User talk:Smith2006: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:08, 24 August 2011

Hi Smith2006! Welcome to wikipedia! It looks like you've already gotten started editing. That's great! It's always good to see a newcomer start contributing early. I have some links you may find helpful:

Don't worry about being perfect—few of us ever are. If you don't have much to do, you can take up a task.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar

More... • Learn how

Fix wikilinks

More... • Learn how

Update with new information

More... • Learn how

Expand short articles

More... • Learn how

Check and add references

More... • Learn how

Fix original research issues

More... • Learn how

Improve lead sections

More... • Learn how

Add an image

More... • Learn how

Translate and clean up

More... • Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

Wikipedians have a policy of never biting the newbies, so please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talkpage or ask another wikipedian a question. If you need help right away, type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone should arrive shortly to help you. Have fun editing, and BE BOLD!!!!!--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse to your "kind reprimand"

Carissime frater in Christo,

You write: "The claims made by you about the validity of the Ngo Dinh Thuc consecrations". What claims did I make? I was careful to point out that the Holy See had made no declaration about the validity. It only said it said it would treat those involved as in the state they were in before. The Holy See did say that. So what have I done wrong? Oremus pro invicem. Lima 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

You have uploaded a few pictures saying you are the creator of them. Were you really at Bishop Thuc's Mass in 1982, and also at that traditionalist ordination listed as 2002? Also, the Roman Catholic Church article is about the Church as a whole. The particular ordination picture looks nice and has a place somewhere (if it's yours to give), but it does not represent very well the face of the Church today. I don't push to have Eastern Catholic pictures there. Gimmetrow 14:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur,

ou Madame,

Je ne sais qui vous puissiez être... Mais ce que je puis dire, vous êtes un beau menteur. J'étais présente au sacre de Mgr Roux et de Mgr Boni, vous non.... Pourquoi mentir avec une "fonction" d'historien"...

Louise Littieri.

Monsieur ou Madame,

Je ne sais écrire en Anglais, je suis italienne, si vous voulez mon adresse, je puis vous la donner et puis témoigner de ce que j'ai vu.. le 18 septembre 1982 à Loano Italie et avec d'autres personnes je jure d'avoir assisée au sacre épiscopal de Mgr Roux et de Mgr Boni, à la chapelle qu'ils avait à Loano. D'ailleur Mgr Thuc était à la Pensione Millone de la Via Aurelia à Loano, vous pouvez demander à la questura de Savona puisque il y avait un régistre des personnes vivant à l'hotel. (j'étais femme de ménage dans cette pension). Louise Littieri.

I take some offense at your insinuations about my motives. Gimmetrow 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Fontgombault is part of the Church. Let me put it this way - would you think it appropriate if I put in a picture of an Eastern full-immersion baptism and confirmation of an infant, and just referred to it as "confirmation"? Gimmetrow 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then that identifies our difference. I would not find it appropriate to display a picture of Eastern infant confirmation and just refer to it as "confirmation" because I think that would misrepresent the majority Roman Catholic practice in the main RC article. It *would* be appropriate in the specialized confirmation article, where it could be given appropriate context as a custom in particular communities. I'm not sure what you mean by saying "Fontgombault is in the Latin rite Catholic Church" - we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church article. Gimmetrow 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you put antiques on display, it is only right that they be accompanied by an explanation, as you yourself have now begun to provide. The first explanation with which I accompanied your picture was incomplete: I must improve it. Oh, by the way, "show", not "elevate" is the word in the Tridentine Roman Missal: "Quibus verbis prolatis, statim Hostiam consecratam genuflexus adorat: surgit, ostendit populo, reponit super Corporale ..." Lima 04:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove those acolythes kneeling int he Bohermeen pictures are priests. They are old acolythes. In 1950s Ireland, I was in my late teens and early twenties and neither then nor before did I ever see anything but young boys of elementary-school age (like the two in the picture) acting as altar servers in parish churches. On the occasion of the bishop's annual or, in some cases, biennial visit to the parish, children who would have left primary school before his next visit were confirmed; that's why the two altar boys are slightly younger than the confirmands. I don't need to prove the men kneeling at the altar rails were priests. If Smith2006 ceases to claim they were part of a normal Sunday congregation, I will cease to state what they were. The bishop is kneeling. Normally Confirmation is conferred at a Mass celebrated by the Bishop. Yes, though still not obligatory, that is normal now, one of the improvements made in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. It was not always so. So why are you constantly reverting my editions? Constantly removing my comments? I can't think why, unless perhaps (if the statement is true) Smith2006's editions and comments are constantly erroneous. Is Roman Catholicism your monopoly? Certainly not, not is it Smith2006's. Kind regards, Smith2006 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Warm good wishes to Smith2006. Lima 15:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize, not for the first time, to Gimmetrow for not having taken his observations seriously enough. I really am sorry, and have no sufficient excuse. The candles he refers to, and to see which I inexcusably failed to take the trouble to look again at the picture, are certainly the candles that used to be put out for Benediction or for the Quarant'Ore (Forty Hours) devotion.

On the other hand, the girls are not wearing a mantilla. Irish women wore hats to Mass, not mantillas, which they looked on as a Spanish custom and would sometimes bring back from a visit to Spain as a curiosity. (The mantillas that I saw brought back were always black, not white, and, if I remember right, shorter than those on the girls in the picture.) So who are the girls? Members of some sodality, like the Children of Mary? I confess I have nothing concrete to propose. Were they perhaps dressed like that for a Eucharistic Procession to follow the Mass? I no longer hold to my previous hypothesis that it is a Confirmation Mass.

The two candlesticks for seven candles each are indeed yet another indication that this Mass was no ordinary 1950s Mass, and indeed that, even with such a plentiful supply of priests, Catholics in Ireland hardly ever experienced a High Mass. Lima 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewish chant and early Christian music

Hi, Smith2006! I've been working on bringing the Gregorian chant article, and have some thoughts about the recent edits you made to that page. When you get a chance, would you take a look at the talk page? I think you may be working with outdated information. Thanks! Peirigill 19:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on German history

You do not own the Historical Eastern Germany article. Therefore please refrain from statements such as "Don´t touch my version." (see this edit[1]) The rest of the edit description is a personal attack against me. See the WP:NPA (No personal attacks) Wikipedia policy. For your information I'm not a Polish (or any other) nationalist. I'm just a proud Pomeranian who believes the heritage of both Polish and German people should be remebered in all the lands that changed hands between the two nations in their intertwined history. Your edit record shows a strong bias for making NPOV (seeWP:NPOV) and inflamatory statements on many issues related to German history. You also tend to add unsourced material whenever you think it can further your opinions (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Please remember Wikipedia is for readers of any political views from all nations. Therefore we should try to present objective and unbiased facts and where a controversy exists, try to present the views of both sides in a non-inflamatory way. This is most of all an enyclopedia: a source of of objective facts. However in addition to that, I strongly believe it should be a place that heals old wounds, not re-opens them. Tschüss, from a ProudPomeranian 06:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits (Szczecin etc.)

Hi, it seems I have interfered with some of your recent edits including Szczecin, Gdańsk etc. I only wanted to let you know that I believe in you doing the edits in good faith and that if I reerted anything it was not intended as any POV pushing on my side either. Particularly, it would be interesting to have some more sourced information on what happened to Stettin in 1945, how it got into Polish hands, who gave orders and also about subsequential expulsions of the German inhabitants of the town. Would you have some verifiable sources about this ? --Lysy^talk 13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Pius XII

Please discuss on the talk page before adding an unexplained NPOV tag to a featured article, removing images, or adding unreferenced text. The Pinchas Lapide figure is already sourced and in the "contemporary" section. As for the other things you wanted to add, you need a source. Please discuss on the talk page before making radical changes to an article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please enable you e-mail function?

How about signing here.

Your move proposal for Aloïs Hudal at Requested moves

Your move request has been archived from the Requested moves page, because nobody was given the chance to comment on the talk page of the article. If you still want to move the article, please re-submit the request by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Steps for requesting a page move. Regards, Kimchi.sg 08:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith

Hi there, two things regarding [2]:

The edit in question was made in good faith, and so was not vandalism, so please don't call it that.
Non-registered editors have the same editing privileges as registered editors.

Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther Edit

Welcome to the Luther page. I'd like to comment on your addition. Before the Reformation, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. This is a term used after the Reformation to refer to those who remained loyal to the Pope rather than joining the Lutheran, Reformed or another Christian tradition. I just thought you'd like to know why I'll likely change it later today. Bob Smith --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is, the term is anachronistic. It did not exist before the Reformation. So it is inaccurate to call the church "Roman Catholic." Second, there was no monastic order in the West that was not "Catholic" at the time, so the term itself, if meant to refer to submitting to the authority of the Pope is redundant. It's like saying "an American US Marine." Finally, we are supposed to use printed sources to support our edits. Do you have a source that calls Luther a "Roman Catholic monk?" If not, let's simply drop the language.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Although it's not about winning in my book, just trying to keep things accurate. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the content of the article on the Martin Luther talk page -- if you can read past the vigorous debate over Martin Luther and the Jews. I'm trying to work on the rest of the article while that struggle goes on. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Martin Luther Page

Hello Smith, welcome to the Martin Luther page. Thanks for your participation and interest. You might want to check over Wikipedia's policy on documentation and source citation. You can see there is quite a lot of documentation for assertions and comments made on the Luther page, so when you post a statement, it is appreciated and often required that you provide a source for your comment. Wiki does not permit what it terms "original research" which really means statements that are not sourced. Have fun! If I can be of any assistance, let me know. Ptmccain 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please join!

I'm currently trying to get a Dutch military task force started, would you join us? From what I've seen on the Netherlands in World war II article, you could most certainly provide a (more than) worthy contribution.

If you're interested, and I hope you are, please drop a note at this talk page Cheers, Rex 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Priestly ordination.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Priestly ordination.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gimmetrow 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you either update the image page or explain the source better? I am hoping you can show this is a public domain image, because I would like to be able to use it for other projects. Gimmetrow 17:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is still some confusion about the picture. If you took the picture yourself you can release it into the public domain, and then there is no need to mention "fair use". "Fair use" only applies to copyrighted images. So the first question is whether it is copyrighted or in the public domain. Where does the image come from? Did a friend of yours take the picture with a digital camera? Was it a photo print that you scanned? Did you grab it from a website and edit it? Gimmetrow 03:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a friend took it, then the image description should ideally be as clear as possible. For instance: "Taken by private individual (provide contact info) who releases it into the public domain." If it is certainly public domain, mentioning "fair use" is confusing. Gimmetrow 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germans

Hi, care to take part in the Germans article, specifically the usage of the term regarding Austrian and Swiss nationals of German ethnicity? I see you have a healthy historical perspective on issues related to Germany. P.S. Good work on reversing the Nazi-Christian cooperation myth. Let's not forget that the church doscouraged its faithful from voting for the Nazis, while entry into the SS had far greater chances of success when one didnt belong to any religious congregation, and had proof thereof. Ulritz 15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article needing cleanup, or not worth it?

I noticed your name on a number of Catholic articles, including traditionalists, and wonder if you could take a look at a new article that just popped up, Latin Mass Society of Australia. Reads like a personal essay by a member rather than an article, and it's not well written. Looks like they're more than Latin Tridentine advocates, with also a sedevacantist tinge, and not currently in good standing. Don't know if it's worth cleaning up, or is the organization really not worth noting? -- Fan-1967 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verdinaso request

Are you the author of this edit: [3]? (Curiously enough, it does not show up under your contributions.) If so, did you see this request: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Please may I have the E-mail of the person who wrote article? --Lambiam ^Talk 23:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination through labour

Hi there. I noticed you added a dispute tag to the article on Extermination through labour, yet you did not start a dispute at the talk page. I took the liberty of removing the tag. //Halibu tt 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request I added the references you requested and removed the tag. Hope that's ok with you. If you want more references - just google them up for yourself, there's plenty of books in Google Books as well. Your nearest library would also be of some help, just ask for any book on the German WWII concentration camps. //Halibu tt 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Albert Forster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Albert Forster.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danzig, etc.

Hi there. I basically agree with your comments on Danzig and other formerly German places in present-day Poland. I fought the Polish ultra-nationalists long and hard on these issues last year but eventually concluded they weren't amenable to reason. The explanation I've heard from others is that the Poles have internalized 50 years of their own propaganda about the so-called "recovered territories" into a mystical belief that Poland has a sacred right to all the territories east of the Oder-Neisse in perpetuity, and that the Germans were merely "occupying" them for six centuries. (Never mind that if you go back far enough, the Poles weren't there, either. Never mind that at one point the Goths lived in the Vistula Delta. Never mind that the human rights of all the Germans in those territories in '45 were systematically and savagely violated — they were all "Nazis" anyway).

The thing that makes Polish nationalism so intractable is, it's the Poles' personal identity, along with their peculiarly intense brand of Catholicism. The two are, I think, mystically bound up together.

Poles seem to have a kind of eternal-victim complex. ("Poland is not lost forever ...") That may be understandable given the history of Poland in the last three centuries. And one must keep in mind that the Germans were indeed arrogant, brutal and savage in their occupation of Poland during WWII. But it's time for the Poles to grow up and become a normal nation in a normal Europe -- as I think the Germans largely have. In Germany, people who stridently declare that Gdańsk, for example, will always and forever be "Danzig" are a small minority on the lunatic fringe of society. In Poland their counterparts in nationalism seem to be a mainstream majority.

Before I go, let me say that I'm not anti-Polish. I lived in Poland for about half a year and liked many Polish people I met. BTW, I also spent some time in Nederland, many years ago.

Tot ziens!

Sca 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. It strikes me that the nationalism of present-day Poland may also be conditioned by the almost total homogeneity of the population, which formerly was much more diverse. (Thank you, Adolf!) It's too bad Poles can't appreciate some positive aspects of Deutschtum in their own history; Cf. the Wiki wrangle over Copernicus's ethnicity.

Sca 13:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they use the Kashubian claim to try to make out that Gũnter Grass is not wholly a 'German' writer. Sinnlos! BTW, Grass is a particular enthusiasm of mine; I contributed a bit to the Wiki entry on him.

It has struck me that most of Poland's larger cities are ex-German cities and some of them, notably Gdańsk and Wrocław, show in their restored sections the German/Prussian architectural heritage — as do many other places in Poland, such as Olsztyn.

It's been 10 years since I visited Gdańsk, but at that time one could not find a single reference in a museum, public building or tourist brochure to the city's German past, which I find culturally tragic and dishonest. It's different in Kaliningrad, where the Russians have come round to making quite a point of the city's Prusso-German history (see the first photo on my user page). I suspect this is because the Russians conquered Königsberg on their own in '45 — a fact they're immensely proud of, alas — while the Poles, unfortunately, were soundly beaten by the Germans and only acquired the ex-German cities at the hands of the Soviets, who also occupied Poland in their turn. Also, the Russkis want German tourist euros.

As to Poland's homogeneity: I'm no authority, and I do know that there remains a rather small ethnic-German population in the district of Opole/Oppeln in Upper Silesia, where ethnicities long were mixed — or flexible depending on the poltical winds. (Modern example: Miroslav Klose). But my understanding is that most of the million or so Germans remaining in Poland after the expulsions were allowed to emigrate in the '70s and '80s as a response to Ostpolitik and West German economic aid. Also, I understand that the Polish-speaking Masurians, who were culturally Germanized (and voted for Germany in 1921), were mostly expelled after the war, along with the Germans. I don't know about the Ukrainians you mention. Obviously, the Jews are all but gone, and most of prewar Poland's Belorussians and Lithuanians were in areas gobbled up by Uncle Joe in '39 in his deal with Onkel 'Dolf. All this leads me to believe that Poland today is maybe 97 percent Polish — and 94 percent Catholic.

Sca 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed in Kaliningrad that they make a beer called Ostmark (Остмарк). And the Russians also use the word Kartoffel for potato — as do the Poles! Perhaps the three groups could gather together under the sign of the lowly tuber — for which my state, sadly, is famous.

Sca 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, I know about you Dutch and aardappels.

Sca 16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err... in addition to Sca's outrageous generalizations about the Polish people above (ever imagined anyone making the same set of remarks about, say, Dutch or Jewish people?), a small hint at the end of the page. First of all, people hardly believe in the recovered status of the recovered territories. It's merely a short-cut name, much easier to pronounce than parts of western Poland that used to be part of Germany between 1871 and 1945, and parts of various states prior to that date. Also, I don't think there is a single Catholic among our small Polish wiki community here. And certainly not among those whom Sca contacted. Anyway, sorry to interrupt and feel free to contact me if you want to know the other side of this story as well :) //Halibu tt 06:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I was born and raised in the capital. As all capitals in the world, the culture, traditions and even language of Warsaw differs from what is typical to the rest of the country. I never lived in the west of Poland and, frankly speaking, although I find the city of Wrocław fascinating (mostly thanks to great novels and short SF stories by Andrzej Ziemiański), what used to be Lwów is much closer to my heart than what used to be Breslau. I feel better in what used to be a Polish city that is now inhabitted almost exclusively by Ukrainians, than in a city that used to be a German city and now is inhabitted almost exclusively by... the descendants of those who lived in Lwów until 1945. But perhaps it's just me.

As to religiousness of my colleagues and friends, as I said Warsaw is different and I admit my friends might not be typical to the rest of the country. However, among us there's barely a trace of a "typically Polish Catholicism". As to me personally, my parents raised me in a liberally Catholic surrounding, baptized me and sent me to first communion and all. However, as intellectuals, they never were to religious themselves and never applied to the blindly-religious group, who went to the church to whisper some pre-prepared formulas. Likewise, as soon as I grew up, I started searching my own religiousness and spent lots of time in churches of many denominations, including the synagogue . Eventually I'm a believer, but I don't subscribe myself to any rite in particular.

Most of my friends (young generation of people from Warsaw) have passed the same route. Some have swayed towards agnosticism, others ended up in a place I am now. That doesn't have anything to do with neo-leftist tendencies, rather with lack of oppression. Note that what is a typical Polish Catholicism is a religion of the oppressed. For centuries the church was the only all-national institution that was allowed to exist - and was crucial in preserving the Polish culture. As an interesting fact, the Protestantism served the very same role in the area of Cieszyn, where the official religion of Catholic Austria was confronted with Protestantism of local Poles. Then came the Commies and again the Catholic Church became a state within a state for all those who felt their country is under foreign occupation. You could not emigrate as the Commies would not give you a passport, but you at least had your local church, an island of relative liberty within the oppressive, totalitarian state.

Now then, after 1989 (I was 8 then) we don't have to go to church in order to listen to true history of our country. You have it at school, even more than you could ask for. We don't have to go to church to read banned books, as there are none. We don't have to go to church to reassure ourselves that our side is more numerous - as there is no "Them" nowadays. However strange it might seem, religion started to play only the religious role. Social, economic or political roles are now open to any organization. Hence I might say that I simply do not need the church.

Anti-religiosity is yet another issue. I don't think there is any among my friends. On the other hand there is a growing resentment against this or that priest who rides a very expensive car and so on. But that sentiment was here since middle ages and was only briefly suppressed during the communist times. //Halibu tt 11:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Halibutt

Hello, Halibutt. How are you?

When I was in Poland I was told – by the president of Unimil, of all things – that Poland was 94 percent Catholic. Is this not the case?

I'm sure there are all sorts of Catholics in Poland, as elsewhere. But generally my impression was and is that the Polish RC Church is one of the most conservative doctrinally. I agree that "for centuries the church was the only all-national institution that was allowed to exist - and was crucial in preserving the Polish culture." I read about this somewhere in the context of the Church being a repository for the Polish sense of national identity, since the state was highly variable over the centuries. And I do think that those Poles who are very strongly nationalist or, if you prefer, patriotic, have an almost mystical passion about it, as some and possibly many Poles do about religion. (The same can be said of not a few Americans being simultaneously nationalistic and fanatically religious, but usually they aren't RC.)

Of course there are Poles who are moderate in their views. But this whole discussion started out as an explanation of why the squabble over German place-names still is going on here on Wiki. Please note that in the beginning I said, "the explanation I've heard from others" (italics added). By "others" I mean some other Wikipedians in the past. The thoughts above are an attempt to find a rational explanation for what seems to me to be an irrational phenomenon. If I've over-generalized, I'm only expressing what I've read and experienced. It seems to me that if there were nothing unusually nationalistic about Poles in general – that is, not all Poles, but many and perhaps most Poles – then we wouldn't be having these discussions on Wiki. And also, certain Polish politicians wouldn't occasionally raise the spurious specter of German revanchism – or at least "revisionism" – 60 years and three generations after the Third Reich, which shall forever remain a cause for collective shame among Germans.

PS: I thought you were Jewish?

Sca 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

To Smith2006 and Halibutt: Thank you both for your interesting comments. Of course I fully endorse the thought that one may be Jewish and Polish, Jewish and German (as many of the initial Jewish victims of the Nazis thought they were), Jewish and American, etc. What I meant was, I had the impression from what Halibutt said previously that whatever religious identity he had centered on being Jewish; I certainly did not mean that he was somehow not Polish in an ethnic, cultural or political (nationality) sense.

BTW, and I know this may sound like a cliché, but my best friend, whose last name is Etlinger, is Jewish, though not religiously so. Also, my long-time doctor, whose last name is Schneider, in whom I have confided much of a personal nature, is Jewish.

Mazel tov.

Sca 16:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Günter Grass

You might be interested in my contribution to the Günter Grass discussion page, under the heading "Grass's admission."

Tot ziens.

Sca 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Historical_Eastern_Germany_and_so-called_Sudetenland.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Historical_Eastern_Germany_and_so-called_Sudetenland.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I have serious doubts about the copyright status of Image:Historical Eastern Germany and so-called Sudetenland.jpg. You claim in the image description that it was created in Nazi times. This is not true. There are post-1945 borders of Poland clearly marked in the image. Therefore it was most certainly created in Federal Republic of Germany and as such is still copyrighted. The fact of republishing it in the Soviet Union does not change the status of the image. I'm marking the image as a copyright infringement and removing it from Historical Eastern Germany. These steps are required by a Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Image use policy. Please do not take this personally. Tschüss! Friendly Neighbour 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smith2006, please read the notice on the image page. You are not allowed to remove the notice, neither to use the image in articles before its fate is decided.

Besides, who told you that re-publishing a copyrighted work in the Soviet Union cancels the original copyright? It's obviously not true. The image is still copyrighted in Germany and therefore also in the whole EU and in countries which recognize its copyrights (including the United States). Friendly Neighbour 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Hitler_correct_picture.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hitler_correct_picture.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards?

Persecution by Stalinists and Communists? Well first of all wrt to Tsarists, (let's take things one at a time) in 1795 following the last partition of Poland Russian Empire gained a lion's share of ethnically Ruthenian land. Immediately there were voiced from the Russian Orthodox Church to force their revertion to Orthodoxy. But Empress Cathrine II overruled the ROC Synod's attempts with a mandate on religious freedom. Only those out of free will that chose to revert did so. Moreover the social structure of those lands remained unchanged. Polish magnates still ruled the countryside. Russian presence was very limited, whilst cities were mostly populated by Jewish/Polish people as well. That continued until 1831 when the Poles launched the November Uprising. Because the Uniate synod supported it, after the Russian Imperial victory, those bishops were purged. As were the authorities of Polish magnates. Eight years later, the Uniate church at the synod of Polotsk terminated the Brest Unia.

Today Belarus remains overwhelmingly an Orthodox country. Austro-Hungary, you might add the massacre of Thalergof, when over a thousand Galician Ruthenians who refused to remain Uniate were slaughtered. Or how about the later second republic of Poland when thousands of Orthdox property in eastern Poland was confiscated and handed to Catholic authorities.

Now then, Soviets, I as someone whose family lived through the USSR times know of what it was like from the inside, and yes it was not a honeymoon, but it was not living hell. After the war, the uniate church, agreed to live peacefully with the communists, in return hardly any church property was confiscated, even Nikita Khrushchev during his visit to Western Ukraine, paid a visit to the head of the Uniate church. Yes there was a group in 1940s which called for compleate annexation of the Uniates into Orthodoxy, yes they did manage to convince the Soviet authorities to do so. BUT the ROC actually condemns the Synod of Lvov. Also even though the synod did make all the uniate church Orthodox, the overall structure was unaffected. If you remained a local cleric, you still were a local cleric. The Orthodox canons were also relaxed on those territories, allowing the clergy to shave beards for example or conduct liturgy in Ukrainian rather than Slavonic. Talk about purges and repressions, at times when the Orthodox communities in the USSR numbered just over a thousand, nearly half of those were in western Ukraine. In Lviv only ONE chuch was closed. Finally let I remind you that even though the ROC does condemn the Synod of Lvov, nevertheless for two generations it raised the Uniate clergy in its seminaries and academies.

Now then 1989, Rukh and the new Uniate people declare that all property held by UGCC in 1939 be returned promptly. What happens next? Violance, of extreme measure, when gangs used to break into the churches and beat (sometimes to death) Orthodox priests. Or how the newely elected "democratic" local government turned a blind eye on it. You want to talk about NPOV, then I suggest heavily you first drop all double standards. --Kuban Cossack 18:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ngo Dinh Thuc

Hi, I'll watch that article for a while. Thanks for the heads up. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Hitler Posing Official Colour Picture.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hitler Posing Official Colour Picture.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Kurlandfront.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kurlandfront.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss 21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Alfred_Rosenberg_Nazi_Propagandist_Antisemite.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alfred_Rosenberg_Nazi_Propagandist_Antisemite.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World war II images taken by german citizens

You should understand that german copyright protection is life of author + 70 years. It was 50 years for several years but with the EU copyright directive it was extendend to 70 years. This directive even reinstalled copyright protection if it was gone through further regulations. If you want/need these images use a fair use rationale. --Denniss 15:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Adolf Hitler 1938 Berghof.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Adolf Hitler 1938 Berghof.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mushroom (Talk) 00:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Kdf_Wagen_Hitler_Himmler_Wolfsschanze_Ostpreussen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kdf_Wagen_Hitler_Himmler_Wolfsschanze_Ostpreussen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Alois_Hudal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alois_Hudal.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Heinz Guderian official.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Heinz Guderian official.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Tridentine Mass

You were asked to provide citations in support of your sweeping statements about the situation existing two hundred years before Gregory the Great. Instead you deleted the requests for verification. This naturally led to deletion of your unsourced statements. Quote sources for them, and then put them back in. Lima 14:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start with any one of your statements. The first statement you were asked to provide a citation for was to the effect that many scholars deem musical scholar Richard Hoppin's analysis incomplete and partly incorrect. Please quote the words with which that judgement is expressed in a reliable source. Otherwise withdraw the statement. Are you implying that Father Adrian Fortescue said it in a 1912 book? Was Hoppin even born then? Lima 15:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning of origin for Image:Zeppelin Picture.jpg

Please see the talk page for Image:Zeppelin Picture.jpg and the recent edit history for the LZ 129 Hindenburg article, especially including remarks by User:Frankyboy5. -Wookipedian 19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pontifical Mass Archbishop.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pontifical Mass Archbishop.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The omitted "not" makes a difference

Thanks for your correction to the Emmanuel Milingo article. My edit of 19:58, 1 October 2006 changed the photo caption to say he was an archbishop rather than the previous caption which said he was a priest, and my previous edit had said he was a retired archbishop rather than an ex-archbishop. But in the edit summary I left out "not" and reversed the intent of my edit. I understand that Roman Catholic canon law says a sacrament cannot be revomed by excommunication, so if he ordains someone a priest or bishop, the ordination is effective, and all that the penalty of excommunication can do is prevent them from serving a parish or diocese, and similarly excommunicate anyone who receives sacraments from them. The Roman Catholic Pope was excommunicated by the eastern church in 1054, and his successors have gotten along nicely since then, and contrariwise for the eastern church. The Pope in the late 18th century claimed that Anglican bishop ordinations were not valid because some forms were omitted, but the Anglican bishops responded that the Popes predecessors had not usede those forms either, so that would make him not a bishop either. Edison 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to David Irving

Hi. I was interested in your edit [4] adding a NPOV query to the article. I couldn't see any evidence in the article's talk page reflecting this, so I reverted it. Apologies if I have missed something there, but I very strongly feel that any NPOV concerns should be addressed in talk first. Hope you agree. --Guinnog 00:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least Germans respect Slavic peoples

In you recent discussion with an anonymous editor at Talk:Historical Eastern Germany you wrote: At least Germans respect Slavic peoples, e.g. the Sorbians in the Oberlausitz. This respect is not mutual concerning the Nationalist Poles. You probably consider me to be one of the "nationalistic Poles", nevertheless I'd like to try to open your eyes to ethnic minority situations in Poland and Germany. According to 2002 census, there are about 150 thousand Germans in Poland. German minority in Poland has all the minority rights (language, newspapers, schools with 37 thousand students etc.), plus guaranteed seats in Polish parliament. On the other hand, there is over 320 thousand Polish minority in Germany (not including seasonal workers and Polish origin people, which would make it about 2 million). German government does not recognize any rights of Polish ethnic minority in Germany and does everything to assimilate them. As for the Sorbs, you might not know that they have tried to establish their own land of the Federal Republic in Lusatia, but this was suppressed by German government in 1990s. So much for your "mutual respect". --Lysy^talk 13:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You challenge the 150,000 figure of Germans in Poland. Yet this is the result of recent national census, while your 300,000 figure is just fiction not backed by any facts. You speak of Poles in Germany as "supposed Poles", which is already telling. You say that they hold German passports and therefore do not deserve their minority rights. Do you think that Germans in Poland do not have Polish passports ? As for Sorbs, they did not want a state separate from Germany, as you know Germany is a federal republic. They only wanted to have their state officially recognized within it, yet this was suppressed. Try to compare German policies towards minorities with e.g. Polish and you'll realize who is really backwards here. First, Germany denies official recognition to many minorities. Then even the officially recognized minorities have their minority rights limited and they are being gradually assimilated and Germanized. Have you heard of any guaranteed seats for Polish minority in Bundestag ? Or for any other ethnic minority ? Ask yourself why not. --Lysy^talk 07:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional minorities

All right, I'm not aware of any significant discrimination policies against the ethnic minorities in modern Poland. Sure this happened in the past, but today ? You wrote that Germans or Kashubians are being discriminated against. Do you have anything specific in mind, or are these just gossips ? As for Oppeln region (BTW: why don't you use the modern Opole name ?), there is both Opole County and Opole Voivodeship separate administrative units in Poland, so I'm not sure what do you mean. Poland is not a federal republic as I'm sure you know, so it does not have "Lands" as in Germany but "Voivodeships". Also what do you mean by "census being recognized by European Union" ? Is there any procedure for a census to be recognized that the Polish census failed ? I don't know how German education is being funded in Poland but I expect it is from public funds. Do you know of anything that proofs otherwise ? I agree with you that talking about the "Recovered Territories" today would be crazy, as it was mostly the political concept of the communist regime, but this belongs to the history. I am upset by all this Polish-German pushing and name changing on English wiki. I would prefer very much that instead of trying to prove that "we are better than you", both Poles and Germans would recognize their common heritage as something to be proud of. Especially that there were different waves of German colonization, and not all of them should be perceived as negative by Poles. Unfortunately all the clearer view is eclipsed by Nazism experience and later hatred that was only further developed and supported (without much difficulties of course) by the communist regime. --Lysy^talk 08:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, it seems we do agree on general issues but may disagree on details. We agree that most of the German colonization until 19th century was positive and often invited and promoted by the Poles themselves and was usually beneficial both for the Poles and Germans. We also agree that the later colonization was often aggressive and sometimes even criminal. Particularly the Nazi aggression and policies (too many to mention) resulted in mutual hatred. This was further increased by the expulsions of millions of Germans. Most of the people who were thrown out of their houses and humiliated, would remember this throughout their lifetime and pass this onto their children. This is so obvious that it may seem as the whole expulsions were designed by someone whose purposed was to further increase the enmity between Poles and Germans for the next many years. Obviously the Poles after the war felt frustrated and revengeful and these feelings could be very easily used for any political purposes. Also the border between Poland and Germany was not settled because Germany was so strong and in position to oppose it but only because the Soviets wanted this issue to remain open. This way Poland could be dependent on Soviet protection in the future ("if not for the protection of the Soviet Army in Poland, the ugly Germans would come again and eat you"). I think the Polish behaviour after WW2 could be easily understood and explained (but not justified) by the war trauma.

Now, what we do not agree on is the view on the modern situation. Bilingual government services for Poles in Germany are fiction as far as I know. "Poland refuses to offer anything to Germans" seems weasel talk to me. There are many things that Poland offered, e.g. the investment opportunities for German companies like Siemens A.G. Do you think that German companies invest in Poland because they love Poles so much ? No, they do it because there are offered better conditions. The attempt to use Donald Tusk father's Wehrmacht story against him was certainly tasteless, but we don't know who eventually got points for that. Actually many people voted for Tusk because of this. Also the same person (Jacek Kurski) who tried the trick in Tusk later demanded that Günter Grass honorary citizenship of Gdańsk is revoked because of his SS past. There was an opinion survey conducted on this and you might be surprised but the vast majority of Poles supported Grass, despite his hiding his SS service, and dismissed Kurski's idea. As for bilingual street names in Wrocław, why would you like to see that ? How about Adolf Hitler Strasse ? You ask who built Breslau. Why don't you think who destroyed it in 1945 and who rebuilt it later. The town was almost completely ruined by Germans and Soviets. I think Hala Ludowa was renamed along with the "Recovered Territories" ideology, but now the old name "Hala Stulecia" is being increasingly used[5]. Anyway, similar renaming is a rather normal practice not only in Poland. Germans changed the names of most of the towns and villages in Masuren to German already in 1930s. Also streets in Polish towns were immediately renamed whenever Germans entered there. Who named Łódź Litzmannstadt ? Or does Karl Marx Stadt ring a bell ? The same happened in Polish towns after WW2. The names of all the pre-war streets named e.g. after Piłsudski were changed and many streets were named after communist leaders. As for modern Germany policies, I still think that Poland has much more liberal policies towards its ethnic minorities than Germany. How many Polish language school are there in Germany per Polish person ? Compare this to over 300 German lecture language schools in Poland for 150,000 Germans. I know that you believe there are more Germans in Poland, and this is because you probably would like to count Silesians as Germans (while they usually do not feel Germans and did not declare themselves as such). As for Suwałki, I thought that it was claimed by Lithuanians rather than Germany ? A part of my family originates from Wielkopolska and they used to live there under German rule in the partition times. This makes me also able to somehow relate to the claims that there were no Poles in the territories east of Oder-Neisse. As for apologies, this already happened in 1965 when Polish Catholic bishops asked for German forgiveness. Under communist regime the Catholic Church was the only significant representation of the nation in Poland. This was of course immediately criticised by the regime. You can see the memorial (Image:Wroclaw-KardynalKominek.jpg), with the inscription "We forgive and we ask for forgiveness" in Wrocław. --Lysy^talk 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street names etc.

But Siemens could also have invested in the Czech Republic or Slovakia. And they did not invest in Lublin, but in Gleiwitz/Gliwice.

The best economic conditions for foreign investments are in Greater Poland, Masovia and Silesia. Lublin is not there. But face it, Siemens is only one of hundreds of similar investors. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. --Lysy^talk 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the pre-1933 names instituted in small font underneath the Polish names. So no AH-Strasse, but Ringstraße or Hauptstraße or Markstraße.

I agree that would be nice, but I'm afraid not possible in Wrocław for a number of reasons. I hope to see bilingual signs in the towns with significant German speaking minorities, though.

But you admit Breslau was built into the prosperous Medieval City it was by Germans, he?

Medieval City ? Germans ? You meant Czechs, I suppose ?

Litzmannstadt is a Nazi name for Lodz, not the German name.

So, are you among those, who believe that Germany was occupied by Nazis ?

The German name before 1939 was Lodsch, and that's how it's referred by still. Likewise the Masurian villages and their Rings of Expellees only use the pre-1938 names for their towns, not the Germanized ones 1938-1945. Note that. Of course all inhabitants at that time already were Germans, even those linguistically Slavic considered themselves Germans, which the ballot in 1920 decided for-good.

Yes, most Masurians identified themselves with Germany and many would probably enthusiastically confirm they were Germans (even if they were not in the ethnic sense). Masurian language was forbidden in public services already in 1939, but the names of about 50% of the towns in Masuria were changed to German names already in 1938. If Germany succeeded in WW2, probably the German names would be used till today. Germany, however lost, and the names of the towns are Polish. The Polish name-changing can be probably seen as a reaction to earlier German (or Nazi if you prefer) renaming paranoia.

The Sorbians have schools of their own. But the Poles in the Ruhr-area are often German Silesians of origin, otherwise they would not have been able to immigrate prior to 2004. They held German-passes for the German minority, that's the case, nothing else, even if Poland wants to consider them a Polish avant-garde.

Similarly members of German minority in Poland have Polish passes. Are you saying that they should be denied German schools in Poland because of this ? I'm not getting what do German or Polish passes have to do with education. As for the "German Silesians of origin", this was certainly often so, but many were Polish Silesians or from mixed marriages, that used their alleged German origin as an excuse to emigrate for economic reasons. Remember that otherwise they would not be allowed to settle in Germany. I'm not saying that everyone lied but the reality was not so black-and-white here.

While the Sorbians are a traditional minority, the Poles are not. If I as a Dutchman come to live in Lodz or Bialystok, I will have to learn Polish and send my children to a Polish school. I won't demand a Dutch school. There can be no comparison between the Sorbians and German Silesians and the one side, and that of Polish immigrants (often not even Polish historically) in the Ruhr-area. The Länder of Germany don't offer Turkish schools either. And justly so.

If there were 100 thousand Dutchmen in Lodz, I'm sure they would expect Dutch schools. The same for Poles or Turkish in Germany. I'm not sure why a "traditional" minority should be treated differently than the "modern" one.

In the provinces part of Germany in 1932, except for a small German-speaking originally Slavic minority in Masuria and a small Polish minority in Upper Silesia (coincidently in the Oppeln Bezirk), all of these provinces were 100 % German. I am not speaking about the German Empire (1871-1918)! In the Empire you had Kashubians, Polish (many, notably in the Province of Posen and around Katowice), French (Alsace-Lorraine) and a few Lithuanians (Memelland).

I like the "small German-speaking originally Slavic minority in Masuria" and "were 100% German". How did the remaining "German majority" get to Masuria then ? airborne ;-) ? No, until 19th century Masurians spoke Slavic language. In 1831 86% of them still spoke slavic language, then they were gradually Germanized. The same would happen to Poles if not for their national consciousness and resistance.

And mere forgiveness without regret and without contrition is useless. They would also allow and even accept and demand bilingual street signs in the pre-1937 German provinces (Pomerania, Danzig, Masuria, Silesia, except for Katowice). But they do not. Germans have bilingual street signs in all of the Oberlausitz! Even in towns where virtually no Sorbians live. Please take notice of that. But I am thankful towards the Roman Catholic Bishops of Poland for apologizing. But as we can see: there is no plaque written in German in Breslau, in Ostrow Tomski, where one can easily see all civilians' houses are German-built in modern, mid 20th century German style (sic!), even the church is totally in the style of those in the rest of Germany.

There are bilingual names e.g. in Kashubian areas in Poland. I hope they will also appear in German-minority areas (some already do, but still not in a mass-scale). I don't think there are many Germans in Wrocław however. I've recently stayed in a hotel there that seemed proud (sic!) that Adolf Hitler was a guest there (but also Marlene Dietrich). As for asking for forgiveness, doing this already acknowledges some guilt, would you agree ? Otherwise why would Poles ask for it ? Did Germans ask Poles for forgiveness or apologized for their crimes ? Or was it not Germans but again these mysterious Nazis who committed them ? --Lysy^talk 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Breslau was Bohemian, it was already firmly ethnically German in the Middle Ages, at least after 1280. Masuria was only partly Slavic ánd Lutheran. Look, Wloclawek was partly German too, and Bromberg was 90 % too, like was Torún.

So you're telling me now that the Bohemian Breslau was in fact German because of its ethnically German population. But at the same time you are saying that the German Warmia and Masuria were German, despite their ethnically Slavic population ? It seems like you're twisting it a bit the way it suits you better, nicht war ?

At least I am happy you agree with me on the bilingual issue in Opole.

Personally, as I said, I'd be happy to see old German names in Wrocław as well, and I would certainly be proud of Poland then, but I'm afraid this is not possible neither now nor in the foreseeable future. In Opole region, I expect this will happen soon, similarly to Kashubia.

As to schools: Turks don't have Turkish schools or language classes in Germany either, neither in Holland or in the USA. Modern immigrants will have to assimilate, but traditional minorities have rights, cultural rights. That's the way it is. If you don't like that, complain in Brussels. We can't have people educating children in a foreign language as a small minority. You know of course, that 6 million Turks live in Germany presently, or not? Far fewer Poles.

US and their approach to the minorities is a completely different issue, as they have a different understanding of a nation. As for cultural rights of minorities, I'm all for it and I don't know why you got the impression that I did not like it (ans should complain to Brussels). What I don't like is no proper recognition for the modern minorities, like the Turks that you mention. If there are no language schools for them in Germany or Holland, I will blame German or Dutch government for that. I believe this is because there is nobody to stand for them, otherwise they would have been respected as everyone else deserves to be. Anyway, I think you are totally wrong when you think that German minority in Poland is being oppressed. In some areas they actually enjoy more privileges than ethnic minorities in other countries. Of course nothing is perfect, but things change for the better. --Lysy^talk 19:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substitionary guilt complex?

Thanks for your recent additions to the Serge and Beate Klarsfeld page, which I've subsequently edited for English syntax and grammar. One question regarding wording: "...[Beate] suffered from a substitionary [sic] guilt complex..." As far as I know, this latter term is unknown; does it originate in a foreign language? For now, I've edited out the unfamiliar adjective substitionary. Please check this further as you see fit. -- Deborahjay 20:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(untitled comment)

Monsieur sans nom, preuve de lacheté, pourquoi certifié contre Mgr Roux des mensonges... Moi j'étais présent pas vous Mgr Roux est Evêque de Mgr P.M Thuc. Ph. Riu (posted by User 193.249.237.229 03:03, 10 October 2006)

French Resistance

Interesting additions to French Resistance. Do you by any chance have any information about some of the resistance groups? - Skysmith 10:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mgr Jean-Gérard ROUX

Pourquoi ne pas croire, je vous conseille de relire:

à la suite de Saint Paul « nous travaillons avec beaucoup de peines de nos propres mains ; on nous maudit, et nous bénissons ; on nous persécute, et nous le souffrons ; on nous dit des injures, et nous répondons par des prières ; nous sommes regardés comme l’ordure du monde, rejetés de tous. » Et Mgr Roux dit toujours en plus: "Mais HEUREUX car cela est à cause de mon Amour pour Dieu et pour sa plus grande gloire ainsi que de mon Amour pour l’Eglise, ma Mère." Les ingrats et médisants qui oubliant l’aide que nous leur avons apportée nous démontrent que nous sommes dans le vrai. Ceux qui proclament que je n’ai pas été sacré par Feu Mgr THUC je leur dis un grand merci, ils m’aident dans mon élévation vers Dieu, par le chemin de la patience, du pardon et de l’amour. Je prie pour eux, car sans le savoir( j’espère), il font l’œuvre du Diable

Image copyright problem with Image:Prelate_Father_Lemaitre_University.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Prelate_Father_Lemaitre_University.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Hitler Berghof Portrait von Eva Braun gefilmt.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hitler Berghof Portrait von Eva Braun gefilmt.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prague history reverts

Dear, Mr. Smith2006, I do apologize and I am sorry if my revert action at 15:08, 19 October 2006 of Prague article caused an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress or is considered to be personally targeted against you. While having good faith I just tried to make the article to be written with more neutral point of view. According to Talk:Prague many users are concerned that you may be giving too much prominence to a view that has indeed certain importance, but should be rather placed in articles such as Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Forgive me but your graphic, scaring and horrific descriptions are not very suitable for articles about general history of certain places. So replacing it by the link to "Expulsion" article should give enough justice to you and your cause. By the way I admire your great work at Wikipedia, especially your edits of history and religion articles. You are surely appreciated for your altruism in bringing deeper knowledge to wide public. Keep your work on and dont be afraid to discuss with us. Cheers! --Bluewind 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven cities

So do I, but:

the information was questioned in the main article, where a tag for citation was applied right next to them (note: it is not questioned by Romanians, it is just, from what I know, not clear whether the early references to the cities included that precise list or another)
consider if the detailed information does not in fact belong there (a style concern: if we keep moving info from the main article to the Transylvania one, the main article will end up being useless). Dahn 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I have the common sense not to tell you to shut up as well. Are we clear? Dahn 20:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Foxman

Please source your criticisms, or stop adding them, as per WP:BLP. This is a blocking offense. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another vandalism warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Francis Schuckardt, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Hans-Joachim Marseille.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hans-Joachim Marseille.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Northwest Africa

Hi Smith2006, sorry for reverting your contribution in that section. My reasons are: Unsufficient content: Its says not a lot about the history of the christianity in Northwest Africa. It does not show how christianity emerged there, and how the people approached it. Also it didn't say any thing about the contribution of the north africans.

The struggle between the Romans and the berbers was ignored.

I don't believe that the Moroccan christians suffers in morocco for their religion.

What you said about the some berbers converted to christianity during the colonization is doubtful.

If you insist you can re-revert it. Maybe, we will discuss it after some months. I left that section as last one, because i know it is difficult and i wanted to learn more before writing there about. Best regards; Read3r 14:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig von Mises

Could you offer any sources to substantiate your addition at Ludwig von Mises? DickClarkMises 20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Padre Pio kissing the sacred ring.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Padre Pio kissing the sacred ring.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thessaloniki (name dispute)

Hello Smith2006. I was wondering if you could help here. Crvst 22:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he's just going around requesting help from random people. r9tgokunks 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi Smith2006. I've noted that your edit summaries (Last warning. This is not a Muslim article. Criticism of Islamic influence is allowed., Next time I will inform the moderators and Readr3 may await blockation.) are not appropriate for usage inside Wikipedia. Please consider discussing freely at the article talk page and avoid threats. Happy New Year. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alfred Athanasius Seiwert Fleige Priest Bishop John Paul II.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alfred Athanasius Seiwert Fleige Priest Bishop John Paul II.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Alfred Rosenberg Nazi Propagandist Antisemite.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Alfred Rosenberg Nazi Propagandist Antisemite.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Necedah Shrine

I have removed one of your sentences from the article, plus another one that I felt is marketing. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. We need to discuss before re-inserting. Cheers! Royalbroil^T : C 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Robert Ley2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert Ley2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:HausserPaulSS.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HausserPaulSS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Peiper Jochen or Joachim.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Peiper Jochen or Joachim.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:JochemPeiper.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JochemPeiper.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Beware of personal attacks as you showed here [6]. If you will continue with personal attacks it will lead to your block from editing Wikipedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange what counts as personal attacks these days. I'd love to contact you but I can't. *wink* (str) 217.228.112.147 18:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:VW Käfer Um 1944 Ostpreußen.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:VW Käfer Um 1944 Ostpreußen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler_ueber_Deutschland_1932.jpg

Copyright has expired; image is over 67 years old and published before 1964 (subject died in 1945 Heinrich Hoffmann (Munich), 1932

Sorry to be an a**hole (im not a copyright nazi) but I think this image may be both mislabeled and copyrighted. This image appears on the front cover of Ian Kershaw's Hitler Vol.II Penguin 2000. On the back cover copyright is indicated to be retained by Walter Frentz/Ullstein Bilderdienst. The image is also indicated to be cira 1942-43. I left a note on the Talk Page for Hitler asking about its origins and Fair use/'Copyright Expired' defense used for some of the other images. 82.29.229.254 16:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame you didnt see fit to discuss answers to the questions I raised at Hitler. I believe, although im no expert, that you are uploading copyright violating images and will begin to tag them accordingly so experts can assess claims of Fair Use. Wikipedia has already been the recipient of legal threats over Frentz images.

== Images listed for deletion ==

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you. 82.29.229.254 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Image:Goebbels mit Hitler.jpg. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Image:Hitler Blondi Berghof.jpg, you will be blocked.

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Image:Hitler ueber Deutschland 1932.jpg, you will be blocked. 82.29.229.116 12:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views on masturbation

I reverted the changes you made because it is basically the opposite POV of the one stated there. Removing that POV and inserting your opposite view is not oppropriate. Also, the references that you gave are not good references. Opinion sites that don't offer any citations don't meet verifiability. Atom 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here with Atom, and we don't agree on a regular basis. :D You need to come up with better cites and re-craft the section somehow to include the information in a way that does not appear contradictory. CyberAnth 00:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a more liberal interpretation and replacing it with your more conservative interpretation is the issue. Your more conservative interpretation is allowe in the article, but you can't try to push that POV, only offer it as an alternbative POV in context with the other POV. Not everyone who is Catholic sees the issue the way you do, and overwriting their POV doesn't work. We have to find a way for you to express that there are a range of views, and the their view, and your view are within that spectrum. Atom 12:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've explained several times what the problem with your edits are. I don't appreciate you starting a fight and edit war over the issue when we could just discuss it. I've explained here, and at the article that removing another POV, and putting your own doesn't work. Also, the article already cites a solid reference with the viewpoint given. Trying to suggest that your POV is correct and anothr is not is precisely what is not allowed by the WIkipedia NPOV policy. If you want to talk about it, and how you can include your POV we can do that. In the mean time, I am trying to edit the article, and you are disrupting the article. I am not Catholic, and I could not care less whether either pespective is there personally, I would just like it to follow Wikipedia policiies. The biggest problem with your edit is that you add three pages of comments as part of the reference. The reference should be short and concise and point to citation, and nothing more. It is not a platform for expressing your opinion, it is only a citation. The article itself is where any content should go. That content has to be supported directly by the citation. Your comments are not directly from the citation.

If you could please discuss the issue, rather than disrupting the article, and my efforts to keep it a quality article, I would appreciate it. Atom 12:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss on the talk page, cpme to agreement, and then make appropriate edits. The Catholic church, with over a billion membes does not have one view. Age old rivalries between diffrent factions, such as jesuits and benedictines are well known. The article avoids all of this as directly references the catechism. You have added a reference to Persona Humana, which is fine. But, please quote it, rather than offering your own interpretation. As I have asked, please discuss first, and then we can work out eording that expresses your POV within Wikipedia policies.

I am very unhappy that you continue to disrupt the article. I have gone to great lengths to explain to you what needs to change, and been very cooperative in editing to keep your view while presenting it properly per Wikipedia policy. If you want to work this out, you need to discuss it civilly in talk pages. Calling me a vandal because I am following policy properly is not civil, and not acceptable. I am going to change the article again. First I am going to describe, again, what the issues are so that I am doing my part in trying to communicate. I would hope that you could discuss the issue rather than disrupting the article again. Please see the talk page of the article for my explanation of the issues/problems. Atom 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit [Here] you comment "Mr Masturbator Atomaton may not like some statements and that Christianity has primacy in our west, but that is irrelevant." First, I consider your comments to be uncivil. Please see WP:CIV. You have an opportunity to participate in a meangingful way, and you should do so. My apologies if you do not like the ordering of the religions. This has been discussed since before you began having an interest in the article. Your opinion is as valuable as any other on the matter. We asked for other people to participate with an RFC. I am of the opinion that ordering historically, since the article discusses historical views on the topic, makes more sense. Apparently you feel slighted that Christianity came after Judaism. I don't see what popularity of a religion has to do with how religions have historically viewed, or currently view the topic of masturbation. Also, although Christianity may be more predominant in the West, Wikipedia is Internet based. Given that, Christiantiy, with a little over a billion participants in a world with 6.5 Billion people is hardly predominant. It may very well be the most popular of the religions though. But, as I said, I am more interested in that historically many views on the topic developed from preceeding culture. In this case, Judaism and Taoism as well as Islam preceeded Christianity historically. Surely it seems apparent that some of the views of Christianity came from the religion it was derived from, Judaism? As the old testament is a sub-set of the hebrew bible that preceded Christianty by a few thousand years, and both of them, as well as Islam are Abrahamic religions it makes sense to me. Indeed, more information in the article about how those views developed would throughout history would improve the article. Atom 12:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Copyright Violations #1

You applied a FairUse rationale to the first image stating: "Rationale: Illustratory of the role of the Division in Western Pomerania, necessary. Probably not even copyrighted, but still unsure. Definitely not claimed by someone."

Setting aside your claim of FairUse on image 1 for the moment, you claim a PD-self on image 2. Did you actually create it yourself? Please confirm the copyright status of both images promptly. 82.29.229.116 14:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Copyright Violations now confirmed by author of axis101.bizland.com making the claims of ownership and claims of the image not being copyrighted blatant lies. Now listed as copyvios. 82.29.229.116 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI raised this problem at Copyright Problems board 82.29.229.116 20:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

Image:French uniform emblem.jpg

Thank you. 82.29.229.116 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 82.29.229.116 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Copyright Violations #2

Please respond on the talkpage of the article so you can explain the rationale and tags. 82.29.229.116 16:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Party

I have reverted your move and placed the article back at Nazi Party. Your move was in violation of clear consensus established at Talk:Nazi Party and in violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." You are welcome to try proposing a new move on the talk page, but I doubt there will be much support for that. In any case, please do not move the page again without consensus. — coelacan talk — 05:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs and Heinz Hürten

Please stop engaging in controversial edits without discussion on the page. Input was solicited on the talk page, but you did not join in the discussion. Please discuss the issues there to prevent edit warring. I reverted Gio's unilateral edits, and I will do the same with yours. Please come to the talk page and build consensus. The suicide claim was removed per WP:OR and strong opposition from all but one commenting editor. The Catholic Church claims had a mixed response, so I formed a compromise edit. If you strongly object to the edit, please discuss it instead trying to force your version of the text. Thank you. Be well! Vassyana 09:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dogans, RC's. & Catholics...

Hang in there, Smith! almost all of us Catholics are open minded,& nice in debate.

the "dogans" seem to have a lot of tiem on their hands to trash talk... cheers

Opuscalgary 23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Fair use rationale for Image:Josef Goebbels.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Josef Goebbels.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Hitler Rommel discussion Generals.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hitler Rommel discussion Generals.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —An gr 13:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German WWII images

Hi. I got a very long message on my talk page about your image uploads. There do seem to be some problems. We really need verifiable copyright holder information for any image republished here, and it doesn't look like we have it for these images. Further, the image description page for some of them seems to be suggesting that copyright has expired, which is a quite remarkable claim, given that they were only produced sixty years ago, ten years after their creator would have had to have died for copyright expiration in the United States or in Europe. Also, they seem to lack proper Wikipedia:Fair use rationales. I'd rather not delete them all without at least having a conversation with you about it, but I'm afraid that we cannot be lax about copyright issues. If you could respond and let me know if you are going to be able to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria with these images, or if I should begin deleting them, that would be helpful. Jkelly 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Thuc le frechou.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Thuc le frechou.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same counts for Image:Thuc celebrating Pontifical Mass 1982.jpeg and Image:Thuc Carmona Zamora.jpg. Garion96 (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass and edit warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-Andrew c 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid 64 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:AH_Raeder_Kriegsmarine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AH_Raeder_Kriegsmarine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Berlin_Reichskanzlei_Interieur.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Berlin_Reichskanzlei_Interieur.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Condor_Legion_Parade.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Condor_Legion_Parade.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Hans-Joachim_Marseille2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hans-Joachim_Marseille2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Heinrich_Himmler_Murderer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Heinrich_Himmler_Murderer.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Hitler_Berghof_Portrait_von_Eva_Braun_gefilmt.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hitler_Berghof_Portrait_von_Eva_Braun_gefilmt.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 18:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:John_XXIII_Sedia_Gestatoria.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John_XXIII_Sedia_Gestatoria.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 15:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Domobran Ustashe Regiment Waffen SS.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Domobran Ustashe Regiment Waffen SS.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits in Josemaría Escrivá

Hi Smith2006,
IMHO the main claim in your edit[9] in article Josemaría Escrivá isn't sourced according to our standards (WP:RS, WP:ATT). The first ref is a sort of private site (no impressum) and the second one is a blog. Additionally both seem to be partisan (traditionalist). Though your claim may be true, you need to attribute it to reliable sources. -- Túrelio 21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replacement of one of the unsuitable references. But ref 13 is still in place and, being a blog, is not acceptable here. The same is true for your conclusion about the image, it may be true, but it violates WP:NOR and should go. Also, in the following sentence, refs are completely missing. As you inserted that whole paragraph, you should provide the refs. In order to be more balanced, IMHO it might also be added that - according to my knowledge - Paul VI. gave older priests the permission to celebrate the mass in the old rite, though currently I have no reference for that. -- Túrelio 09:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal theology

Liberalism is non-propositional and by definition broadminded and frank. A person may come to a conclusion using a liberal methodology, but their conclusion is not Liberal only method they used. Individual conclusion can be questioned as not being broadminded.

Point two this is not an article on modernism in the Catholic Church. Please try and affect the POV of that article (that way some other editor’s can deal with your agenda).--Riferimento 16:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been defending this article for sometime against hateful Fundamentalist like yourself and fools who believe they can speak for the entire Church—I will no longer bother. You and fools can try and recreate reality.--Riferimento 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Escriva at Mass 1971.JPG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Escriva at Mass 1971.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LSAH.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LSAH.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale 2

A tag has been placed on Image:Oude Roomse Kerk.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No Fair Use. The rationale given is not valid, as 1946 certainly means that there is still copyright. Further there should be sufficient images from the same category which are older and in PD.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:Oude Roomse Kerk.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. effeietsanders 09:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale 3

A tag has been placed on Image:Pontifical Mass Archbishop.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Fair Use rationale is not valid. The correct form of celebrating can perfectly be illustrated with a PD image or by a schematic picture. That the image "might be totally public too and might be not at all copyrighted" is not valid either, as contact should be searched in that case with the author.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:Pontifical Mass Archbishop.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. effeietsanders 09:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pontifical_Mass_Archbishop.jpg

I have tagged Image:Pontifical_Mass_Archbishop.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. But|seriously|folks 06:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Archbishop_Marcel_Lefebvre_FairUse.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Archbishop_Marcel_Lefebvre_FairUse.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 00:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Oude_Roomse_Kerk.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Oude_Roomse_Kerk.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. But|seriously|folks 06:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pius XII

Hi! I noticed that you were upload this photo to English Wikipedia. Can you, please, upload that same photo to Wikimedia Commons, so all Wikipedias can use that photo. -- User Green Bonsai from Finnish Wikipedia.

== Image:Escriva at Mass.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Escriva at Mass.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Polarlys 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Polarlys 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC) ==[reply]

Image:Escriva at Mass.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Escriva at Mass.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Polarlys 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Polarlys 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ngo Dinh Thuc Zamora Carmona Rivera Excommunicated Bishops 1981.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ngo Dinh Thuc Zamora Carmona Rivera Excommunicated Bishops 1981.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Confession picture.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Confession picture.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —An gr 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Confession picture.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Confession picture.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Endsieg Poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Endsieg Poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Holy Orders Picture.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Holy Orders Picture.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:John XXIII Sedia Gestatoria.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:John XXIII Sedia Gestatoria.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bishop sanborn ordination.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Bishop sanborn ordination.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Holy Orders Picture.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Holy Orders Picture.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rudolf Heß.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rudolf Heß.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Holy Orders Picture.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Holy Orders Picture.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fr Ratzinger Introibo ad altare Dei.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fr Ratzinger Introibo ad altare Dei.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mass Rome Church Santa Trinità dei Monti.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mass Rome Church Santa Trinità dei Monti.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bisig beim Papst.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bisig beim Papst.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LSAH.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LSAH.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Old Catholic Priestess.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Old Catholic Priestess.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Old Catholic Priestess.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Old Catholic Priestess.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:World Exposition 1937 Paris German Pavillon National Socialiste.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:World Exposition 1937 Paris German Pavillon National Socialiste.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Please keep in mind WP:V and WP:ATT. When you add new content to articles, please also supply a source so that readers can verify that information. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:World Exposition 1937 Paris German Pavillon National Socialiste.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:World Exposition 1937 Paris German Pavillon National Socialiste.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wehrmacht Action Eastern Front.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wehrmacht Action Eastern Front.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sudetendeutsche kratzau bohemia.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sudetendeutsche kratzau bohemia.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mgr. Williamson.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mgr. Williamson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hitlerjugend in Colour.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hitlerjugend in Colour.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citation tags

Please do not remove requests for verification or citations without supplying the requested source.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

Thanks, its tough. You may want to help out on the Roman Catholic Church article going through FAC right now. It's so large that I'm only able to work on bits and pieces of it at a time, but it needs alot of work. If you have any source material about history, etc, you might want to get on board.--Mike Searson (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coughlin

Please stop reverting without discussing. Your position has no support among editors or outside sources. It is becoming disruptive and if you continue you may be sanctioned. Please seek consensus for verifiable and neutral material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop making disputed edits without seeking consensus. As for the letter, if it's verifiable then it belongs in Wikisource, not in the article itself. I'll post an RFC about the antisemitism category. You've never given any source for your insertion of "early". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Albert Forster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Albert Forster.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bisdinn.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Bisdinn.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilkes Booth

Hi, I do not find Booth's church affiliation or baptism mentioned in the cited reference, Geringer's John Wilkes Booth: A Brutus of His Age. As another editor has said on the article's Talk page, we really need to have a reliable source for the article to state his religious affiliation (if any). Do you have a reliable source to cite for this information? Without one, I've deleted this information pending a reliable source and you're invited to join the discussion here. JGHowes ^talk - 11:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klose

Hi Smith2006. Could you provide reference for Klose's self-identification as a German? Did he say it in an interview cited? And could you provide references for the Barbara Jesch name? Could you provide reference for his parents being subject to Polonization? BTW I lived in Opole, it is not a bilingual city by no means. I do not want to start an edit war, but unsourced information will be deleted. Tymek (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Please provide a source in which he said he considers himself a German. Where did you get info about Jesch last name? How do you know his mother is German? Sources please. The city of Opole is not bilingual, I lived there for 5 years. Some villages around it are, but not the city itself. Living in Poland, you are raised in Polish culture, no matter if you like it or not, same about living in Germany, France or USA. I do not care if you like Poland or not, I care about facts and sources. A few days ago in an interview to Przeglad Sportowy, Klose said he does not consider himself a German or a Pole, he is European ([10], translation upon request). Please refrain from comments your edits are unwanted and please provide sources, otherwise information will be deleted. Thank you, and please keep speculations about nationalism among Poles to yoursef. It is not helpful. Tymek (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV warning

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erwin Rösener. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

Smith2006, you may be unaware of this, but when adding tags to articles it is customary to explain at the article's talk page what you see the problem as being. See Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Constructive_tagging. I asked you to do this at each of the articles you tagged more than 24 hours ago. It would be much appreciated if you would be kind enough to set out why you feel the tags are appropriate. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women priests and bishops

Whatever your personal views, standard pratice within Anglicanism is to refer to all priests and bishops, whether male or female, as such. Priestess and Bishopess are not used. David Underdown (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There's no such word as "bishopess" in English, and "priestess" is not used in the context of Christianity. —An gr 11:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Heilige_mis_voetgebeden.jpg

I just wanted to let you know that I find this image to be completely awe-inspiring, and I hope you upload more images like this from the "family collection". There's something about this image that makes it unique and striking. Mnpeter (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hi Smith I'm User:Sanfy, firstly thanking you for contribution to the Goan Catholics article and may the joy and peace of Christmas be with you, all through the year.. Wishing u n yr family season of blessing from heaven above. Merry Christmas Smith2006.Sanfy ^Talk

Marcel Lefebvre

I think that this article can be promoted to FA status. But with some more pictures and infobox in beggining of article.---Vojvodae ist 17:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Mgr._Williamson.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Mgr._Williamson.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Cassock_priest_french_african.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Cassock_priest_french_african.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rheinwiesenlager. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring and POV pushing on Rheinwiesenlager. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ruslik (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazareth edits

Hey Smith2006. While you are welcome to improve the article on Nazareth, some of your recent edits have come into question by another user. Apparently, your additions to the article run contrary to the sources used. Your edits could be true and their presence could be worthy, but you must have a source to back them and placed in a citation. If revert wars and this possible vandalism continue, I will be forced to block you for a period of time. I see you have been blocked before for similar reasons, so if imposed, the block could be quite lengthy. Feel free to re-add the text, but make sure there is a source to back it. Cheers and happy editing! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

friendly reminder...

Please don't forget to provide edit summaries. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POINT & BLP

Please see WP:POINT. It is a violation to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Considering your past editing of Charles Coughlin, your edits to Lyndon LaRouche appear to be just such an activity. Please note that WP:BLP applies to Lyndon LaRouche and if you continue to restore the categories without proper sourcing then you are also violating that policy. Will Beback talk 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Freedman

I do not equate -- nor have I ever equated -- Jewish anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I happen to be a Jew opposed to Zionism myself. Benjamin Freedman, your anti-communist, anti-Zionist hero, certainly was an antisemite (and a converted Catholic) -- as I pointed out in my edit history comment. Please refrain from posting any more such inanities on my personal talk page, as I will not respond to any more of your straw men. I'd kindly appreciate it if you stuck to editing the Nazi pages in your area of expertise, because your expert POV changing here has sadly gotten all-too-obvious. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV Pushing;

Personal opinion sections of newspapers are not historical documents. The personal opinion sections of newspapers are not factual, and only reflects the opinion of that individual. Personal opinions are not even the newspaper sectioned sections. The source you are pushing, and claiming that it is a verifiable source, is not a credible for such a claim. You need third party source. A third party source has nothing to gain or loose with claims (a referee). These are clearly defined under Wikipedia:Verifiability. The claim you are pushing is a POV. It is not historical fact. You need to find more than one (lets say three) credible, such as refereed journal, who verified this POV and reached the conclusion that it is factual. You POV is not published in major works regarding Ataturk. As long as you con not establish the factual of your claims, it is pushing false information into Wikipedia. --Rateslines (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please present a third party source to resolve this issue. If this is a factual claim, it would have been repeated in major sources. I will ask an administrator to deal with this issue as Wikipedia rules demands: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" you are performing an sneaky vandalism by pushing non factual information. Wikipedia rule clearly states: "expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" (rumor and personal) are vandalism --Rateslines (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

I think you should be aware that your comments about "Polish nationaists" are extremly uncivil; this is against our policies - please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Smith2006. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beware

Please be very careful as you have been placed under edit restrictions, unlike your opponents. Any admin can block you now without much further ado, and there are admins who have proven to be very willing to apply blocks. And there are users who try to take advantage of this, often succeeding. Yes, that is how Wikipedia "works", at least for now. -- Matthead Discuß 10:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AE again

Since you persist in, and have in fact increased, the level of incivility and personal attacks I am bringing up this matter to the AE board again.radek (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby topic-banned from all Eastern Europe-related subjects for six months. The ban extends to all Wikipedia pages, including talk and other discussion pages, and especially to the subject of Polish/German identity. For the rationale for this ban, see this AR report. Sandstein 18:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the Eastern Europe topic ban imposed above with all of your edits made since the imposition of the ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 17:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have gone right back to violating your topic ban after the block expired, you are now blocked for 72 hours. Sandstein 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you continue to violate your topic ban, I have blocked you up to the time the ban expires (2 December 2009). To be unblocked, you may make an unblock request (see WP:GAB) in order to convince me or another administrator reviewing the request that you understand your topic ban and will observe it henceforth. Sandstein 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Smith2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As the moderators demand it from me, I will briefly ask for the reason I was blocked, and promise to abide by any topic bans by the moderators. I never assumed bad faith in the moderators, but I have assumed rash judgement by certain Polish contributors in the Dr. Johann Dzierzon from Upper Silesia article. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. I kindly request you to unblock me, promising to abide by the decision of the moderators. But I would like the reason for blocking me or the claim of vandalism repeatedly leveled at me..Smith2006 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but asking why you were blocked is a very clear indication you don't understand why you were blocked. This is explained very clearly in the section just before this: you are topic banned from all Eastern Europe articles, talk pages, and related areas, particularly those relating to Polish and German identity, for a period of six months. This means that for six months, you are not to edit those areas. You did, therefore are blocked. Assumptions of bad faith may have entered into it (I haven't looked in detail), but the main purpose for the block was violation of the ban terms. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request to unblock; reasons

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Smith2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There exist, apart from certain Polish nationalists' opinions, no reason to block me. I never disrupted articles, I always enhanced them. I touched upon historically controversial topics, but insisting on a more differentiated and less Polish-chauvinist view in an article - even alongside the Polish chauvinist opinions and allegations - is not POV. I never engaged in real edit wars, as the true fact remains, that my edits were reverted by certain Polish chauvinists especially prominent in the Jan Dzierzon discussion. They tried to silence me on numerous topics, like the history of Silesia, the history of Germany, the Expulsion of Germans after World War II, and complex historical issues. Censorship and blocking requests by an organized gang of Polish nationalist participants against a solitarily operating Dutch person, do not enhance Wikipedia's quality. Thanks for your attention.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM -- Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Before we consider an unblock, if we do, we need to ask if you understood that you were topic-banned, if you understand that you are still topic-banned, and if you propose to abide by the terms of this ban henceforth. Your unblock request does nor address these questions. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Smith2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I also appeal to the topic ban, which I find unreasonable. I am willing to abide by it. It is however a form of conspirative censorship by Polish chauvinist contributors, who desire to silence critical academic voices. I am willing to abide by the terms of this ban, but to force me not to edit all Eastern European topics, is disproportional totally. This entire discussion should not be necessary. I invite all to review my latest edits to see how they were references, proven, and polite. I will abide by the terms of this ban, but I also appeal the topic ban itself. I was not given a fair chance. It is just: block things. This entire discussion is a loss of time which could be better spent.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM would seem to apply again. You have one more chance to appeal your block in neutral language that shows that you understand the reasons for blocking. After that, your talk page will be locked to prevent further use of this template. ➲ redvers ^{Buy war bonds} 10:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

GA Reassessment of Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Altkatholische Kirche Gablonz Jablonec.jpg

File:Altkatholische Kirche Gablonz Jablonec.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Altkatholische Kirche Gablonz Jablonec.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Altkatholische Kirche Gablonz Jablonec.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bund on Wikipedia" Project

Are you interested in participating in "The Bund on Wikipedia" Project? If you are, please visit the Task Force. For more information, visit bundwiki.weebly.com. Thanks. Eliscoming1234 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Ordination rifan.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Ordination rifan.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Hitler Blondi Berghof.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hitler Blondi Berghof.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MisterWiki talk contribs 22:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted licensing on image File:Alois Hudal.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:German Empire, Wilhelminian.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:German Empire, Wilhelminian.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Alfred Seiwert-Fleige

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alfred Seiwert-Fleige. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Seiwert-Fleige. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Archbishop Gerardus Gul, Jansenist Old Catholic Bishop of Utrecht.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Archbishop Gerardus Gul, Jansenist Old Catholic Bishop of Utrecht.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Alfred Seiwert-Fleige

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alfred Seiwert-Fleige. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Seiwert-Fleige (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pio of Pietrelcina

Hi! I have translated the article Pio of Pietrelcina into polish and placed it in Polish Wikipedia as: “Pio z Pietrelciny”. I also placed there your picture: File:Padre Pio during Mass.jpg, but it did not display. I do not know why it happened. I also placed it as Plik:File:Padre Pio during Mass.jpg (file in polish is plik in Wikipedia) but it also did not display. I had to download it from the article Pio of Pietrelcina, from the file window and place it once again on Wikimedia Commons. I wrote all your purposes why you placed your file on Wikipedia. Unfortunately one of the users deleted it from Wikimedia Commons. I am begging you for help me, because this file is very important in this article. Can you tell me why your file did not display in my article? What did I do wrong? Do I need your permission to do this? If yes, can you give it to me? If this is not possible please help me to place this picture once again on Wikimedia Commons. Princess Angel2 (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Betriebssportgruppe.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Betriebssportgruppe.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Charlemagne Division SOldiers.jpgThank you for uploading File:Charlemagne Division SOldiers.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Neutral notificationAs somebody who has taken part in the previous discussions on this topic, you may be interested in the current move discussion here. Varsovian (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]heyI filed an SPI regarding you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matthead. RadekFair use rationale for File:Freiheit-fuer-Schlesien.jpgThanks for uploading or contributing to File:Freiheit-fuer-Schlesien.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Image:Pledge salue.jpg info requestHi. I notice you added Image:Pledge salue.jpg to the Bellamy salute page with the caption "Children performing the Bellamy salute to the flag of the United States, Hawaii, March 1941." Yet both the Wikimedia image description and the linked source website provide no information as to when and where the photograph was taken. This suggests you have additional information about this photo not from either of those pages? Could you provide a source, please? Thanks! Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Fair use rationale for File:Thuc with journalists.gifThanks for uploading or contributing to File:Thuc with journalists.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Disputed non-free use rationale for File:John XXIII Sedia Gestatoria.jpgThank you for uploading File:John XXIII Sedia Gestatoria.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Replaceable fair use File:Fellay.jpgThanks for uploading File:Fellay.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]Orphaned non-free image File:Fellay.jpg⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fellay.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]May 2011Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Savonarola - Erasmus connectionHello Smith2006, to my understanding, you are the author of the 12:57, 22 August 2007 revision of Girolamo Savonarola. You write there that "Erasmus, who refused to become a protestant is said to have remained Catholic due to the lecture of Savonarola." As a History student, I searched and couldn't find an evidence, or citation, for this connection. Can you please clarify, or direct me to your sources? Thank you, David Reisdvd (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Non-free rationale for File:Marine Hitler.jpgThanks for uploading or contributing to File:Marine Hitler.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]File permission problem with File:Bisdinn.jpgThanks for uploading File:Bisdinn.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please eithermake a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]August 2011Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]NoticeI reported your behaviour [11] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Some editors have proposed that you be blocked for one year from editing Wikipedia, for ignoring the advice about nationalist editing which was previously given to you. I notice you've been continuing to edit but haven't responded to the complaint. Please take some time to look at the issues at WP:AE#Smith2006. You may add your own response there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]WP:Battleground editing on Eastern European topicsTo enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Per a complaint at Arbitration Enforcement, under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN.

You are also banned indefinitely from editing on the subject of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, from both articles and talk pages. If you will respond to this notice and agree to modify your future behavior, both of these sanctions can be discussed or modified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,239: / Line 1,239: @@
 --[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 10:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 :Some editors have proposed that you be blocked for one year from editing Wikipedia, for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASmith2006&diff=293489928&oldid=293475275 ignoring the advice about nationalist editing] which was previously given to you. I notice you've been continuing to edit but haven't responded to the complaint. Please take some time to look at the issues at [[WP:AE#Smith2006]]. You may add your own response there if you wish. Thank you, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 13:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
+== [[WP:Battleground]] editing on Eastern European topics ==
+<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] To enforce an [[WP:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision, you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 year'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks]] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.  <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=349940199#Motions_regarding_Trusilver_and_Arbitration_Enforcement March 2010 decision]</span>, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|proper page]]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=446427320&oldid=446424381 a complaint at Arbitration Enforcement], under the authority of [[WP:DIGWUREN]].
+You are also banned indefinitely from editing on the subject of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, from both articles and talk pages. If you will respond to this notice and agree to modify your future behavior,  both of these sanctions can be discussed or modified. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)