI entirely. Other than that, looks great to me. I predict, however, that it won't last; there is still that editor out there that will change it to include the switching of sides. Drogo Underburrow 04:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin

You strike me as a well informed and reasonable editor. I'm disappoited about this revert. [2] The claim that Stalin's rule was bloodier than Hitler's, which created a firestorm when German historian Ernst Nolte first posited it in prominent discourse, is very contested. Many argue that Hitler had more blood on his hands because he was the leader primarily responsible for the 50 million deaths in the Second World War. You may disagree, and I respect your opinion. But controversial, contested claims are to be avoided on Wikipedia. I recommend that you review WP:NPOV. Best regards, 172 | Talk 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have studied the NPOV page in depth. I am not aware of anyone who argues that Hitler is responsible for the Nanking Massacre and the millions of deaths in China caused by the Japanese during WWII. Drogo Underburrow 07:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there considering the massive casualties in the European theater, and the traditional argument that Hitler's alliance with Japan provided incentives for Japanese aggression in the Pacific. You may be able to make a convincing argument that Stalin was worse than Hitler, but that view is not universally accepted, and thus cannot be presented as if it were universally accepted in an encyclopedia following the NPOV policy. 172 | Talk 08:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

exactly. If we add all those 50 million ww2 figures to hitler's death toll, we need to add the same unspecified unconcise figure to stalin as well.--Constanz - Talk 08:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, many still follow the traditional view that Hitler was the principal aggressor in the war. If you disagree, I'm not arguing with you. Our views don't matter. What matters is that we do not insert contested claims as if they were universally accepted in order to avoid the NPOV policy. 172 | Talk 08:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that Stalin murdered tens of millions? Would you accept a statement to that effect IN THE INTRO? Drogo Underburrow 08:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, review the talk page. Yesterday I was the one working to defend the reference to Stalin's responsibility for tens of millions of deaths. 172 | Talk 08:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine. So put it in the intro and I'll be happy. Drogo Underburrow 08:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It was taken out? I missed that. I'll add it, but while removing the Hitler comment (hence the edit will not be a revert on my part). That can be our compromise, and I'll remove the 3RR post. How's that? 172 | Talk 09:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Drogo Underburrow 09:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your reverts

You've reverted me around 5 times on the Stalin article. I've stopped reverting. Instead I've been trying to reach compromises. Please revert your latest revert, or I'll feel inclined to report you to for a three revert rule violation. 172 | Talk 08:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense...you've reverted as many times as I have. If you want to report me, go ahead...when they look at the record, they'll see see yours as well. If they block me, they'll have to block you, too, which is fine with me. Drogo Underburrow 08:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted no more than three times. My other edits included attempts at compromise, such as coming up with new versions of the text, as opposed to reverting back to a prior version of the article. Please revert your last revert, or show a willingness to compromise. I do not want to be convinced that you are an editor who turns out not to be working in good faith... I am going to report you for a 3RR violation. But I will be happy to withdraw it within minutes if you show a sign of good faith. 172 | Talk 09:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You made no effort to compromise, every edit you made deleted the text in question, either by removing it completely, or commenting it out. You reverted more times than I did, as you reverted Constanz's edits as well as mine. If you report me, I'll point this out at the inquiry. Now, if you want to really compromise, I'd be happy to discuss the matter. Drogo Underburrow 09:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you have me puzzled again. The last two notes I posted on your talk page were attempts at compromise. Did you read them? 172 | Talk 09:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't see them as I was busy composing my entry posted at 09:16, written in reply to your post of 09:00. Drogo Underburrow 09:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for your subsequent replies. 172 | Talk 09:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New compromise

Since you altered me to the fact that the reference to Stalin's responsibility for tens of millions of deaths, I moved toward a new compromise. (Based on your comment Fine. So put it in the intro and I'll be happy.) As I proposed above, I reinserted the tens of millions, while removing the disputed Ernst Nolte argument. [3] I also removed the report on your reverts on the 3RR page [4] 172 | Talk 09:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out that I offered the compromise proposal at 8:43 on this talk page, before you even started this nonsense about reporting a violation of the 3-rr rule. Drogo Underburrow 10:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I probably missed it because it was under an older heading. Sorry about that. BTW, for future reference, you should be aware that reverts that count toward the 3RR are reverts back to prior versions of the article. By removing some of the text while keeping others, my edits are not understoods as reverts but attempts to find middle ground. Nevertheless, since you are a new user I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and look past this matter. 172 | Talk 10:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read the page on the 3-rr rule. It states that undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, constitute violation of this rule. Now, you changed the text containing the word "Hitler" repeatedly from the article, after both I and Constanz put it back. It seems to me that you violated the rule. However, I an indeed a new user, and not as familiar with the rules here as you are. If you would like to explain them to me so that we do not clash again, that would be fine. Drogo Underburrow 10:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also based on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If it looks like someone is modifying the text in order to reach middle ground, then an admin won't block. So my recommendation is, if you have a problem with an edit by another contributor, try to salvage something in the edit in order to reach a middle ground gradually by trail and error. When doing so, mention that you are trying to reach a compromise in your edit summary so that no one mistakes your edit as a revert. Also, if you have to revert, try to explain the reason for the reversion in the edit summary rather than just writing "rv." BTW, thank you for your understanding earlier. I'm glad we were able to resolve the dispute productively, with the intro improving as a result. 172 | Talk 11:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't revert Bublick439's edits because I've already made three unambiguous reverts on the page in the past 24 hours. You've made four. So you shouldn't do it either. I'll look to see who's online right now and get another editor to restore the reference. 172 | Talk 11:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind! The edit has already been reverted. [5] 172 | Talk 11:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You reverted Constanz' and my posting of a comment about Hitler. This is a new issue. Where does it say that 3-reverts are for an article, and not for a specific matter? Drogo Underburrow 12:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#The_three_revert_rule

Scroll down some and you will be able to read about it (Deng 12:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Thank you Deng I found it. I see now. Drogo Underburrow 12:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus article

Please review my proposed revision of Paragraph 2. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War II revert

There was nothing wrong with User:Hyung5kim edits. His/her edits only made links within WikiPedia that are perfectly fine and did not hurt the article in any manner. --Scott Grayban 09:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets take a look at what I changed that you reverted:

1. World War II was one of the largest and deadliest war in history.

WWII was the largest and deadliest war in history; there is no reason to add "one of".

2. Linking Tobruk vs linking laying siege to the vital seaport of Tobruk.

Just linking 'Tobruk' alone is misleading. The reader won't know what the link is about. Is it about the modern port in general? They may not care. Linking a phrase makes clear that taking this link will provide information about the siege of Tobruk.

3. Linking "airfields" and "logistics".

The style guide for Wikipedia recommends that ordinary words not be linked. There is nothing special about these two words; therefore they should not be linked. One way of determining wether a link is appropriate, is to ask, "Would inserting "see also" followed by the link, be appropriate here?" Clearly, in these instances, the reader would have no particular reason to "See also" these links. The style guide recommends that links be only to further the context of the article, not simply to link to other Wiki pages simply because they exist. Linking words like this also leads to over-linking, as eventually just about every word will be linked. This is not good style, and makes articles difficult to read.

4. Eliminated The mission was unrealistic to begin with, since German plans largely relied on capturing Allied fuel dumps in order to keep their vehicles moving with the goal of capturing the vital port of Antwerp, and thus crippling the Allies. This sentence is very poor on several grounds, and deserves deletion. First of all, its detail. There is no way that the WWII page can cover what it needs to if it starts analysing each battle. Secondly, its unsourced. Thirdly, its not nearly as important as stating that even if everything went right for the Germans, Hitler's plan would still have failed since there was no way that the Allies were going to split up or grant him a separate peace.

5. The last changes were clean-up ones, removing needless words and correcting the prose.

So that is why I changed what I did. Please put it back the way I left it. Drogo Underburrow 10:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You should have just edited it instead a straight revert. You removed valid WP links that should have stayed. As a rule you should look at the diff before doing a straigh revert and see if it deserves it or just a simple edit to fix the issue. --Scott Grayban 10:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I did edit it; I didn't do a revert. My change was what was reverted, and I didn't do that. Now please put it back. Drogo Underburrow 10:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You removed WP links to pages like US Marines and submarines which were valid links to other articles here. It can't be revert anymore anyways, its been edited since this took place and that would delete what has been done so far. I looked at your revert before I made mine. It was a straight revert from User:Hyung5kim edits. --Scott Grayban 10:50, 15 April

2006 (UTC)

Hyung5kim only changed one thing, adding one of to the intro. He/she didn't put in the links I changed, they were already there. I didn't revert, I edited. Now, edit the stuff back, just like I did, by hand. Linking U.S. Marines and submarine are dubious links. Maybe the Marines one is ok, but "submarine" is an ordinary word, and hence should not be linked. You need to read the style guide. Now, please go manually put back my changes, just like I did, manually. I never reverted. Drogo Underburrow 10:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the diff[6] the onlything I see that could have been changed in that article after reading it was laying siege to the vital seaport of Tobruk the rest was just fine. Maybe a tiny tweak to rest but the other WP links are valid because they are not repeated within the same article. --Scott Grayban 11:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to read the style guide. Those links are wrong. Ordinary words like "submarine" should not be linked unless there is a specific reason to call attention to it. Go to: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). -- Drogo Underburrow 11:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a better link: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Drogo Underburrow 11:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll revist this when I can take a break. I monitor 150+ articles here and its tuff to edit on one article that only needs a minor tweak. --Scott Grayban 11:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] malta

the claim that malta was the most bombed place on earth is interpretive certainly not by tonnage dropped so some clarity to this claim must be made or it should be dropped

1. Sign your posts. 2. I removed the claim entirely from the article, as its unimportant. Drogo Underburrow 18:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry about not identifying but the claim as written is false malta was frequently bombed during world war two but the claim that it was the most bombed begs the question by what criteria? i have thought of several and malta fails on all of them, such as gross tonnage, tonnage per area, tonnage per pop, days bombed , number of sorties, causalties from bombing i would suggest it be "malta was one of the most frequently bombed places during the war"

--taucetiman

i guess i was vague but deleting the whole passage might be too extreme. btw are you an admin for european history?

No. -- Drogo Underburrow 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

Yes, I saw it after I looked in your contributions, and I responded. --Golbez 03:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack?

How is it a personal attack to suggest you are violating WP:POINT? At any rate, I accused you of this because of the incredibly byzantine way you've been making this argument. You yourself don't believe that most Christians believe the Nicene Creed, but using a different (but partially synonymous) word from what the Creed uses is original research...in the end I have no real idea what you're saying, and I feel as though just about any response you get (besides surrender) seems to only confirm you the more strongly in your original view. I have to say that I find your behavior puzzling as much as anything else. The way you grab onto obscure semantical points and can continue to argue them in the face of universal dismissal is quite odd to me, and I'm not sure how to respond to them. I suppose I should show more patience, and I won't repeat the accusation that you were violating WP:POINT. john k 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your text accused me of disruption, even though its linked to WP:POINT. I went to WP:POINT, and failed to find anything on the page that had anything to do with discussions on talk pages. This page deals with issues like gaming the system, such as reverting an edit exactly 3 times a day, and then "innocently" maintaining that no rules are being violated. Furthermore, the page says that "Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies". Well, that's what I was doing on the Jesus page, I was discussing an issue rather than engaging in an edit war. There is no rule that a person must stop arguing or responding to posts if a majority or even if everyone is against him. That is not gaming the system, it is refusing to accept majority rule. Wikipedia is not a majority rule place. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That means, until a satisfactory agreement is achieved, endless discussion must go on. What I did was exactly the way things are supposed to be done on Wikipedia, which is to discuss on the talk page on and on until a resolution is reached. You and those agreeing with you, stuck to your arguments, and I stuck to mine, then a reasonable compromise solution was suggested, and I accepted it. A textbook perfect case of how its supposed to happen. Now, imagine instead if I had simply edited the article without discussion, putting in exactly the same words, "buried in a tomb". Maybe it would have been accepted, I don't know. But possibly making any change to the third paragraph would have been reverted immediately without a comment. Or supposing I had given up, saying, "Oh well, the majority don't agree." The article again would have stayed the same.

As to whether I believe that most Christians believe in the Nicene Creed, that is a complex subject. Frankly, I don't know. I've never seen a study of it. I've never seen an authoritative source quoted on it. I don't know if most Christians even know what the creed is. If you sat them down and gave them a formal test, I wouldn't be surprised if most Christians would come up blank when asked to describe the Nicene Creed. Yet, they may believe in it without knowing that they do. They may believe in parts of it, and completely not understand other parts. Certain parts, I think, nobody understands, because they are utter nonsense, made up so that contradictory beliefs about the Trinity, for example, are all held to be true. I simply don't know....and I don't think that you or the others know. Don't forget, we are talking about Christians who are semi-illiterate people in Mexico, for example, when we say 'most Christians'. As to how I can argue "semantic points" even when universally disagreed with, its simple: I value truth more than popularity. I'm not here to make friends or run for admin.

Finally, I still think you and the others are dead wrong on the issue. Using the exact language of the Bible, the Nicene Creed, and the Catholic Church is correct. Making up your own words, even if they mean the same, is not correct. There is a reason that those institutions say exactly what they say how they say it, they have been thrashed out under a lot more scrutiny than we have given to the issues here. But, half a loaf is better than no loaf. If I put my version in you would revert it. -- Drogo Underburrow 22:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In terms of WP:POINT, my understanding of it has always been that talk page actions can be included within it. For instance, very frequently WP:POINT violations come about when somebody has determined that a wikipedia policy is insupportable if applied literally, and so decides to employ it literally in thousands of articles. This might be done by making edits to the articles themselves, but it's no less a violation of WP:POINT to leave thousands of talk page messages saying "under wikipedia policy, this article should say "bla bla bla," assuming that you don't actually think that the article should say "bla bla bla." That said, I don't think it was particularly fair of me to accuse you of "disrupting wikipedia to prove a point" (which is what WP:POINT stands for, so I'm not sure I understand your distinction between my comment and my link, which meant the same thing. What I meant when I said that was that it seemed like you were insisting on some small technical point not because you believed that that point would be good for the article, but in order to make some other arcane point that I didn't fully understand. I still feel as though that may be true, but it was obviously excessive for me to accuse you of a WP:POINT violation, and I apologize. In terms of this exact language business I'll just repeat what I said on the talk page, which is that the New Testament was not written in modern English, but in koine Greek, and there's not really much room for calls for using the "exact language" unless you actually know something about the language it was written in, which I've never gotten any impression that you do. john k 22:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In terms of whether most Christians believe in the Nicene Creed, it's indisputably true that most Christians belong to churches which include the Creed as part of their doctrines (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist) or at least accept its substance as true (most other Protestant churches). In most of the former churches, the creed is a frequent part of the liturgy, so I'd guess that while most Christians couldn't recite the Creed, most would recognize it if they heard it, and would agree that it is a statement of basic Christian belief. john k 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That isn't to say that most people necessarily believe the official doctrines of their Church. I would guess that, at this point, most Anglican priests probably don't even accept most of the 39 Articles that define the Anglican faith. But that's a different point, I think. john k 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to cut and paste your comments back to the Jesus talk page, then reply to them, as now we are again debating the issue argued on the Jesus page. Drogo Underburrow 22:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question: if you think that the difference between buried and entombed is a small point, they why are you so adamantly opposed to the change? Why are the others so opposed to it? Why does Aiden revert the compromise "buried in a tomb" without engaging in debate? It certainly doesn't seem to me that you guys are treating this as a small thing. On the contrary, it appears to me that you are in a cabal opposed to an outsider making any change whatsover to the text.

The language I want to use is identical to that which the sources in English use; so you start going to the Greek. Its the same as the literal language of the Bible; so you go to the text, and interpret the meaning to support a word not used by the text. I propose the simple, conventional, and the literal sense of that creed which defines most Christians; you want to use a new word that means the same thing.... maybe. I feel it is I that am being as close as possible to the sources; you are the ones who are taking the longer route. And you fight tooth and nail saying that you are right, even engaging in unfair tactics like accusing me of disruption, and Aiden's edit war tactics. -- Drogo Underburrow 23:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler and ISBN

You re-introduced the amazon link to the references of Hitlers religion by using an older version. Could you please fix that - thanks. Agathoclea 07:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I took care of it. Drogo Underburrow 08:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - did not want to use any reverts on this article - you never know what might happen during the course of 24 hours :-). Anyway I did some little touching up. Sad it had to come to this extra section, as a simple "He did not attend mass in latter life" would have been sufficiant but the revisionism of some forced the issue. Agathoclea 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

[edit] Origins of Dagger-thrust legend

Drogo, regardless of the factual dispute (and I'd ask you to look up in that book again, whether the author refers to the origin of the term or the origin of the legend - the former I think quite possible, while the latter IMHO overestimates the impact one sermon can have, either on the German public in general, or on Hindenburg/Ludendorff, who at that time were at Spa), I'd like to state that the existence of a reference does not make something "absolutely true". Also, I did not misuese the edit summary for polemics - I posted a short explanation of my rational for removing this, saving myself the trouble of posting a minute note on the talk page, as well as saving server space. Simply writing "removed stuff" would hardly be telling much, would it? I can't see polemics in the edit summary (I agree with you in theory, they don't belong there). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The author simply says the "legend", not making it clear wether the term itself was also given in that sermon. I've changed the article to state that the legend was first articulated in the sermon, while the term itself may have originated with Ludendorf.

Edit summaries are for telling people what was changed, not why. "Why", whether a big reason or a small, belongs on the talk page. Here is how it's expressed on the guidelines page:

Edit summaries - Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself. -- Drogo Underburrow 18:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am content with the current placement. If the author says "origin of the legend", then so be it.

I must disagree with what you wrote on edit summaries - they are intented to tell fellow editors what you did and why you did it, if it can be included in such a short space (Ann says it better than I, see my talk page). For instance "revert vandalism" says both what you did ("revert") and why ("because the last post/s was/were vandalism) - The quoted text says "carry on debates" - in our case there was no debate to be carried on. So, if we had already opened the can on the talk page, this is were explanations should go, but I don't think we can post on the talk page for just any edit. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your concerns. Often edit summaries are misused indeed and I don't like it either, expect in case of adding humour to a "rvv" (today: "not funny" in reply to vandalism by "funnyman"). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As noted on your talk page, I withdraw my complaint about use of edit summaries. I don't think the guidelines are clear, after noting what Musical Linguist pointed out. I'll change my own habits to model yours, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. -- Drogo Underburrow 18:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Stalin

Hi, I just noticed your latest change to the Stalin article. I definitely agree with your edit, as the sentence you removed was certainly speculation. But I didn't see why it was POV... it seemed like standard political speculation to me. In any case, I'm putting too fine a point on it: I agree with your edit and half the reason for doing so, and I'm mentioning the other half of your reasoning. Can you tell I'm an academic?  ;-) Anyway, feel free to ignore, this isn't a big deal, but I thought I should mention it. Best, --Deville (Talk) 14:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Its POV because it expresses an opinion. All opinions are somebody's POV. Since no source is given, that makes it the article's POV, and that's a no-no here. Articles should ideally not express opinions, they should express facts only. If the article had said who was saying the statement, then that would be ok, since its a fact that the source has that opinion. Wierd, no? NPOV is unlike anything anywhere else.Drogo Underburrow 15:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Edit Summary

About the edit summary concerning duplication of my previous comments, thank you for not removing them, as I saw where the citation would be most appropriate. If you had removed it, it probably would have gone in the wrong place, so I'm very appreciative. Thank you anyway. Эйрон Кинни (t) 23:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The previous edit made by Musical Linguist was sufficient. If she edits the article again, reverting your edit, can we leave it be, for the sake of tranquility? Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Her version has statements that Hitler was not a practising Catholic, which have no source, but are made up by Str77 and/or AnnH (I don't know which first entered it, probably Str77) They are using their personal definition of what it means to be Catholic, not the definition of a source, and they keep insisting on including this material which is their opinion, not a source's opinion. I have other objections as well, but that one is good enough for a revert. Drogo Underburrow 02:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba

Hi,

I am sending this message to editors I know who have done work on articles related to communism.

Adam Carr recently started bringing the Cuba article up to standard, gradually rewriting each section. In the meantime, his work has been resisted for several weeks by a group of Castro supporters who dispute, among other things, that the fact that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam Carr is now at a conference for a couple of weeks, meaning his work will likely be undone. If you have the time and the interest, please take a look.

Best regards. 172 | Talk 05:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I shall take a peek. - Drogo Underburrow 06:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puppetry on Adolf Hitler

Drogo, it is not an attack, nor is it incivil or off-topic, to note violations of WP:SOCK and WP:3RR in the editting of the article - indeed, the article is in its current form precisely because of these wilful violations.Timothy Usher 00:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR on Adolf Hitler

Drogo, you've now violated WP:3RR yourself. I ask you to self-revert.Timothy Usher 05:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As you know, Drogo, that is only part of what you'd added with this same sense. Please revert the whole thing. I kept it brief only for the benefit of readers at WP:AN/3RR.Timothy Usher 05:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, please tell me what it is you want me to self-revert, that I have reverted four times? Drogo Underburrow 05:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How about all sections making the point, "Hitler was a believing Catholic"? It doesn't have to be the exact same text. That's not the way WP:3RR works - merely rephrasing and/or rearranging your points doesn't reset the clock (and if it did, I'd have reverted it myself.)Timothy Usher 06:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just what do you consider as sections that make this point? That is a really vague request. How am I supposed to know what material you think supports the idea that one is a practicing Catholic? Besides, I wasn't aware that there was a "three idea rule". I thought what was prohibited was reverting to a previous version of the text. Drogo Underburrow 06:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"How am I supposed to know what material you think supports the idea that one is a practicing Catholic?"

Oh, please:

"...by his Roman Catholic parents"..."while his mother was a devoted Catholic"..."Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome..." etc.Timothy Usher 06:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You think that because his mother was a devoted Catholic, that supports the idea that Hitler was a practising Catholic? Wow. That means that mothers can go to Church for their sons! I think you are not making any sense. Drogo Underburrow 06:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, once again, please. Nearly every single one of your edits to Talk:Adolf Hitler is about this one subject. There is actually much that you've said on talk with which I agree, and some with which I disagree. However, it's farcical to pretend that you don't know what's being discussed here.Timothy Usher

Tim, I really, truly, honestly do not understand what you are saying. I have no idea, for example, why you just said, "Nearly every single one of your edits to Talk:Adolf Hitler is about this one subject. There is actually much that you've said on talk with which I agree, and some with which I disagree." - Drogo Underburrow 06:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial reverts count, and different reverts count. It can be the removal of a POV tag, followed by a change of word in the last section, followed by the re-inserting of a section in the middle, followed by half a revert of the first paragraph. AnnH ♫ 06:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As it's a first offence, and and as you seem to have been unaware about partial reverts and different reverts counting, I have suggested at the noticeboard that you review WP:3RR, revert yourself fully, and maybe stay away from the article for the next few hours. AnnH ♫ 07:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, okay, let me try this again, and apologies if I've been unclear. Your edits to Talk:Adolf Hitler have overwhelmingly centered on the topic of Hitler's purported Catholicism, you arguing to include material suggesting that he remained a Catholic throughout his lifetime, others arguing not to include it, or to include material saying the opposite.

I am personally fairly neutral on the content dispute. This is just my personal opinion: on the one hand, it seems obvious to me that Hitler was no sort of Catholic, and didn't think of himself as one. On the other, I'll allow that there has been at times an undue resistance to inclusion of sourced material which suggests (though falsely, I believe) that he was. And I agree with some of your general points about WP:V.

What offends me is that there are two editors on this page who are violating the rules to get their way. One blatantly and ongoingly so through puppetry, whom you've defended (although I'd guess that you know full well that the allegations are on the mark). The other, now, is you, through violating WP:3RR, and this strained pretense that you don't know what I'm talking about when I ask you to revert the whole of your violation.

When abuses of editing privileges cease, I am likely to move onto other articles and leave it to the regulars to work it out in a lawful collaborative manner.Timothy Usher 07:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cease Fire

Like the Senate! Good idea, Drogo. Agreed. I'll give you notice if for some reason this changes.Timothy Usher 09:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enmity?

I don't understand the source of your apparent hostility. You suggest that my disagreement about monotheism is motivated by personal dislike, and then you accuse me of making ad hominem remarks for pointing you to m:MPOV. Have we quarreled before? What's up? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We haven't quarreled before, and I won't attack you back, but I do feel offended by your last post. Please remove it, it offends me. Drogo Underburrow 17:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay; I'm sorry to have offended you. I did not intend that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I'm glad you were not out to needle me. Just remove your post and all is forgiven. Drogo Underburrow 17:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

If it was their first edit, it would count as an edit, not a revert, but if they then changed "A is B" to "A is not B" and "C is D" to "C is not D" and so on until they had done it four more times, yes, each one would be a revert, even if each one was different. See WP:3RR. But if you mean is the first one a revert on its own, it would depend on the context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply, so let me ask another question. Is finding different ways of saying the same thing, and adding them to an article, considered reverting? For example, supposing an editor inserted into the article the following statement:

About his own religious stance, he said: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

and somebody deleted it. Next the editor inserted:

"Some say Hitler wasn't a Catholic, but he was faithful to the Church his whole life",

and someone else deleted it. Then the editor inserted,

"The Führer remained loyal to the Vatican for all his days "

and that too was deleted. Then he inserted,

"The faith with which Adolf was raised never left his heart,"

and again it was deleted. Has the editor inserting the statements made any reverts at all, for purposes of the 3-RR rule? Drogo Underburrow 01:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so. But please don't spam admins pages with the same question. --InShaneee 01:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"spam"?? Just what is wrong with asking the same question to more than one person? I asked one admin, he did't reply, so I asked others. What's your problem with that? Drogo Underburrow 02:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I count three. There's nothing wrong with waiting a little while for a response. --InShaneee 02:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For conspicuous rationality

in being convinced by reasoned argument, and saying so .

[edit] Han Solo

shtove forgot something about Han Solo. He was indeed a pirate, but he was not a villan, and he was anti-hero, but still helped the right cause a great deal. :D Colonel Marksman 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Input please

You may want to respond to my concerns here. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 17:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vermes

I have read only one of Vermes' books closely, but yes, the quotation you gave - in other words, that Jesus was not divine or one with "the father" (no more than any other human being)- is as far as I can tell what vermes came to conclude. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Vermes is always cited here at Wikipedia as a modern historian, not as a Christian. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck Talk Page

Hi Drogo,

I sent a "dignified raspberry" to someone who added his tuppence worth to the by-now old discussion we had on the above page. Hope I wasn't being presumptuous in speaking for you.

All the best,

Patrick

[edit] Fair-use images removed from your user page

Hello, Drogo Underburrow. I've removed some images from User:Drogo Underburrow/World War II, as they are copyrighted, unlicensed images that are being used on Wikipedia under claims of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy and Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. These images have not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page. User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1

[edit] sandbox categories

When working on a text in your sandboxes you should use <nowiki> before categories, now your work in progress on Galatians is listed with the other articles in category:New Testament books. I took the liberty of adding this. Happy editing, Finnrind 19:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Day

I see you edited on the discussion page of Operation Barbarossa, the same conflict as before has come up please take a look at it

[edit] AfD

Per you edits to World War II, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII. -- Jreferee t/c 06:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)