User talk:Pseudo-Richard

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Richardshusr/Archives/2007. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

User	Talk	Contribs	My Sandbox	Improve Me!

Hi, and welcome to my talk page! Please remember to: Be civil Start new topics at the bottom, and give your message a descriptive heading. sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia or frequently asked questions. To leave me a message, click here.

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible.

If you leave me a message here but do not plan to watch this page for my reply, please say so as I do not normally copy my replies to other Talk Pages.

Thanks!

Logo

Hi Richardshusr, please keep on eye of the the template. User:Orangemarlin, User:Jpgordon, User:Wafulz, User:Alison (User:Alison)Well!, User:Squiddyand User:Swid, User:Denniss has deleted the template-article and block this user who has create this article with the template. It is discrimination and the root is the school-discrimination in all christian-jew areas.

Expulsions of Germans

Hi Richard,

I read your comment on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive9 (19 October 2006): "...there was no single act called 'the expulsion' but rather a series of evacuations, flights and expulsions."

Well, actually I haven't read all the thread, so I don't know if maybe somenone has already given you the same response as I will do now:

Alfred de Zayas published in his book "The German expellees" some "Theses on the expulsion."

He starts:

"The term expulsion includes not only the forced expulsions from summer and autumn 1945, but also the evacuation of German population on the part of the German authorities since autumn 1944, the flight in spring 1945 generally as well as the organized forced transfers since 1946. The term expulsion must be seen so, because both the evacuated and the refugees intended to return to their homes after ending of the acts of war. However, they were barred from doing so by the Soviet and Polish authorities and therefore turned into expellees.”

Refering the "organized post-Potsdam population transfers":

De Zayas writes that the known Article XIII of the Potsdam Conference about the “human and orderly transfer” of Germans is often misinterpreted when stated that the Anglo-American would have endorsed the scope of the transfers. De Zayas – who is an expert on the Potsdam Conference – argues the converse: Article XIII had been an emergency measure because the “savage expulsions” caused a totally chaotic situation in the American and English occupation zones. This article had been an attempt for a moratorium of the expulsions.

Refering to the scope of the expulsions:

The Potsdam Conference just spoke about transfers from “Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungaria”. Expulsions of Germans out of Silesia and other still to Germany belonging parts of East Germany were pushed through by Stalin and Poland without any legal background (not to mention the International Law). They wanted to create accomplished facts so that nobody would have a real chance to question the so pegged borders.

Refering to the “Oder-Neisse line”:

There were two Neisse in East Germany. The Lusatian Neisse and the Glatzer Neisse (Nysa Kłodzka). Churchill for example could just imagine a population transfer of Germans up to this “Glatzer Neisse” – which would have meant that half of Silesia would have remained with Germany.

So the Allies differed about this subject. Stalin and Poland not…

Wikiferdi 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Richard,

I am fed up with Tulkolahten. I think he often overreacts. Instead of arguing he is answering with communist postwar stereotypes. If I tell him this I myself would flame. What shall I do, I am a quite unexperienced Wikipedian...?

Wikiferdi 10:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

P. S. What exactly is your job here at Wikipedia?

You can be fed up with me, but what you are saying is horrible. Day by day when I go in the streets I can see tens of memorial plaques where is "In 1945 hero XY died for our future", I can see Kobylisy shooting range clearly, part of history. Sometimes I read those plagues and I think about these times and I hope for peace. And you now say me that I should apologize for world war two ? All we discussed were huge unsourced numbers but some elements bring that discussion to different level, I wanted to stay away but sometimes you must fight. You will not succeed here, because Richard is closed to demagogy, he always sourced his statements in the duscission with clear point of view. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Several notes to the Expulsion from Czechoslovakia: Benes proclaimed the program of the newly appointed Czechoslovak government Beneš was not the head of the government, only prime-minister or government as the team is competent to do this.

It is not equal to describe the "Sbor poverenikov" (Board of Slovak Commissioners) as the "an appendage of the Czechoslovak government in Bratislava" The process was complex, but in 1945, till 20 October), "Sbor poverenikov Slovenskej narodnej rady" was an executive part of the Slovak national committee (SNC), and thus fully independent on the Czechoslovak government. Since 28 oct. 1945 to February 1948 the decreasing influnce of SNC meant that the "Sbor" slowly changed into the the detachment of central government. After February 1948 the independence of all Slovak administration was only nominal (though in theory survived till 1960).

So called "reslovakization" reffers only to Slovak territory.

"various forms of persecution, including: expulsions, deportations, internments, peoples court procedures, citizenship revocations, property confiscation, condemnation to forced labour camps, involuntary changes of nationality" I'm not sure if the criminal proceedings and trial shall be involved among "forms of persecution"

"citizenship revocations" again - the decree No. 33/1945 in absolute most of causes only had confirmed the German and Hungarian citizenship the people obtained after 1938. Only several hundreds or thousands cases the citizenship was removed. The "involuntary changes of nationality" were rare and I don't know any case like this. The official policy was Germans must go! - including the Czech members of families.

military command "Alex" was only one organisation of resistance and uprising amd has no broad influence. Honzula 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation_of_Poland_(1939-1945)#Scope

I am afraid I disagree with your recent edits there - please see my comments.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk for more. --Irpen 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note broken ref no.6 ('Lukowski'). I know the author (Jerzy Lukowski) and book but I am not sure which page do you refer to - you may want to go back and copy the full ref from the relevant article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Deutsche Volksliste

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Deutsche Volksliste, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://eclipse.sggee.org/pipermail/ger-poland-volhynia/2003-April/001681.html. As a copyright violation, Deutsche Volksliste appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Deutsche Volksliste has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Deutsche Volksliste and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Deutsche Volksliste with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Deutsche Volksliste.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. andy 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A proposed replacement text has been put on Talk:Deutsche Volksliste. I will work on rewriting the longer text to avoid copyvio issues. --Richard 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

On offer

Richard, since you've shown considerable interest in the topic, I'd like to offer you (by email) my academic paper, "Revenge: The Expulsion of the Germans." If you're interested, just send me an email request (see my User page). Sca 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Seek your advice on a page that has been protected for over two months

I was going to leave a message on the talk page of User:Robdurbar, the admin who protected the page, but he has decided to stop editing Wikipedia.

Here's the problem. The page in question, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, was protected by Robdurbar on January 18 due to editwarring (of which I was not a participant). (To be precise, I have tried to seek an NPOV stance and I have made edits towards this but I have generally not been involved in the edit warring that led to page protection).

I have been trying to form a consensus so that we could request lifting of the protection but, frankly, I have failed as the editors in question preferred to fight on the Talk Page with incivility including personal attacks. Even my suggestions that we seek mediation have been ignored.

In the last two weeks, the volume of debate has gone done but there has been little sign of increased civility and collegiality amongst the disputants. Mostly, I would say that the worst offenders have quieted down and one or two editors have shown some interest in lifting the protection but without a willingness to agree to a consensus or even to abide by the principles of Wikipedia (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:NPA).

I have deliberately been waiting to see if things would change but, at this point, I think two months of page protection is excessive and it is time to return to editing.

If edit warring resumes after page protection is lifted, the only recourse that I see is to go to ARBCOM which I would prefer not to do but I can't see what else could be done.

Do you agree with my approach to this issue in the past and my proposed way forward?

--Richard 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As per your discussion above, i am semi-protecting the article after being fully protected for a couple of weeks. Please try to avoid edit warring or else i'll have to fully protect it again and open an RfC file. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Expulsion of Germans after World War II

what do you think about adding some of the stuff from the Victor Gollancz wikipedia article into the Expulsions article?

--Jadger 07:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea but I can't quite find the right place to insert it. Seems like we need a whole section on Polish and Czech internment camps but I don't yet have a vision of where it would go. Do you have any suggestions? --Richard 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I will add it were I think it should go, remove or reword it if you don't think it is right. I don't have much time as I'm growing tired so am heading to bed now, I may edit again in the morn.

--Jadger 07:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you find a reputable source (not Xx236 or Tulko) that actually refers to Alfred de Zayas as a pro-German revisionist? because I sure can't. He is a very reputable man, just look at the wikipedia article about him. this claim of pro-German revisionism is simple character assasination with no basis in reality.

--Jadger 07:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had my doubts about that which is why it went in as a second edit and with a tag. Leave it there for now and I will challenge Xx236 and Tulko to provide a citation. Otherwise, you're right... it is OR unless it can be cited. --Richard 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you do a Google search on "de Zayas revisionist", you will see that there are several pages where he is referred to as a revisionist. However, you should note that the term "revisionist" is not applied to de Zayas in a derogatory sense. It seems that these articles suggest that revision is a good thing. Try the search and read some of the articles. I think Eagle Glassheim's review of Detlef Brandes' book says it best. Glassheim wishes for a treatment that mixes the outrage of de Zayas with the detailed evidence of Brandes. --Richard 04:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from the article however (and I have done so), as the article says he is a "pro-German revisionist" which is not stated in those seach results.

You're right... "pro-German revisionist" is overstating the case. I was trying to appease our Polish friends and went too far.

--Richard 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, did you see this link [1] from the Journal of Historical review. Do you think the "Six Million Myth" referred to in that link is the original number of Germans thought killed, or the 6 million Jews that died in the holocaust? To me it sounds like the former but I had never heard that before, so I thought I'd ask you if you'd come across it anywhere else.

--Jadger 06:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I just took a closer look and it seems the Institute of Historical Review (and the Journal of Historical Review) is pretty shady.

--Jadger 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would guess that they are Holocaust deniers (which is what I think they are doing when they talk aboout the "6 Million Myth"). Nonetheless, they bring out some interesting points about the de Zayas book. --Richard 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just take a look at Institute for Historical Review which publishes that thing. —Cesar Tort 07:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ya thanks, I didn't bother checking the background before posting that earlier message. I'm going to bed now before I make any more dumb moves, as I'm dead tired and can't focus that well *yawn*. But I must state that I wasn't endorsing what it said in that link, but I was simply asking you (before I did more reading) if you thought the "six million myth" referred to the Holocaust or the Expulsion.

--Jadger 07:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wither WP:AZTEC?

Hey there Richard. First of all, thanks for working to pour oil on the troubled waters at the Human sacrifice article(s) talk page(s). Yours is a voice of reason, as always. --cjllw | TALK 08:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Cesar is a bit of a hothead on this topic but he has made valued contributions and has more to offer so I would hate to see him leave Wikipedia. --Richard 08:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, just to let you know that some bot has come along and put an {inactive} tag on WP:AZTEC, as there had been no changes for a couple of months. It is presently beyond my humble resources to maintain both sets, and so I was thinking to somehow roll up WP:AZTEC as a kind of "task force" subproject for WP:MESO, rationalising the project pages and banners. But I'd like to hear first if you've any comments, suggestions. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 08:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh. We beat off an attempt to make WP:AZTEC inactive last year but I now see that it takes quite a bit to keep a Wikiproject going and, frankly, I've lost interest in doing so. I would be happy to see it rolled up into WP:MESO. Post a note in an appropriate place (frankly, Talk:Aztec is just a good a place as any) so that other project members can see your proposal and respond to it, if they wish. I think everybody will support the proposal but let's play it by the numbers to be safe.

--Richard 08:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. Will place such a notice, and if no complaints then set about doing it. I was thinking to maintain one or two separate subpages, and the WP:AZTEC talk page, for separately workspaces within the overall WP:MESO structure where Aztec-specific activities could be documented. Anyway, we'll see. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC

From Mstare88

Thank you for answering my questions i would like to sayy sorry for the past article contributions, but i am also sayong taht the article to vegitarinanism was not me. someone must have been on my username and did that. because i have no memeory of ever doing thta.Mstare88 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to protect your account more carefully. Either someone else knows your password or you walked away from the computer while still logged in to Wikipedia. Perhaps you use a school computer. Make sure you log out when you leave the computer and close the browser. --Richard 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

also i was not saying that it was you that may have blocked me.Mstare88 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also how am i supposed to make contributions if every time i try to add weather it be good or bad it is erased?Mstare88 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a step back and look at the articles that you are interested in contributing to. If you think you can contribute to the article with material that is acceptable to Wikipedia, then go ahead and insert your edit. If it's good, it will be left alone. If it can be improved, someone will improve it. If it's bad, it will be deleted.

If you are not sure whether your edit is appropriate, then add the material that you wish to insert to the Talk Page for that article and ask the other editors of that page if you think the material is appropriate for that page. It may be that the material is appropriate but needs to be cleaned up.

--Richard 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II

Richard, I cannot add much to your article because clearly my point of view is biased. For this reason I prefer just to comment in the discussion and not to edit the text. To add the comment on Edvard Beneš's role in the expulsion I would need to read again the second volume of his memoirs by Václav Černy, I would like to do it but these days I am to busy. The fact is that Václav Černý was quite sceptical about Edvard Beneš, namely about his role during Munich agreement. BTW, my personal opinion is, that the expulsion was a bad mistake (replace mistake with whatever better expression). Cepek 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Omigod, a Wikipedia editor who is actually restrained and recognizes his own bias! You have my respect, sir, you are a rare breed. I mean this quite sincerely.

Of course, Wikipedia doesn't care what your opinion is. Nor does it care about my opinion. What Wikipedia cares about are the verifiable opinions expressed by reliable sources.

I am very interested in the viewpoint that the expulsions were a mistake. Can you cite any published expressions of this viewpoint? (Preferably books and journal articles but even newspaper and magazine articles would do. A TV or radio broadcast is less desirable but even that can be used if documented properly.)

I am also interested in knowing whether there was any significant opposition to Benes during this time period. Was there any debate about the expulsions or did the nation pretty much agree with him?

Finally, what do Czechs think about the expulsions now? Is your viewpoint widely held or is it a minority viewpoint?

--Richard 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I am quite sure that I belong to the minority of Czechs with my opinion on the expulsion of Germans. If you are interested I can inform you on this issue when I come across them on Czech media. I am not a historian so I am not the right man to talk about history. From my personal live experience I am sure that the expulsion was unjustice and in a sense, in the end the Czecs were victims as well because the expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia was one of the deeds that opened doors for stalinist communism to intrude the central Europe. Cepek 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Scratched comment

Re your comment you removed—:

All of this is very interesting and should be documented somewhere, maybe even in this article. Wherever we choose to document it, we must make very clear the distinction between mainstream historical analysis and the viewpoint of the psychohistorians.

One thing that I'm a bit confused about though is the use of "self-harming" as applied to Mesoamericans. Are we claiming that the Mesoamericans were "self-harming" in the sense of an individual using an obsidian knife to harm himself or are we saying that the entire society was "self harming" in their use of human sacrifice? I think it's the latter but I think the text is unclear as to what is meant and is more likely to be read in the former interpretation.

--Richard 19:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the first interpretation was the correct one (and BTW the Aztecs didn’t self-harm with obsidian knives but with maguey thorns; the obsidian knives were used for human sacrifice). If the distinction was unclear it's because I was only responding to cjllw. On the other hand, psychohistorians do believe that Mesoamericans internalized murderous drives due to their childrearing practices. —Cesar Tort 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I had forgotten about the maguey thorns when I wrote my comment and then remembered it a few minutes after I saved the comment. I realized that was what you were referring to and not human sacrifice. That's why I scratched the comment.

The implication, however, is that the sentence belongs elsewhere (e.g. in Aztec religion) and not in Human sacrifice in Aztec culture.

--Richard 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since psychohistorians talk more about murderous drives due to early infanticidal childrearing (a couple of hours ago I overhauled that article since it was pretty awful —I had never read it carefully!) than self-harming, any mention, however brief, about psychohistory belongs more to the human sacrifice articles than to religious articles. —Cesar Tort 06:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

But this goes back to my original point. "Self-harming" by means of maguey thorns belongs in Aztec religion. Psychohistorical analysis of human sacrifice belongs in Human sacrifice in Aztec culture. Human sacrifice is not "self-harming" except if viewed from a familial or societal perspective. It requires a different concept of "self" than is typically meant when the phrase "self-harming" is used. --Richard 16:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that the word "self-harming" is not used in the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article. Perhaps you changed the text? In any event, I'm fine with the current text. My major concern was the concept of human sacrifice as self-harming although I understand that it can be construed that way. If human sacrifice is to be presented as self-harming, you really need to connect the dots for the reader as the average person will not necessarily follow the line of logic. --Richard 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just confused since the short section about the “psychological explanation” which mentions deMause is not the same sentence that cjllw called our attention to, which I responded with that long Colin Ross quotation. This subject belongs to Aztec religion (though it’s a bit blurred now after Madman2001 inserted the Maya self-harming image; I have no objections about that image though).

On the other hand, the “psychological explanation” section which also mentions deMause belongs to the human sacrifice article.

I have been corresponding with deMause the last few days and incidentally I mentioned the wiki article on Aztec sacrifice. He seems to have read it, and he very briefly commented it: “My theory is that all wars, including Bush's, are for the purpose of providing the Killer Motherland with children's tears. Like the Aztecs”. I think I can find a printed source for this but I don’t want to make any changes until consensus is reached in the talk page about whether our fellow editors consider sufficiently notable psychohistorians’ views as to allow a short section on it (as short as it is today).

—Cesar Tort 18:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying this discussion over to Talk:Human sacrifice in Aztec culture so that all can see it and comment on it. Please continue this discussion over there. --Richard 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Ethnic homogenization of Czechoslovakia after World War II

It is a good idea, but all this sounds more and more as an original research. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be OR? Presumably the expulsion of Hungarians and the forced migration of Silesian Czechs are well documented historical facts. I'm not 100% comfortable with the proposed title but I think the topic is encyclopedic and I don't understand why it would be considered OR. --Richard 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion

Hi Richard, according consensus I made these changes [2] but Stor stark7 doesn't respect it. It is frustrating after two months of discussions, please assist. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't really say it is to consensus, as what are "natural causes"? starvation? and stating "suicides" as separate as if it were a common occurence and shouldn't be included as something forced upon them by the occupiers.

--Jadger 06:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not consensus per my comments on the Talk Page. However, I think it is worthwhile for us to review the documents submitted by Tulkolahten and understand what the Joint Commission of German and Czech historians said. They claim 15,000 to 30,000 deaths. 12,000 recorded deaths + 6,666 suicides.

Please continue this discussion on the Talk Page. I prefer not to have extended discussions about article content on my Talk Page. It deprives future editors of the benefit of our discussions.

--Richard 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please unprotect Expulsion of Germans after World War II

There is the risk that we will have disruption from one anonymous troublemaker who is suspected to be a sock puppet of a blocked user (User:Serafin). Hopefully, he will not make any more trouble but, in any event, we should encourage anonymous editing per Wikipedia principles and therefore I think it is time to take semi-protection off Expulsion of Germans after World War II.

Thank you.

--Richard 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard. It will be automatically unprotected at Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:53:54 GMT. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you explain what "automatic unprotection" is about? I haven't heard of this before. --Richard 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by Cbrown1023 talk 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism portion of Anti-Catholicism article

Hi Richard. The material Dems110 removed from the Anti-clericalism portion of the Anti-Catholicism article is ambiguous and unsourced. It will need some fact to back it up.

By the way, congratulations for all of the great work you've done to improve the article. Majoreditor 05:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From Mstare88

Ok what is the deal? I edited the Jehovahs witness and hell articles. i thought that i was good they were not offending. They were appropiate and true. whay were they erased? I would like to talk to the person or persons that deleted those edits of mine. i tried to be apropiate and non-offending but i still get deleted.Mstare88 12:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

First, a couple of hints on using Wikipedia...

1. When putting comments on a Talk Page, use section headings to separate new topics from previous ones. Thus, your comment above was added to the bottom of the "anti-clericalism" section above it. I could still find it but it's just harder for me to see it in the middle of discussion about something else. If you use the "+" tab, it will provide a "subject/headline" text box for you to type a section heading into. Or, if you want to do it manually just put == before and after your section heading. Like this ==From Mstare88==
2. Next, do you know how to view and read an article's edit history? If you are viewing an article, you can click on the "history" tab and see the edit history for that article. Thus, you can see what changes have been made after yours and read the edit summaries left by those editors if they entered one. The edit summary will give you some idea of why they made the edit. If you are not satisfied with the explanation, you can request further explanation either by leaving a comment on the article's Talk Page or the Talk Page of the editor in question.

Now, specifically about your last edits...

First, I want to congratulate you that your recent edits are far better than your earlier edits. You have dropped the unencyclopedic style of those earlier edits and that is very important. However, there still seems to be some dispute over the content of your edits. I can't say whether I agree or disagree with your edits as this is not an area that I know a lot about.

Let me show you what I have found out about your edits. I looked at your contributions using this URL and noted that your most recent edits were to Hell, User:Dtbrown and Jehovah's Witnesses.

As a side note, do not leave comments on people's user pages. It will annoy most people. You left a message on User:Dtbrown. It should have been left on User talk:Dtbrown. The user's talk page is on the "discussion" tab of the user page.

I'm not sure why you were leaving a message for User:Dtbrown. Although he/she is an active editor of Jehovah's Witnesses, your edits to Hell and Jehovah's Witnesses were reverted by User:Matt Britt. You might leave him a message on his Talk Page.

Also, I finally figured out what you meant when you complained about being blocked. By saying that you were being "blocked", you meant simply that your edits were being erased. The Wikipedia term for this is to say that your edits were "reverted" (back to the previous version). Being "blocked" means that your account is flagged as "blocked" and the software will not allow you to make edits to any articles other than your own user page and associated Talk Page. It is the way for an admin to say that your edits are so unacceptable that he/she feels you should be locked out of editing for a while. Your earliest edits were skating very close to the edge of being disruptive to the point of being considered vandalism and, if they had continued, could very well have resulted in your being blocked.

I hope this helps. I will be gone on vacation for the next couple of days so if I don't respond immediately, it's not because I'm ignoring you. I'll be back on Monday.

--Richard 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

anti JW?

on Matt Britt talk page you said that i am anti JW. its not taht i am anti JW but i do disagree with their teachings. also thank you for telling people to be nice to the fact that i am new. have a nice vacation.Mstare88 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic homogenizations

The Ethnic homogenization of Czechoslovakia after World War II would be very useful. The process was more complex than just few expulsions, though, with the first signs appearing during the late 19th century, post-WWI attempt to speed the process, peak after WWII and slowly finishing it afterwards. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia could be seen as yet next step in homogenization, btw.

An article [3] (Czech Academy of Sciences, in Czech) gives an overview of the situation post-WWI, has quite a few tables and is written in scientific style.

Some post-WWI are data on Czech Statistical Office website, with nice graphs. The web has quite a lot of information, including estimates of population growth during the past millenium.

If possible the proposed page should be created complete at once. If it is left to random people to build it up by adding their own favourites here or there it would end up in the same mess as expulsion of germans was year ago. Pavel Vozenilek 22:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For always keeping your cool on contentious topics. Olessi 00:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page comment removed

Hi there: I'm curious about this. Were you intentionally removing my talk page comments or not? Heimstern Läufer 05:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not intend to remove your comments. Looks like some sort of bizarre behavior where I managed to overwrite your comments without generating an "edit conflict". I have restored your edit. My apologies.

--Richard 06:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's what I was guessing. We're good, then. Heimstern Läufer 06:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard.

Thanks for your contribution to the Raymond Franz article. I just wanted to ask you what is the meaning of the word "thusly" you inserted there. --Damifb 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh. I had my own doubts about that word at the time that I wrote it but I figured I'd take a chance. The intended meaning is "in this way". If you wish to change it, go ahead. I'm not committed to using it. --Richard 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Christianity

Dear editor, I am sorry to disagree with your grammatical improvements. I am not sure what was wrong with what you altered. I hope you don't mind but I have removed AN Wilson to another section, not part of the introduction which is not normally the place for detail. Roger Arguile 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am sorry to have been so drastic but I want to make a number of points.

I am glad you find AN Wilson so helpful, but in inserting references to him I believe that you have misunderstood the article. It is not an article about all aspects of St. Paul's thought. It is about the use of a specific term usually mostly used pejoratively. Frankly, while AN Wilson is an entertaining writer, and sets out some of the reasons why some people think that he distorted the faith which Jesus taught, he is not best evidence. He is not a NT scholar and his assertion that St. Paul remained Jewish all his life needs so much unpacking that it is not worth much as it stands. The material on the Eucharist implies a knowledge of the mind of St. Paul which no scholar that I have read appears to have. The same is true of his view on kosher laws etc. St. Paul's own expressed reasons are different. I think your inclusion of the contention about the invention of the eucharist is helpful as is the reference to justification. Your reference to the end time is not merely Pauline but is very Jewish. Wilson's point about Paul not intending his letters to be scripture may be right - I think it is. but it is not really the point. The question is whether Paul, by whatever means steered the faith away from the teachings of Jesus. That is why I have deleted it.

Please respond if you have any dispute over what I have written.Roger Arguile 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that you have applied to be an administrator. That being the case I take it that you will not mind criticism. I don't think you have realised the difference in weight between the authors you have cited and the scholars otherwise refered to. That is, I fear, a lack of judgement as well as difficulty in understanding as to what the article is about. I would not normally write so harshly, nor am I very good at putting criticisms in the public arena. I note how editors often use vulgar language and hyperbole in expressing their differences of vie on WP. I try to avoid that, but I think your insertions betray a lack of understanding of the purpose of the article and of the way scholarly debate works. To have read a couple of books - one of them very light weight is not enough - not to realise that they are light weight is more serious. I do not think that at present you have the necessary perspective to be an editor. My hope is that you will not press your case. WP depends increasingly on people who are experts in the field. We should not tolerate amateur aircraft designers; the scope even for such part time scholars as myself will be increasingly marginalised if wP is to become a standard work of reference rather than a hobby. Roger Arguile 13:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My profound apologies. You are quite correct. I had made the assumption that it was you who had inserted the AN Wilson material, nmo thaving checked each edit. So much for my powers of scholarship! I shall indeed revise my view and insert it on the review page. A.N. Wilson is an English novelist who was once an ordinand in the Church of England. His novels include a satire on an English theological college under the title 'Unguarded hours'. I now notice that, as you say, your edits were conservative, much more so than mine.

I think that the anonymous editor has a point that the origins of the eucharist and the issue of justification by faith needs elaboration, though whether they feature in the development of the notion of Paulein Christianity I am not sure. My personal view is that it is a dubious article, but since there are a number of people, some of some stature who believe that St. Paul distorted the faith it needs an airing. I confess that I found it hard to believe that someone who been found to be a good collaborator by such as Lostcaesar, with whom I have worked, could have inserted so much undigested material; and I SHOULD HAVE CHECKED MORE CAREFULLY. Again, I apologise for jumping to conclusions. Roger Arguile 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The only point I would sustain relates to the grammar of the sentence on Gnosticism.Roger Arguile 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I continue to disagree but, as I said, it's a matter of style and not worth getting in a tussle over. The strange thing about writing is that we all think our style of writing is best. De gustibus non disputandam. --Richard 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

talk

if there are any JW's out there please visit my talk page and discuss why you belive thses things. I am a Protestent and would enjoy discussing these things with you. i would like to know more about JW's and maybe we can find common ground on some things. as well a maybe point out were either one of us may be wrong. please reply.Mstare88 15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a JW but there are some points that I would like to communicate to you.

Putting these kinds of notices on people's talk pages is inefficient. Except for a few editors that I am working with on other articles, you will not reach many people this way and most of them are probably not JWs. If you want to ask a general question to a general audience, you need to find the proper forum. Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses would have been a more appropriate forum for your request.

However, there is one more point that you should consider... Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. See WP:NOT. If your discussion is not directly related to editing an article, then that discussion does not belong here at Wikipedia. I am sure there are other discussion forums on the Internet for discussing JW. You might find some of them in the "External links" section of the Jehovah's Witnesses article.

--Richard 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

possibly

I think that i might be able to. When i had talked to before that when i had gotten on to my account there were edits done to Xuyen Pham and JW. I had done edits to them but when i looked at the edits they were not my doing. and you and i both had the same thought that someone may have hacked my user account. I have learned that my past edits were extreme POV and i have done what i can to shed away from that. Even though i am not perfect and still have a long way to go before my edits can come to a point where they wont be erased. As i said in my one message sent to Natalie i think that i might know who coolman 76 was. if he is who i think that he is he is a freind of mine that lives in Dauphin. if i can be of any more help please ask. hope that this helps. have a nice day.Mstare88 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thank you for the info on talking to JW's and for the links.Mstare88 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S.

i wnat to let you know that i am going to talk to him see why he did what he did.Mstare88 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor Comment

No need for thanks, though they are appreciated. I said what was true, that you're a good editor who spends his time adding information as best he can, without a personal agenda and do forth. I wish you the best of luck. Lostcaesar 07:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

new article

check out madden nfl '93 i created an article for it now i just have to see how long it stays.Mstare88 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

you're Welcome

you're welcome, and I truly endorse everything I said on your editor review. please notify me when you come up for adminship, in case I don't notice it.

and those latest comments on the expulsions: poland article were just off the cuff, I was actually having a little fun with Pan Xx.

--Jadger 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 14:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

autoblock

The autoblock is, as the name implies, automatic, and only lasts for 24 hours. So the autoblock on that user should have expired already. If it hasn't, I must confess that I don't know how to release an autoblock (it's a different process than a simple unblock), but there is a request for release of autoblock template somewhere. The user should have gotten instructions when they attempted to edit. Natalie 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I guess I should have read up more on autoblocks.

--Richard 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

unblocked Yes!

i am finally un blocked from the autoblock. Oh and i think that coolman76 wants to quit? i was just on his talk page and he said that he hates wikipedia and to screw you guys. i dont think that he is too happy about being bloked maybe you should try to talk to him. along with Natalie and yamla. maybe you guys can explain to him better why he was blocked.Mstare88 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He knows why he was blocked and he knows what he needs to do to get unblocked. It's not that hard but he has to lose his attitude. When an account looks like a "vandalism-only" account, admins tend to come down hard on that user.

If you are his friend, you can explain it to him. I have nothing more to say than that unless he wants to ask me questions in which case I'm glad to answer them as best as I can.

--Richard 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

was wondering if you could weigh in on this

On the advice of multiple admins, I asked for Serafin to be banned, it is a sad thing but I guess it needs to be done. I was wondering if you could weigh in on the matter at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#please_ban_user:Serafin

thanks

--Jadger 09:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Serafin

After reporting user:Serafin for sockpuppetry...

# 16:47, 5 April 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) blocked "Serafin (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Continued abusive sockpuppetry, should not be unblocked for at least a year) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious on how a community-imposed ban would be much of a difference if hes already indef. blocked for socks? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's precisely my point. I think we need to "think outside of the box" and look for ways to redeem this editor rather than continuing to punish and ostracize him (which isn't working any way). --Richard 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice but is he interested in normal editing? For example, he has never contated WP:PWNB. He seems to be be a 'lone wolf' pursuing his own agenda, incompatibile with Wikipedia goals of reaching neutrality through mutual compromise...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can tell by now that I am an incurable optimist. My hope was and remains that Serafin will reform and become a valued member of the Wikipedia community. However, the reason that I acceded to the community ban is that I have to admit that there is scant evidence at this time that he has any intention of doing so. --Richard 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

quote about Henlein from de Zayas

I recommend you to move the quote to the article about Henlein or SdP. Though I understand your intention, this is the article about the region and the last two quotes (one of them added to more than 3 articles!) are pure politics (if not propaganda). Honzula 13:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

what happened?

I went to talk to coolman76 but his page is not there anymore.Mstare88 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Long deserved

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your patience, persistence, neutrality and the quality of your contributions to the Expulsion of Germans and the related topics. --Lysytalk 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Second. Such neutral input is much needed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions

Hello, Richard, I was wondering if you could give some input at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. I have been in a debate over whether the inclusion of thesection "acceptance within the JW community" is original research and whether the presentation ofit shows undue weight. If you notice from my comments in talk it is not the inclusion of the notion I am against but its portrayal. Please hep me as the half dozen others I have contacted are yet to show up.George 18:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work on new page

Richard, just wanted to let you know I noticed and appreciated the large effort you put into creating the Pagan influences on Christianity page. Keep up the good work. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Church

You wrote this In Orthodox religious terminology, icons are "written", not painted. Without expressing a definitive POV on your edit, I am orthodox, but I did not know this, the only term I heard in use is "painted". Could you, please, be co kind to provide some sourse, at least for my general culture. Are you sure you are talking about Eastern Orthodox Churches in general, and not only about the Russian Orhtodox Church in particular? I am under the impression that you are confusing the two. But I will let you say. :Dc76 13:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not orthodox nor am I an expert in orthodoxy so I could easily be wrong. However, try doing a Google search on "icon written" and look at the results that you get. The phrase "writing an icon" is very common. What I remember reading is that the word "written" is used to distinguish the act of creating an icon as something different from mere "painting". An icon is not just a work of art but something imbued with deep and sacred religious significance. Thus an icon is a kind of "sacred graphical scripture" which is, therefore, "written" not "painted". The last sentence is my own personal extrapolation based on what I remember reading. This is my understanding based on what I read. If you can show me to be wrong, I will accept correction.

--Richard 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, do a search on "icon written painted". Here is a link which explains what I said above but with some authority. --Richard 15:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance with user pages that have apparently been deleted

Hi,

I have unofficially adopted a bunch of new users who have been taking some time to understand what Wikipedia is about and how we do things here. One of them, User:Coolman76 seems to have exercised his m:Right to vanish. One of Coolman76's friends (User:Mstare88 asked me what happened to Coolman76's account and, of course, as a non-admin, I can only speculate. Are you able to look at the deletion log and determine what happened? I'm thinking that there might be an edit summary that says something like "User account deleted at user's request". I'm assuming that, short of a CSD, AFD or RFARB, there's no other reason for the account to disappear. Coolman76's account did seem to be a "vandalism only" account but I'm thinking that's a reason for a block, not a deletion.

Another "adoptee", User:9999a9999 found his Talk Page to have been deleted and recreated it with a query as to why it had been deleted. I left messages on that Talk Page a week or two ago so I know it existed a week or two ago. Can you tell me what happened?

Thanks. I'm just trying to help these new users learn how to become valued members of our community.

--Richard 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

• Coolman76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is nothing but a vandal. All his edits are considered vandalism as per Wikipedia:Vandalism. He was by admin Natalie Erin as a vandal only account. He made an unblock request but didn't give any reason for that aand therefore admin Ryanpostlethwaite whom i trust too much declined his request stating that [You haven't] offered a reason why the account should be unblocked.
• Mstare88 (talk · contribs) is probably a sockpuppet of Coolman76 as they have edited the same articles. However, i haven't seen any sign of vandalism from this account.
• 9999a9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another vandal and probably a sockpuppet of 55555five55555 (talk · contribs) (at least they are mates). Look at this sneaky vandalism 9999a9999 did.

My advice is that try to not waste your time w/ these accounts. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory

Its good to see you contribute, as usual. I won't say anything about the article, or its history, except that I stand by the changes as in accord with policy, and I look forward to whatever improvements you can add. My position has been one of NPoV, while maintaining a policy of reliable sources and no original research. Oh, and sorry if I haven't been able to help on some of those other pages just yet, but life gets busy, and all. Cheers. Lostcaesar 17:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I know you suggested we start on the Talk page, but you have no idea how much time I've already spent on the talk page trying to get the page to NPOV. I decided to be bold. I've rearranged the article following the direction that came from the Request for Comment (doctrine first, history second). I've added a lot of material, mostly in little pieces. It's a start, but it's not polished or finished. Jonathan Tweet 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)