User talk:Richardshusr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived to User talk:Richardshusr/Archives/2007. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

User	Talk	Contribs	My Sandbox	Improve Me!

User:Richardshusr/Status

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.

Contents 1 Long time no see 2 Expulsions 3 Thanks on HoC 4 Anti-Catholicism Article 5 Sources 6 Archiving 7 Editor Review 8 Exodus of Germans 9 Most recent contrib 10 The Church 11 Be Civil 12 HoC 13 Expulsions of Germans 14 Nitschke and Overmans 15 Merging 16 You have a reply... 17 expulsion 18 re 19 WikiProject Films February Newsletter 20 RE: History of German settlement in Eastern Europe 21 I have enough 22 Serafin 23 Misbehaviour on Wikipedia 24 WP:DYK 25 No kiddin'! 26 hope you don't mind 27 Discussions on pov 28 Survey - redux 29 Admin User:Yannismarou 30 help woth aztec rulers after the conquest 31 Help with Christian History 32 Feel / felt 33 long read 34 Quinta das Lágrimas 35 RE:former blah blah blah 36 D-PL 37 expulsion 38 Talk:Occupation_of_Poland_(1939-1945)#Scope 39 Copyright issue with Deutsche Volksliste 40 On offer 41 Seek your advice on a page that has been protected for over two months 42 Edits to Expulsion of Germans after World War II 43 Wither WP:AZTEC? 44 From Mstare88 45 Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II 46 Scratched comment 47 RE: Ethnic homogenization of Czechoslovakia after World War II 48 Expulsion 49 Please unprotect Expulsion of Germans after World War II 50 March WP:FILMS Newsletter 51 Anti-clericalism portion of Anti-Catholicism article 52 From Mstare88 53 anti JW?

[edit] Long time no see

Hi Richard, sorry it took me a while to answer. Thanks for the message and happy new year to you too. I'm spending a bit less time on Wikipedia these days (or more time doing other things, if your glass is half full)... There was no big reason for removing my personal info except my work info will soon be incorrect: I've handed in my notice, I'm going travelling to South America for a while - see some pre-columbian ruins from close by, among other things :-)

The rest of the info had been there for a while and I was a bit tired of it. I don't really like user pages anyway except to keep some links and information for myself, I don't see it as a way to communicate to the rest of the "community". One of the things I dislike here is that some people seem to believe the community is more important than the encyclopedia. I like communicating and working together, but I believe there are better places to build a social life :-)

So anyway, nothing really wrong, I would love to spend more time writing here, I'd really love to bring the Aztec article (among others) to FA status (and to finally change that damn name - somehow we still haven't...). But it will all take time...

See you around, Piet | Talk 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsions

Hello Richard, I would like to direct you to User:Jadger/draft expulsions. I copied the source from the currently protected article Expulsion of Germans after World War II, and have done a little bit of editting. So far I have only edited to the Background section. you can see the difference of my version by checking the history, as I directly copied the article without changes as the first edit, then started editing on the second version. I have not added the things we have been discussing on the talk page yet, but simply rewriting what is already in the article.

please leave your comments on the draft's discussion page, and don't forget to include any of your own changes you would make. I would prefer if your comments on the talk page are in point form, that way they are easier to address than long diatribes are.

thank you --Jadger 22:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks on HoC

Thanks for expanding some sections in the History of Christianity article. I've been trying to get what was just a mess of random information hammered into an article. Eventually, the hope is the article will be well referenced and the like, but at present any accurate text is an improvement over what exists. Thx. Lostcaesar 07:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, improving these and other articles on the history of the Church is something I would be interested in doing. As for my "plan" on the history of Christianity, my thought was to arrange materially chronologically with, as you say, an introductory section that discusses the dates, names, and so on. I really didn't begin with an overall plan. What happened was I stumbled onto the article one day and saw it was just a timeline. I thought about contributing but delayed, for I am rather busy an so on. A few months later I looked again, and it was more of a mess, except that someone (who had been banned) had put all sorts of nonsense up. So I decided to try and make something out of the article (which is why I was relieved to see another contributing). Now I suffer from not having a large body of sources (most of my books are still overseas), and I know its generally not customary to have one person write extensive prose, but I suppose that something is better than nothing so long as it is correct, and I do have some sources. If I have time I may gather some books from by university library, but my checkout limit is always close to full with just my post-grad research sources &c. What I mean by all this is, by all means, if you have some idea of how to improve the article go for it.

I had a quick look at the History of the Papacy article, but I didn't get a full read through yet. Obviously that article had certain unique challenges, but it is good to see a full text going up. In my view, the aim is to get a basically accurate and well accepted text up first, and to fully source in due time. That, at least, is my hope with the HoC article, where I hope to add sources to areas that are lacking in due course. As for handling the issue of the Papacy in the HoC article, it is always difficult because one must decided were to introduce an office that has a 2000 year development. Personally I think Late Antiquity would perhaps be the best place, sketching a history to the pontificate of Leo the Great, then, in the medieval section, the temporal (feudal) might of the papacy could be developed. But that's just a thought. Right now I'm just trying to turn an outline into an article, as I have time.

Lostcaesar 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Catholicism Article

Hi, Richard. I read your comments on the Anti-Catholicism article. I'd support a re-oganization of the article into historic and contemporary. Majoreditor 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good start. Thanks for the initiative. I've added my thoughts for further reorganizations on the Anti-Catholicism talk page. Majoreditor 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Hi Richard, I've found official public domain translation of the Rozumet dejinam on the ministry pages, you would be interested, it's in english - chapter 6 in PDF [1] ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Hello. You mentioned recently in a discussion I edited that I should archive rather than remove obscene comments. How would I archive said comments? Thanks for your advice. --OlJanx 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor Review

Hi Richard, I left you an editor review. Since you said you're interested in adminship, I responded to that point. YechielMan 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exodus of Germans

Hello Richard. The answer is simply: in Wikification WikiProject, trying to help clear the backlog of articles for wikification. I like like the way it introduces me to new subjects. And to new editors too. I notice from your talk page you have been involved in some articles related to Christianity. If you don't already know about it, there's a new WikiProject Religion. Best regards. Itsmejudith 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most recent contrib

Heads up that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hildanknight had already been archived when you posted to it, you might want to cross-post your post to Wikipedia:Editor review/Hildanknight. – Chacor 09:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I figured that out after I hit "Save" but I figured I'd leave the comment there. I will do the cross-posting eventually but I want to give him a chance to get a real editor review from someone else first. --Richard 09:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied to your email btw. – Chacor 09:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for your post on my RFC. While I was aware that Kelly Martin was an established but controversial user, I did not know that she was a "drama queen". In response to your comments: I agree I do need to "take a pill and chill". However, when I return to Wikipedia, I will still need to learn how to not let the verifiability policy affect my ability to write, and how to handle conflicts better (though "take a pill and chill" may be good advice for handling conflicts better). Though I owe you too much already, I'd appreciate it if you comment on my editor review, providing advice that would help me get more out of my time on Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Church

I'm in the process of fixing that. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be Civil

Reference is made to your remarks on [2]. You may disagree with my opinion but I don't. I do not consider my remarks neither nonesense or off-base. Someone may believe that YOUR comments are, but, on Wikipedia, they should always find a civil way to let you know. Please adhere to WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Lcnj 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HoC

On the talk page you proposed this framework for the article:

First, I think this article should focus on the geographical and political evolution of the various Christian churches and denominations as well aa their interaction with external entities, most notably governments and rulers but also other religions. This is primarily an institutional view of Christianity.

I think a lot of the additions on post-modern Christianity deviate a good deal from this focus, and I wondered if you have changed your mind. The article is also getting really long. Lostcaesar 08:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever responded to the proposal and so I wasn't sure how much support there was for it.

Nonetheless, I agree that the "Postmodern Christianity" section does seem out of focus as being too "ivory tower" theological. There is value in cross-fertilizing History of Christianity and History of Christian theology but this wasn't a good example. Obviously, I wasn't thinking too clearly last night.

I tried to trim down the section this morning but even the trimmed-down section seemed out of focus, so I removed the section entirely. If you can write a good summary that fits, then please do so. Otherwise, I'm fine to leave it out.

As for the article getting long, I'm not quite sure what to do with it. The idea of articles for History of Christian theology and History of Christian rites and practices should help some but not enough.

Another possibility is to create an article title Medieval Christianity and move the appropriate sections to it, replacing them with summaries.

The "Revivalism" section could probably be shortened into a tighter summary.

As you may have noticed, I'm not good at writing tight summaries so I figured I'd leave this to you since you seem to be better at it than me.

--Richard 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Nitschke and Overmans

Now I'm really puzzled. Someone quotes Overmans' figure to be 1.1 million. Then Serafin cites Nitschke to claim 1,1 million as well. In the book that I have in hands, Nitschke says that Overmans claimed 610 thousand and she agrees with him. Can you make anything out of this ? Are we comparing apples with oranges ? --Lysy^talk 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are sort of comparing apples and oranges. I would have to dig it out of the voluminous discussion on this topic but someone said Haar and Overmans agree on 500,000 to 600,000 and then you have to add another 500,000 which brings you to 1.1 million. I'm not sure if this last bit about adding 500,000 is OR or legitimately representing Overmans position. This is why I keep asking for sources. I find the numbers in the range of 500,000 to 600,000 difficult to understand because there is no backup to explain how Haar and Overmans arrived at those numbers or what they represent. I feel there is an answer but we just haven't gotten to the right sources.

--Richard 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

I think we did discuss this and I initially suggested the merger but eventually we agreed on something like a general framework article, and a series of sub-articles, dealing with evacuation, expulsions etc. separately. This is was discussed here. But maybe we were too ambitious at that time ? I think one of the reasons not to merge was to isolate the contentious parts in separate articles. The other might be the clarity of presenting it to the reader. --Lysy^talk 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have a reply...

...on my talk page. The Transhumanist   22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] expulsion

That discussion leads to nowhere unfortunately. When I started editing wikipedia I've never thought that here are people like Jadger, and Wikiferdi. Discussion with them is useless and I am starting to be very tired, all this forces me to leave editing wikipedia forever. Happy editing. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Jadger and Wikiferdi have been obstinate and obnoxious. On the other hand, so have you. I would hope that you would learn to work with us rather than being obstructionist.

I'm sorry that you feel you must stop editing Wikipedia. If you decide to come back, I hope you will find a way to be more collaborative.

--Richard 23:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was, but sometimes some things must not be left without reaction. Sometimes it goes too far. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: please don't push yourself to one bag with them, you were always kind :) ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I would wish that we could all discuss the issues civilly and work together to improve the article. Sometimes (like now) I despair of this being possible. --Richard 16:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re

The HoC article has a good bit of info. There are a couple of sections that need attention, but I have not wanted to put too much up since the article is so long already. Thanks for asking for my opinion on the HoCT article. I do not know how qualified I am but I'll give it a look when I get a moment. I am sure you did a fine job. Meanwhile, just keep plugging away on those history articles. Text can always be revised, after all. Lostcaesar 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: History of German settlement in Eastern Europe

lol, I know this may make you angry because you put so much time and effort into the article you created, but you may want to check out the Ostsiedlung article. Same topic, older article, not nearly as well written however, so you basically just started from scratch writing an article that already exists. However, from my skimming of your article, it is obvious yours is much better written, Ostsiedlung has been one of them "to do" things that I've never gotten around to doing.

--Jadger 08:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I knew about the Ostsiedlung article. My article is more than just a "rewrite" of that article.

The History of German settlement in Eastern Europe article is intended to start much earlier (with the Migration Period) and continue on through the Ostsiedlung and Hanseatic League era into the 19th and 20th centuries, touching on the world wars and the expulsions. It's a grand sweep of 1700 years of history. A lot of work is still needed but I think this provides a good start.

--Richard 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, I realize your article is more than just a rewrite, sorry if that came across wrong. I just realized something however; History of German settlement in Eastern Europe the word that I bolded some people may have trouble with, as that has also been touched on in the "discussion" on expulsions article. I'm so glad you started as far back as the migration period, my mind has been so fixated on fighting Tulko's POV on expulsions that when I read the section on Migration period I started thinking "how does this relate to the Germano-Polish problems now?" I gave my head a shake, and I think I may need a wikibreak.

--Jadger 08:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

yeh, all that back and forth POV pushing can warp your brain. It was therapeutic for me to just work on editing an article instead of arguing and counter-arguing endlessly. --Richard 08:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have enough

Thank you for your cooperation. Xx236 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serafin

Hello, Richard! J.smith blocked Serafin in January, to which that user resorted to sockpuppetry to continue editing. J.smith ended up lengthening the block to a month (expiring February 19th-ish). Serafin continued to use sockpuppets while blocked, although the original block was not extended. Upon the expiration of the block, Serafin used his primary account and User:Snieg to edit-war, confirmed by Checkuser. He was subsequently blocked for another month. In late February Heimstern extended the block as he thought Serafin was using newer sockpuppets; Checkuser did not confirm this, however, so Heimstern rescinded the extension.

Although it is an IP address, "131.104.218.46" is undoubtedly Serafin. The address was used the last few days to again revert war on the same articles that Serafin edits (German-Polish and beekeeping topics). I doubt it is a shared IP, as all edits made by the IP address have concerned topics relating to Serafin's interests. While I believe it is a static IP, it was only blocked for a week following J.smith's earlier example. I restarted Serafin's block in accordance with our policies (WP:SOCK & WP:BP).

To answer your question at the Expulsions article, you are under no obligation to participate in enforcing blocks or bans. Does this answer the questions you asked? Olessi 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm just sorry that Serafin cannot find a way to make his points in a more civil way and without edit warring. His actions have made the Expulsions of Germans after World War II a less enjoyable experience for me. (But not just him, there are a number of other POV-pushing editors of that article that have also detracted from the experience). I will say that I have learned some things from 131/Serafin. Even if I don't agree with much of what he says, I am seeing that the current revision of the article could be shifted towards a more NPOV stance. Unfortunately, I cannot make any of the changes until we convince an admin that page protection should be lifted. Given the heavy POV-pushing on the Talk Page in recent weeks, I cannot make such an argument with integrity at this time. --Richard 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misbehaviour on Wikipedia

“…shut up and keep your mouth in silence” (cf. Tulkolahten 07:39, 19 February 2007) from Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II - I am really disappointed about Wikipedia, allowing such offending profanity. - Wikiferdi 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tulkolahten has been uncivil but you have also been uncivil and have provoked him as he has provoked you. Jadger and Xx236 are also guilty. Now is not the time to point fingers at each other or trying to determine who has been nastier than the other. Now is the time to decide that you want to help build an encyclopedia. If you don't want to build an encyclopedia, then you should leave. The past six weeks has not improved the article at all nor has it moved us closer to consensus. It is time to stop this kind of behavior and work towards consensus. --Richard 07:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi, there are clearly different standards of civility. I don't think it is unreasonable to call arguments ridiculous or nonsense. Other people do and I have been chided for doing that (see the section titled "Be civil" above). I believe your comments have been uncivil enough to incite strong emotions in the conversation. If you really cannot see that you have been a major (not necessarily the primary) participant in the running battle on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II, I will attempt to document it for you but frankly, I have better things to do with my time. I would prefer not to go to that level of effort until we are forced to go to ARBCOM as a last resort.

Would you please not write about me without informing me about your attacks? If you haven't realized - I don't write in Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II any more. Xx236 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Xx236, your comments on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II speak for themselves. I will agree not to mention your user id and your past record under one of two conditions:

1. You agree to a consensus that removes protection from Expulsion of Germans after World War II and make a good faith effort to abide that consensus or
2. You agree not to edit Expulsion of Germans after World War II if and when it ever gets unprotected.

Without an agreement along the lines of either option 1 or option 2, it will be difficult to argue with any sort of integrity that page protection should be limited.

None of the above applies if we wind up in arbitration. In that situation, all evidence in the Talk Pages is fair game.

--Richard 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I also quit the discussion, Wikiferdi's last quote that WWII was caused by Czechs and Polish is too much for me for a reasonable discussion because this is not for discussion. Richard I believe you are able to write NPOV article so I supported lift of protection. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not my desire to chase anyone away from this or any other article in Wikipedia. However, when a page is protected, it is a strong indication that the collaborative process has broken down. Usually a day or two break from editing is enough to convince people to seek compromise and consensus. Occasionally a week or two is needed. Two months is excessive and we are nearing the two month mark. Something must be done. I have invited everyone to join me in an effort to seek consensus. If you cannot get on the bandwagon then at least do not obstruct it.

--Richard 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that both Xx and Tulko have said they won't discuss on the talk page, not that they will not edit war when the page is unprotected. So, there is really no way we can unprotect it as they refuse to discuss any form of consensus. I would be all for unprotecting the article... but how can we be sure it won't end in another edit war which is plain to see they will not compromise on.

--Jadger 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I proposed the two options "seek consensus" or agree not to block the consensus by edit warring. This set of options applies to you also, Jadger. Please either support the compromise that I proposed in the "Forming a consensus to unprotect this page" section of Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II, propose a different compromise or at least agree not to stand in the way of a consensus. --Richard 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:DYK

I think some of the recent articles you've created (like Territorial changes of Germany) would make excellent DYKs with just a litle bit of polishing (WP:LEAD, etc.). Unfortunatly I am currently a bit to busy for serious editing and the DYKs are good only for articles under a week old...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I never thought of them as DYK candidates. If you tell me what you think would be a good DYK, I might get motivated and clean up the articles ASAP as opposed to "when I get around to it". I will admit that I am not a good polisher and therefore might need to enlist some help. --Richard 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, any new article is a good DYK. It's nice to share your work with others - and DYKs are one of the best ways to get recognition (global!) plus perhaps even more important, make quite a few editors notice the article (and edit it, link it from others, and so on). As for the wikification, the article was missing lead - that's a significant problem (WP:LEAD). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No kiddin'!

Hi Richard. Scuze me for asking, but what's the purpose of a user box that says, "This user is a member of Wikipedia?" Isn't having a user page prima facie evidence of being a member? Oh well, whatever.... Sca 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

DOH! That's what I get for copying a bunch of userboxes without thinking much about what they actually said or implied. --Richard 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hope you don't mind

I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of reverting what I think was a vandalization of your userpage [3]

--Jadger 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I would have preferred it if you would have moved it to this Talk Page instead of just deleting it. I had to look at the edit history to figure out what you were talking about. Once I looked at it, I realized that it was a bit of harassment from a disgruntled new editor who didn't like my reversion of his edits. I left him a warning. Hopefully, he will get the message and clean up his act. --Richard 07:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

alright, no problem, if I catch it first again, I'll make sure to do that.

--Jadger 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

regarding territorial changes of Germany article, you read my mind, I actually placed it on my watchlist minutes before you left that message. However, right now I am mighty tired and so will be going to bed before I edit any more. I have to give you "props" for starting the article, I just hope the kind of revert wars of recovered territories doesn't spread to this page also, and ruin all of your hard work, turning it into another article broken up like the expulsions article.

--Jadger 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions on pov

my bad sorry that i put it on your user page instead of your talk page. I will make sure to cheak that they go only on your talk page from now on. Again sorry for acidently putting it on your user page Since i cant not add to any of the articles how do i create a new one? this will be a place where i can put opinions of my own without "vandalizies" other people's articlesMstare88 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC) from mstare88

You're not getting the point. It doesn't matter whether you create a new article or edit an existing one. The Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view still apply. You are welcome to add to articles but you need to write from an NPOV stance and in an encyclopedic way. At the very minimum, write as if you were writing a college-level term paper. (Although many contributions to Wikipedia are criticized for being only at the level of a college term paper, this will at least be considered marginally acceptable and worthy of editing to improve the level of writing.)

It is important for you to realize that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Until you grasp this concept, your experience here will be very frustrating.

If you create a new article along the lines of your previous edits, it is likely to be nominated for deletion via WP:AFD in a very short period of time (oftentimes a minute or two after creation). Some Wikipedia editors monitor the list of newly created pages and will nominate for deletion any article that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thus, you may find it frustrating to have your article deleted after you have worked to put it together.

For this reason, I urge you to read WP:NPOV and WP:NOT before proceeding. Once you have done so, read Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article.

Good luck and feel free to ask any other questions that may arise.

--Richard 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - redux

I have reverted you changes made to Talk:Historical eastern Germany under "Survey - redux" because everyone should be able to make their own decision on what is "candidates which have no chance of garnering consensus." It is not something that any editor should impose on anothers. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you missed the point. Some of the options have been pre-empted by the creation of articles by that title or similar titles (e.g. Territorial changes of Germany. Others have simply gotten so little support that they are obviously "not in the running". My edit was an attempt to reduce the field to the ones that seemed to have the greatest support. But, no matter, if you wish to insist that we work with the original unwieldy list then be my guest.

--Richard 08:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin User:Yannismarou

Hello Richard, I have recently been blocked by Yannismarou when I was in a content dispute about a Greek related article with him.[4] I noticed you had questioned him about referenced text he had removed about a month back from another Greek related article [5]. I could not find any reply by him, did he reply to you? Thanks! NN 06:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember getting a reply to my query to him. --Richard 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I couldn't find any answer by him to your question either. He later went on to block (on 10:22, 3 February 2007) User:Laertes_d whose referenced text he had deleted. While I agree that Laertes_d was abrasive, the behavior from the other side wasn't exactly exemplary either. I think it is improper for an Admin to block a user whose referenced text he has previously reverted, and not provided an explanation when asked for by you. Laertes_d's behavior may have been worthy of a block, but should it have been done by one already involved in a content dispute? NN 06:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help woth aztec rulers after the conquest

Hello Richard. I see you have a lot of wotk to do wooowww. It´s awesome.. But if you could spare a little time.. could you check (and clean) the articles :

1. Diego Velázquez Tlacotzin
2. Andrés de Tapia Motelchiuh
3. Pablo Xochiquentzin
4. Diego Huanitzin
5. Diego de San Francisco Tehuetzquitizin

While i have found only one source about them, maybe this will ecourage people to know more about them.. And thsi short biographies paint a an interesting part in Mexico history. thanks Nanahuatzin 07:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... it may take me a while but I will take a look at them. I haven't seen you around in a while. It's good to see you back. --Richard 07:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much work and little time, but i try to keep an eye  :) . thanks Nanahuatzin 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick pass on all the articles and fixed the most obvious issues. I'll try to take a second look later on. --Richard 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Christian History

Hi Richardshusr,

I found you via the Christianity article and it appears that you know quite a bit about Christian history. I am currently working on the Nero article and was wondering if we could get some outside help on the section concerning Nero in Christian Tradition. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

Best regards,
Djma12 ^(talk) 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feel / felt

It's no big deal either way, as far as I'm concerned. But yes, the large bout of reform proposals is pretty much over for now. I would suggest bringing your proposals to AFD's talk page, or the village pump, simply because it'd get more attention there. >Radiant< 15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] long read

Hi Richard,

I've read the flaming parts of the Carthage controversy. What I liked most is what Vedexent posted in User:Kara Umi user page.

I also read a substantial part of that very long and scholarly article you linked to in one of the archived talk pages.

The long readings confirm what I thought: revisionists are wrong. However, I applaud your efforts for NPOVing the Carthage articles.

I also liked what you said: "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig" on 9 June 2006.

—Cesar Tort 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quinta das Lágrimas

Hi, you cleaned up part of the article, however, I feel that the rest of it is little more than lore and next to impossible to source. even ignoring the language, reading it gives good hints. the Pedro and Ines affair has been the subject of a lot of writing, most of it heavy on the fiction...that's why I nominated it for deletion. Galf 08:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, While I appreciate your effort to clean-up the article, I still think the subject is quite worthless. Sorry. As it stands now there are 3 lines about the farms and the rest is about Pedro and Ines. The affair is covered elsewhere, and the farm is itself quite unremarkable. the house(hotel) dates to the 1800s, like thousands of others around the country. I might also point out that the building afaik isn't in the historical registry, and believe me, they classify ANY hint of remarkability. that article is either part of a spin or an effort from the students from the secondary school that put up the website to either "show the world" their work or to increase it's legitimacy by having an encyclopedia article. so, even if defeated, my nomination stays. Galf 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I deleted so much of your work. I have sourced the information needed and added it to the article. Fell free to take your turn at chopping it up! :-) Galf 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dis you get enough sleep? lol I dunno how to do that, can you help? Hou do you like the article now, anyway?Galf 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:former blah blah blah

PMAnderson was saying that those territories had always been 100% Polish inhabited and inferring that the German rule of the lands was somehow illegitimate or wrong.

--Jadger 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I kind of figured that was what he was saying but my knowledge in this area is not strong enough to know for sure. Is his assertion true? Were those areas predominantly Polish? --Richard 06:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least bit, Province of Posen was the only area of Imperial Germany that was predominantly Polish, but there was a significant German population there. East Prussia he claims that only the cities were German, and all the countryside was inhabited by Poles, but as you can understand, people don't speak a totally different language in the country than they do in the city. East Prussia was German through and through, since the Northern Crusades. it was the center of the Teutonic Knights.

--Jadger 06:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read East Prussia and Province of Posen articles, they are very well written, and you should note this section in particular here. as you can see, although the source is cited incorrectly, sizeable Polish population in East Prussia, but not enough to claim it was Polish, or that the people wanted to be a part of Poland.

--Jadger 06:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D-PL

You may be interested in: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,471777,00.html

Sca 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] expulsion

Feel free to release sandbox you created, I made a couple of changes with whom I agree, you have my support. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ^{[citation needed]} 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 [6] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Expulsion

Hi Richard, according consensus I made these changes [7] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)