User talk:Wyss/a6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Was sollte einen Europäer von einem Amerikaner unterscheiden

Mit Sicherheit ist Joshua Gardner kein guter Junge. Er hat ein Verbrechen gegen ein Mädchen begangen und er ist ein Hochstabler. Dafür soll er büßen und er muss in psychatrische Behandlung.

Mit Sicherheit gehört dieser Name nicht in einen Enzyklopädie noch in die Weltpresse. Die Beteiligung an der Publizierung ist ebenfalls ein Verbrechen. Joshua Gardner wird so bei erfolgreicher Behandlung der Weg zur Resozialisierung verbaut. Die Chance, dass er in Zukunft ein Mädchen umbringt steigt. An einem solchen Mord würdest Du dann eine große Mitschuld tragen. Ein Amerikaner kann es nicht, aber eine Europäerin muss es wissen. user:84.154.181.115

Codswallop. Herr Gardner ist verantwortlich für seine Tätigkeiten. Wyss 16:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Kommt darauf an, ob er gesund ist. Ist er psychisch krank, dann ist er schuldunfähig. D.h., er gehört so lange in eine geschlossene Abteilung, bis zweifelsfrei feststeht, dass er keine Gefahr mehr für seine Mitmenschen darstellt. Doch nicht nur solche Täter sind eine Gefahr, sondern auch jene, die unüberlegt publizieren. Du machst einen Verbrecher berühmt. Das ist auch ein krimineller Akt gegenüber der Gesellschaft. Dafür trägst Du die Verantwortung. user:84.154.181.115
Herr Gardner ist bereits berühmt. Eine Enzyklopädie notiert berühmte Verbrechen. Wyss 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I reverted this edit to Joshua Gardner by above user:84.154.181.115 as straight vandalism. Wyss 23:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistress

What's wrong with using this word? --Haham hanuka 17:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I explained it in the edit summary. The term is fully obsolete and as a result potentially biased and therefore misleading. Furthermore Hitler was unmarried during most of their relationship (mistress implies adultery) and did finally marry. Finally, forgive me for bringing this up, you have a long history of spinning these articles in subtle, PoV and even bizarre ways. Why, if I may ask, is the use of this term so important to you? (Note, AH is one of the most widely documented mass murderers in history, there is a need to provide readers with the tools to identify the next charismatic sociopath who comes along). Wyss 17:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
If Hitler is a mass murderer then almost every president of the USA is a mass murderer too. --Haham hanuka 18:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a sophomoric remark, never mind it's not relevant to the use of the term mistress in the article. Given your past edit history on these articles, what are you doing here, anyway? Wyss 18:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain userself? And don't get me wrong, I think that Hitler was an evil man but I also think that most of the word's leaders are evil too. --Haham hanuka 18:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether they are or not is irrelevant to the use of the obsolete and potentially misleading term mistress in Eva Braun. You don't seem interested in scholarship or objective writing, so why do you care? Wyss 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Why does the term mistress is misleading?
Mistress: A woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with a usually married man who is not her husband and from whom she generally receives material support. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language --Haham hanuka 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
As I already noted, Hitler was not married during his relationship with Braun so the term is not appropriate and likely to mislead, for example with an implied moral judgement which in this aspect of his private life would seem to be unjustified. If anything, common law wife would be more appropriate, but this is an Anglo-Saxon term which itself would be misleading in a German context. So how many times must we go around in circles on this? I gave the same reason, albeit briefly so, in the edit summary. Wyss 19:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! My first day back and look at all this! Now I remember why I left! Wyss 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's been too long

Welcome back, Wyss! I'm just one of the wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls who has sorely missed you. I'm hard up against various (utterly WP irrelevant) deadlines, but I look forward to working with you a little later in kicking against the pricks. -- Hoary 00:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh. Meed words, Hoary :) Wyss 00:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back! Was just thinking of you during a recent attempt (only partially successful) to rid the 'pedia of some minor crankery. Happy editing, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks MarkSweep!! Back only a few hours and I've already had a couple come to me! (Not you, Jmk56) Wyss 02:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
We now have solid evidence supporting the ferromagnetic theory of crankery. You're a crank magnet! ;-) --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've learned from them, though. When you at last get past all their anger, frustration and unarticulated emotions ranging from longing to rage, they're... cranks! Wyss 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jmk56

Jnk56 has now been blocked indefinitely from making those legal threats against you. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Wyss 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jnk56 posted a long rant to the Help Desk mailing list about his ill treatment, but I don't know if anybody responded to him. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I could tell he had done something like that by the threats he was making. He wants the article to himself, is all. I'm staying away and staying out of it until you guys have figured out what's really going on with him (and all the socks and anon IPs that popped up right after he got blocked). Wyss 20:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

My profuse apologies for having blocked you, I obviously meant to get the imposter but obviously didn't check the address at was in the address bar. Very sorry. --Alf melmac 23:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC) PS next time I see one in the creation log I will off it immediately before it gets a chance to copy your page. --Alf melmac 23:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Wyss 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How can you block someone, who can create always new IPs? ... added at 11:17, 21 January 2006 by 80.237.152.53 (an editor of Frances Farmer)
Ever heard of a game called whack the mole? (Dumb game btw and the inefficiencies of Wikipedia are well known but it's a rather helpful encyclopedia even with trolls like you slithering about) Wyss 18:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Trolls don't slither - they lurk and slope.--shtove 20:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] loca

eres todos los días en red - pobrecita! debes ir en el departamento de siquiatría.

Usted habla de se, mio poco locatito. Salga! Ahora! Wyss 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistress2

According to Encyclopedia Britannica [1] and according to The Columbia Encyclopedia [2] Eva Braun was mistress of Adolf Hitler. --Haham hanuka 12:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Most sources on Braun haven't been revised since the end of the 1939-45 war. English has changed somewhat since then, as wonted. Wyss 18:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You should admit you was wrong, everybody makes mistakes sometimes, even Swiss girls. --Haham hanuka 19:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
When you learn to conjugate verbs in English perhaps we can discuss word usage some more. In the meantime, might I suggest you take some "English as a second language" courses to brush up? Wyss 19:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I know my English is not the best but at list I write correct English in the articles on Wikipedia. By the way one of the reasons I write on wiki is to improve my English. --Haham hanuka 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That's meed! :) Wyss 20:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] commiserations

poor you, I thought I had met the wiki weirdos, but the Farmer story and some other things on your talkpage here are strong stuff... just remember to enjoy the trolls while you're in the mood for trolls, and take a break with some uncontroversial remote corners of Wikipedia before they ruin your day :) dab (ᛏ) 17:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dab, thanks... and back only three days, too and yes, your thoughts are spot on like mine. Cool. :) Wyss 18:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frances Farmer

User:Splash unprotected it. I guess when it becomes a war again, you'll have to discuss it with him. It would have been nice if he had discussed it with me, but that seems beyond him. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying :) I left a note on User:Splash's talk page. Wyss 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

At the time Zoe protected, the anon had not edited for some hours at the very least. Her protection comment also referred to an edit war, and from looking at the diffs, they certainly didn't appear to be simple vandalism — the only thing that WP:SEMI is for. If it's an editorial dispute (in good faith) at all, then it needs a full protect, thus my unprotecting comment. I haven't looked into the article in detail, but, since there's been no problems since I unprotected and there was none present at the time of protection, I'm inclined to leave it be for the moment. If sockism breaks out again, a quick note on WP:RfP should fix it. Do note though, that an indef admin block is not the same as a ban, and good edits made by such a sock are probably not revertible on-sight. -Splashtalk 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that saying a blocked user can come back as a sock is a valid interpretation of WP policy under any circumstance, however, since the sock calmed down the need for sprotection right now is minimal. Also, please note that Zoe did think the sprotect was appropriate. No need to go on about it though and it's ok if we have different views on this. Thanks for replying! :) Wyss 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus 3RR on AH resolved

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. -- Tom Harrison Talk 02:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3rr. Wyss 02:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied that you did, repeatedly inserting the words "and political skill" over the objections of several other editors: 5 4 3 2 1 Tom Harrison Talk 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The last two edits consist of reversions of vandalism and of user:Raul654's unauthorized reversion to a previous version, respectively. Neither can be applied to 3rr. Moreover, your characterisation that I was reverting "over the objections of several other editors" is grossly untrue and unfair. One editor was a vandal, the other was an uninvolved editor whose edit had nothing whatsoever to do with the phrase you've singled out and the only other editor was user:Simonides who was, as it happens, blocked earlier for 3rr. I would appreciate it if you would examine these diffs more carefully and fix your mistake, which I'm sure was based on good intentions, thanks. Wyss 02:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your block has been reinstated by Nlu. --TML1988 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Have fun :) Wyss 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Anyway, I have no notion why any reader would care but if anyone did, the diffs listed above starkly show I didn't violate 3rr.
  • The sequence is muddied by user:Raul654's unauthorized meddling, which he quickly retracted, though without admitting his admin-level botch. The subsequent wanking back and forth by three other admins, none of whom showed any awareness of why the edit sequence happened as it did, is telling enough.
  • The editor who reported this had been blocked the day before for 3rr: He had been warned in advance but last night, since he was clearly more interested in revenge than cooperation or understanding, made no effort to warn this editor, nor did any admin.
  • We all know the good stuff about Wikipedia but this is another example of how a broken admin system populated by so many gullible adolescents and lazy roleplayers wontedly enables wankers, fiddlers fools and trolls.
  • Wikipedia is a helpful encyclopedia but deep inside, it still works as a docking online roleplaying game. When I slip and forget that I do feel like a bumpkin when these wankers rain down on me in the glee of having found something other to do than editing an article, which takes real work and thought.
  • This is my problem of course. Some people instinctively grok the roleplaying. But not me :) I'm prone to forgetting that those admins eager to jump in and "help" aren't the ones writing articles, but tend to be the sort of roleplayers who could care less about (or are unable to understand) scholarship, edit sequences, written policy and all that other stuff. Maybe I'm learning though. Hope so. We'll see. Wyss 18:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to listen to why you think you didn't violate the 3RR. I am not willing at all to tolerate any personnal attacks, against me or anyone else. Who do you mean to characterise as a "gullible adolescent," a "lazy roleplayer," a "fiddlers fool," or a "troll?" Tom Harrison Talk 19:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • You never answered the email I sent you. You didn't seem too willing to listen at the time.
  • In over a year of editing WP, with over 12,000 edits, I'd never been blocked for 3rr. The only block I'd ever endured was 5 minutes from Uncle Ed (who has since been de-sysopped) for what he thought were "bad manners" in an edit summary.
A lot of people with a lot more history/edits who contribute substantial edits get blocked too. -- Simonides 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, so do people with a lot fewer edits, like you, but I was talking about me. Wyss 01:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've explained what happened above. user:Raul654's post-protect revert wasn't authorized by WP policy and moreover, a habitual vandal struck. I wasn't warned (unlike user:Simonides who was warned, then blocked for 3rr the night before). So Simonides saw a chance for revenge and campaigned rather hard to get me blocked for 3rr last night and through the convoluted edit history (and "taboo" nature of the AH article I might add) with no fair warning, I got rained on.
Please don't insert your version of the facts about some other editor to justify yourself. It's very unseemly. Not to mention that nowhere on Wikipedia did I complain to an admin that you and BlueGoose "gamed" the 3RR so that I would violate it, after you promised not to make reverts to the page (and then broke your promise); gaming the 3RR is potentially blockable itself. -- Simonides 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, the admin mentioned that you had complained about this. Wyss 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've looked over your contribution history. I don't think you're any of the things I mentioned above. If I did, I would tell you now (I started this message assuming I'd have to, since you asked). I do think you might have been "too quick to act" but AH is a high traffic, sensitive, regularly disputed and vandalized article. Anyway,
1) There's no evidence you took the time to understand the context of, or my reaction to, user:Raul654's unauthorized revert, or to the vandal.
2) You didn't warn me (I'm rather cooperative when approached politely and according to WP policy).
3) You didn't respond to my email.
4) user:Simonides has been in flagrant violation of WP:Civility and WP:NPA and nobody seems to care, mostly I think because this particular article is so incendiary and his edits aren't vandalism.
I think it's because frustration is natural when speaking to extremely uncooperative editors. -- Simonides 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, you characterize anyone who doesn't agree with your unencyclopedic and sloppy edits as "extremely uncooperative" or "disruptive." Wyss 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me chime in here - if I may. With all due respect Simonides, you definitely did strike me as an editor with an attitude problem. Pesonally I can emphatize with frustration, which stems from a lack of professionalism, accuracy and skill some editors might put forward. I can also understand that there might an irksome age difference and a perceived lack of respect given by other editors.
Pardon me for saying so, but I have not found you to be a positive influence on the AH article. It's not only the pointed expressions you tend to use, I think it's also the editing style you seems to prefer.
Wyss has been quite level-headed and I can confirm that her edits made a lot more sense to me than others, including yours. There were also some objections to the role of authority you have taken upon yourself. I think I tried to respond to your behavior in a civil manner, but I'd really hope that you'd reflect a little bit and perhaps also stop this argument. Wyss is a valuable editor (as you are) and there is really no need for this kind of animosity. Jbetak 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
5) user:Simonides lied in the comments section of his 3rr report about me.
Actually, you're lying in your assertions now, Wyss. I think everyone can see from the edit history and Talk pages that you do not use the Talk page when you are requested to, you ignore requests for proof/argument, and that you blatantly ignored the comments of at least three editors besides myself on the Talk page when re-inserting your phrase-du-jour. That's what I wrote on the 3RR page and that's what I'm writing here; please demonstrate how this is untrue. -- Simonides 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You're at best mistaken, though personally I think you've been gaming the system in order to assert some sort of dominance or leadership role on that article. WP doesn't work that way and it won't be ceded to you. Wyss 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6) In this edit, Simonides asserts that 3rr doesn't apply to him.
Thanks for linking, so that people can find out for themselves that what I wrote does not match your cheap characterization of what I wrote. -- Simonides 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it speaks for itself, as did the admin who commented on your remark. Wyss 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There's other stuff I could mention but that's enough and if everyone (including me) learns something from this that would be more than I'm hoping for :) Wyss 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you; I'm glad you don't think I'm any of those things, and I hope you won't tell any other editors you think they are. It's unfortunately true that others engage in personnal attacks; None are justified. If you object to another editor's behavior, you should take it up with him, presuming good faith and using civility. If that's not possible, informal mediation is available.
After I blocked you, I first heard from Nlu. He said you'd asked him to look at the block, that he had, and that he thought it should be lifted. I told him to lift the block if he thought it should be lifted, and that I would not be annoyed or re-impose it. I saw from the block log that he had done so. Then a few minutes later I saw your email to me. I thought the issue was resolved, and so I did not reply. In retrospect, I should have; it was at least impolite not to, and I regret that. Anyway, I considered the whole thing resolved. I did not learn until some time later that Nlu had investigated and reimposed the block.
I think I was too quick to block you. It's a fair point to say that I should have warned you first. If I had it to do again, I would just give you a warning, and wait and see how you responded. The edit history is murky enough that I can't say that you violated 3RR, or that if you appeared to, that it wasn't in the course of reverting vandalism. AH has to be a difficult article to deal with, and I'm glad you are willing to take it on. Looking through your edit history, it is clear that you are improving things. I hope you will continue to, in spite of the difficulties. Best regards, Tom Harrison Talk 20:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:Simonides speaks

I requested that Nlu re-investigate. Links and reasons have been provided in abundance. Everyone is welcome to go over them at any time. -- Simonides 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Instead of wasting your time here, Simonides, may I respectfully suggest you carefully review WP:Civility and WP:NPA? Thank you. Wyss 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider clearing myself of false accusations a waste of time. As for suggestions, perhaps you remember mine. -- Simonides 00:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't made any false accusations but only since you brought it up, I think you've projected your own actions onto others (again). When you're ready to apologize for your lies, you can come back to this page. Until that happens, I will delete anything you post here as straight vandalism (or misinformation, trolling, gaming the system, personal attacks, lack of civility, disruption... take your pick). You are banned from my talk page. Wyss 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[taunt, personal attack removed] -- Simonides 00:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Simonides, please back off. Wyss had a technical violation of 3RR and I, after unblocking, felt compelled to block, but taunting will be considered to be violation of WP:NPA. This is a big wiki; surely both of you can learn to live with each other. --Nlu (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Nlu for reminding Simonides of WP policy. Wyss 13:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afterword

Blocks are not intended to be punitive, but preventative. After Nlu correctly unblocked me, Nlu wasn't compelled to do anything. As has been indicated above by Tom Harrison, the admin who originated the block, a polite warning would have been more than enough. Finally, readers are invited to read Jbetak's comments (above) regarding user:Simonides behaviour. Wyss 13:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler

His Catholicism was questionably "nominal"-you cite no evidence to that effect. What is more I was referring to the fact that the RC church did not excommunicate to my knowledge a single Catholic fascist or Nazi (although they did excommunicate Fidel Castro and Joe Di Maggio). Do not allow "Demiurge" to get away with his revisionism. "Golbez" agreed with me. THANKS!! 67.101.28.220 00:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nominal it was, as was being an altar boy, entirely unremarkable. If you're upset with the Vatican that they didn't ex-communicate AH, my talk page isn't the place to get in touch with them and the WP article, not being a blog, isn't appropriate either. Wyss 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean to say the fact that he was not excommunicated during his entire life is not noteworthy or factual enough to even be included because that offends "Demiurge" and whoever else?? 67.101.28.220 01:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean that. Wyss 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, so I will add it. Thanks!! Look out for "Demiurge". 67.101.28.220 02:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No, anon, I didn't mean that either. Perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills? I said it was unremarkable. Wyss 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More AH

Check out Simonides personal discussion page; he has been arbitrated before. I suspect it may be the case again with the page on Hitler. I agree with your comments so far in talk, and especially your last comments vis a vis turning him into "pure evil." How correct. Mike. Michael Dorosh 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As an aside, I've met a couple of Jewish concentration camp victims (two, as in "long talks with on the general subject") rabid Hitler-haters, who were vastly more circumspect and understanding than user:Simonides about AH's talents and how he came to power. I can't tell you how many times I was told quietly by Germanic adults when I was little, "Nobody had any notion how bad he would turn out to be." That's original research of course, but the history behind it is documented in every scholarly biography of AH I've ever seen. Wyss 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've only read a couple, the biggest was Kershaw's, and only the second volume. Which oddly enough wasn't about Hitler - as per my review at amazon.com, I thought it was a history of the Third Reich masquerading as a Hitler biography.:-) Then again what do I know, you and I are just 'dilettantes'.Michael Dorosh 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 :) Wyss 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on talk:Adolf Hitler are intelligent, full of psychological insight, and knowledgeable. Thanks for doing such good work. Andries 01:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Andries, and for the helpful comments you make now and then on the article's talk page. Wyss 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

WHO are these people that show up every two days to stir things up?????? It's scarcely worth bothering with any more...Michael Dorosh 06:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

AH attracts them all in quantity, wankers, fools, fiddlers and trolls. 'Tis boring :) Lots of helpful, clued-in editors like you rotate through though, so the article mostly stays on an encyclopedic level. Wyss 15:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Onefortyone

The probation Onefortyone is on was intended to be monitored by the administrators. What I suspect is happening is that either they have not been approached or that they are not interested in getting involved. Please try at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents when you have problems with him, and if you do not get the cooperation of the administrators, ask for reopening the arbitration case. Our probation remedy is premised on administrators being willing to enforce it but I can see that dependence on their time and energy may be misplaced in some cases. While I am sympathetic and an administrator I do not have the time to monitor Onefortyone myself. If our decision was bad it may have to be corrected. Fred Bauder 02:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm having much of a problem with 141 so the last thing I want to do is start reporting him on the admin noticeboard even if he is bending the rules. How can we correct the RfA decision? What can I do? Wyss 02:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a case would need to be made that the decision is not working. From my perspective that is obvious as all three of you are turning to me instead of to the Wikipedia administrators. My feeling is that we got a bit too subtle. It is rather hard to differentiate between what is an acceptable gossip entry and one that is simply crap. Fred Bauder 17:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
We can show that the decision is not working by the enormous length of the "sexuality" section (half the article) clearly breaching WP:NPOV undue weight, not to mention its severe sourcing problems and circuitous writing and tone.
If one doesn't follow scholarly sourcing methodology, it can be hard to separate "acceptable gossip" (which is to say, documented and verifiable stuff about the subject's personal life) and crap (published fabrications, exagerations, things out of context and so on). However, so long as the information is from reliable sources and is verifiable (a verifiable interview published, say, by a reputable newspaper or magazine, not a tabloid... a court document... a verifiable statement by the subject, published letters etc) it involves work, but isn't so not hard: Include what comes from an acceptable published source and is verifiable, exclude the rest. WP does this all the time.
One reason the RfA isn't working (again, with all due respect for arbcomm and the members who donate their time to participate in its rulings) is that its outcome was based on at least two false assumptions:
That celebrity bios can't be sourced according to academic standards
That editors were trying to exclude unflattering information about the actor because it was unflattering.
If you look at my contribution history, you'll see I have no problem including unflattering information in biographical articles (and indeed, will insist on it) so long as the information is verifiable, comes from a reputable source and is presented in an encyclopedic context. Moreover, I'm always open to correction and pointers to more complete sources, since context is almost everything when it comes to biography.
Given I didn't break WP policy and was never warned or asked to modify my behaviour or approach (never mind our entirely avoidable and brief spat) and that Redwolf24 later said I never should have been included in the RfA and even apologized to me, I'm hoping we can fix things by lifting the ban (which nobody seems to care about anyway) which is impeding me from resolving the problems in the article according to routine WP policies.
On the rare occaisions when I've been asked to back away from an edit or whatever, I've immediately done so... even if I snapped back at the request because it was impolite, though I've learned that being too sharp with someone in a wiki comes across far, far more severely than intended, which I have no doubt contributed to the misunderstandings all around. As I mentioned before, however minor it may have been, now that I understand it and have been duly horrified by unintended outcomes, this will not be a problem anymore.
Finally, the RfA was never necessary and hasn't worked in the aftermath simply because so few editors care about Nick Adams (contrast this with Elvis Presley, where 141's similarly and sometimes identically sourced edits were soundly over-ruled by consensus).
Hopefully this helps explain why the RfA, while presumably initiated and resolved in good faith, wasn't necessary and hasn't helped (and has perhaps hurt) the article.
Please feel free to ask me questions and make further comments and I do appreciate your thoughtful replies. Thanks. Wyss 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sun tanning

Hello, you reverted me on this article stating it was against Wikipedia policy to surprise users. Please provide a link to this policy before reverting again. Regards Sven the merciless 03:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I put one of them back with a more appropriate caption :) The article isn't meant as a platform for erotic photography (which is to say if you'd put in only one, I'd have let it be). Wyss 03:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I also saw the images you added to buttocks. Cute. I'm not wild about the caption but that's ok, consensus of other editors will likely work it out. Wyss 03:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have readded the other images with captions as they all have a free license so we should use these wherever possible. Regards Sven the merciless 03:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Images should be used in appropriate fashion to illustrate an article. I put one back. Take my advice, don't push this, you will be wasting your time. Wyss 03:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you reverted again, please provide the policy here. Thanks Sven the merciless 03:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see your talk page. Wyss 03:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think your message really explains why you removed the other images. The use of free images is encouraged in Wikipedia, and all the images which I placed in the article illustrated the article title. Please note WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors. Thanks Sven the merciless 03:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about minors. I did advise you not to push this. I've left one of the pictures in. Leave it alone now. If you drag me into a policy thing on this, editors and admins much less open minded than me will likely get involved. Please see your talk page. Wyss 03:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a link to a policy or guideline which my edits violated. Thanks Sven the merciless 04:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
NPoV, undue weight, for starters, although some would interpret your edits as straight disruption. Please don't game the system. Wyss 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bormann

I read The Bunker and I think Axmann said he assumed that Bormann and Stumpfegger poisoned themselves. BlueShirts 00:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Axman thought they had been shot in the back. The Last Days of Hitler by Hugh Trevor-Roper (University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-81224-3) is cited by [3] The Bunker most likely conflates Axman's 1945 account with the 1972 finding of glass shards in Bormann's skull (which indicates he did take cyanide, contrary to Axman's assumption). Wyss 00:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler under attack

Dear Wyss, let's put aside the intro disputes at Adolf Hitler for a while, as graver issues have arisen. Hitler is under serious POV attack. Though I don't know how far you can get involved into this, any support is appreciated. Str1977 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm ok with the intro now, by the bye. Wyss 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earhart

Rather than us get into a revert war over this -- and please don't assume I'm unfamiliar with the story -- if you could perhaps add a source to indicate when she was officially reported missing that would be helpful. My sources say it was on the 2nd when she didn't turn up where was supposed to. 23skidoo 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a gradual process of realization and then a huge air and sea search lasting several days. With the immense distances involved (for that time especially), paucity of radio communication in the region, the problems she was apparently having with her radio, uncertainty about her location and response to the problem along with other factors, it's simply inaccurate to assert that she was "reported" missing on the 2nd. Wyss 03:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

In response to your request, I can only ask that you cease your own disruptive and hostile behaviour, namely:

  1. deleting my comments, from this or any other Talk page, regardless of your opinion on the nature of my comments;
  2. misrepresenting the context of my edits and comments (basically, not assuming good faith, etc.);
  3. arguing for the sake of argument, past reason (ex. latest dispute on scholarly use of dictatorship - no one will laugh at you if you admit to mistakes, but you make yourself risible when you choose to defend them by being self-righteous) and editing accordingly.

If these exchanges find closure, it would benefit the article and WP immensely. We may also be able to collaborate productively on articles where we share a common interest, ex. L'Avventura. -- Simonides 05:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I will revert personal attacks on sight.
  • There were server problems yesterday. Comments were deleted accidently. Get over it.
  • I'm arguing for encyclopedic standards.
  • I will continue to edit according to WP policy. If you stop the personal attacks and skive the shrill, emotional tone, that will be a start. Wyss 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goebbels

Hrm, it's possible, however unlikely (Tarkin quote) that I'm wrong about the morphine, and just drawing on the fact it was administered in a drink in Der Untergang. Looking around the net I see Around 8:40 pm Kunz gave the children morphine injections. He left the room with the three sets of bunk beds (There's debate whether it was Kunz or Stumpfegger). A book by Anthony Beever says `Children, don't be alarmed,' their mother told them as SS Doctor Kunz gave them each 'a vaccination' of morphine and then helped force cyanide ampoules between their jaws. which isn't quite in keeping with the traditional story (morphine's not going to just knock them out stonecold within seconds) - so at the very least, it looks like you're right that injections seems to be the prevalent story. As per the photos, I spent over a week tracking them down finally finding a Finn who had copies of them and scanned them for me. I'd seen them years ago, and hadn't been able to find the images since then. There is still at least one more image I really want to find since it is also "rare", but I know I've seen it, of 2 of the children in their bunks dead, after the Soviets entered the bunker. I don't remember where I initially saw the picture, but am still desparately hoping I can find it to add to the article. Wikipedia preserves history, and that should include preserving rare photographs with historical worth. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Downfall is a worthy film but it has inaccuracies. For example, my take on the sources is that Joseph and Magda took cyanide, asking an SS trooper to make sure with a machine gun. The movie depicts Joseph shooting Magdo with a pistol and I don't buy it. Anyway I'm "sure" it was an injected overdose, knocking them straight out, that's what I've always heard and mostly read. Helga's radar was evidently working, sensed something was wrong, put up a fight of some sort and got bruises on her arms. The standard tale is that Stumpfegger gave the injections and he and Magda both crushed the capsules in their mouths and I woulnd't be comfortble deviating from that too much. The pictures truly bring home how ghastly it was. Wyss 22:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
But I've also heard that Stumpfeggar left the bunker around noon on May 1st, which would mean he may've been able to give Magda morphine, but he definitely would've been long gone by the time of the cyanide if it was the night of May 1/2 as seems to be common belief - but at the same time, I don't think I've read that Junge, Flegel or anybody else ever gave a time (or day) of the Children's exact deaths. I assume the belief that they were shot with a pistol comes from the fact Joseph's corpse was supposedly holding, or just atop of, a pistol seen in the photo there. I'd assume cursory examination would've included checking whether rounds had been fired. shrugs, again I think it's one of those things that we'll never be sure about, and everybody can have "favourite tellings", but it's important to note that it might have been Kunz, might have been Stumpfeggar, it may have knocked them out right away, it may have just been enough to ensure they wouldn't wake up when jostled during the cyanide poisoning. Similarily, it makes great wartime propaganda to claim that the oldest child tried to fight off her parents, and it could be true...but it could also be true that she was bruised while playing hide & seek, or that one of her siblings had gotten in a fight, or maybe Magda smacked her for taking too many cookies at lunch...the fact is, there are hundreds of ways a 12 year old child can get bruised - and while the Soviet story was "therefore we believe she was abused prior to being murdered", that is just conjecture. We should say it, but we should also make it clear that it's conjecture. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 14:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Stumpfegger left the bunker with Bormann, Axmann and several other people on the evening of May 1 after the Goebbels were all dead (Bormann and Stumpfegger's bones were found together in 1972, matching Axmann's insistant 1945 description of events). The evidence is overwhelming that Stumpfegger was present in the bunker and somehow assisted Magda. I forget who they were, but a couple of SS officers did tell the cyanide/machine gunned to be sure story to the Russians. However, I do agree with you that we should make it clear that the details are largely cojecture. For example, you are right, it's true Helga's arms were bruised and that no living witness could ever explain why. The historical consensus that she resisted her murder, while logical and even likely, remains conjecture. Wyss 15:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have violated the 3RR rule

Please be aware that you are violating Wikipedia:3rr. You have been warned by others before. Please do not edit by revert. Please review Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. MikaM 00:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear sockpuppet, please go away, thank you. Wyss 00:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

User:Giovanni33, a blocked revert warrior at Adolf Hitler, has already been shown to be the owner of sockpuppet User:BelindaGong. The evidence is building rapidly that User:Giovanni33 is now using sockpuppets User:Kecik and User:MikaM to continue this disruptive revert war. I think a sockpuppet check would be more than helpful. Wyss 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks of unsubstanciated allegations of socketpuppetry. Please assume good faith and be civil. MikaM 01:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I did assume good faith, for too long it seems. I think you're a sockpuppet. The already existing usercheck indicates you're editing from T-mobile hotspots. Do you have any notion how much time you're wasting for so many editors who could be making routine, helpful contributions to this encyclopedia? Wyss 01:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I only realize that you and others who push these false accusations are wasting everyone's time. Also, you are wrong about any usercheck indicating I'm editing from T-moble hotspots. I suggest you double check your flawed sources. MikaM 02:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)01:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
My sources are ok, thanks. By the bye, did you forget to sign in as MikaM or whatever sock it is now? Wyss 02:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's already a checkuser request open, if you want to add to it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#.7B.7Buser.7CMikaM.7D.7D.2C_.7B.7Buser.7CKecik.7D.7D_and_others for results of check. Negative results. Fred Bauder 02:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So far. Let's see what time brings. IMO these users are far too similar in their edits and language to be anything else but one person. Wyss 02:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fred. I hate to disapoint them. Maybe I can get to know Giovanni some day in real life so we can make these conspiracy theories come true in due time? haha In the meanwhile, I'd appreciate if you would stop making the accusations against me, Wyss, as I consider that a personal attack and in violation of Wiki culture. MikaM 02:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to post the taunt. It reassures me ;) Wyss 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

How strange that MikaM should copy Giovanni33's most common mannerism. hehe. AnnH (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 02:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My reverts

Karl Schalike is attempting to insert wholly unsupported "tabloid" type material into Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun, August Kubizek and Rudolf Hess. This includes categorizing AH as homosexual. The sources he cites are not based on verifiable documentation and are not recognized by historians. In one or two cases I have reverted this material as straight vandalism - disinformation.

I am adhering to my scholastic principles and believe I am editing within WP written policy. Some admins will agree with me but others may not. A request here from an admin will be sufficient to stop me from reverting this material as vandalism. I will respect any such request and if it is received, following WP policy I will then take this issue to the RfC level instead. Thanks. Wyss 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing Hitler as a homosexual is clearly wrong, because this is very disputed opinion. Andries 14:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler

Thank you for the excellent comment in your revert to my edit of Adolf Hitler (diff). That is the type of commenting I'd like to see more often and it made me revise my view of that edit I did. That vs rv version back to some other version is much more likely to prevent revert wars.

Also, thank you for your large amount of contributions to Wikpedia.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-17 05:25Z~

(Picking herself up off the floor...)

Thanks :) Wyss 04:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Article locked, but not unexpectedly :D
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-18 04:58Z

I don't see why. It was more quiet today than I've ever seen it. Wyss 05:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler

I didn't [4]. I just changed the tag.--Sean Black (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR, apparently.

By looking through the contributions for Adolf Hitler, you did make four reverts to Adolf Hitler in 24 hours (of which none are vandal-killing). I've blocked you, then, for 18 hours Sceptre (Talk) 09:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm afraid I did. Since I was fighting sockpuppets, two of which had violated 3rr and remained unblocked in a very difficult situation, which would represent eight identical reversions by them alone during that same period, every one of them violations of WP policy, technically I don't think I violated 3rr but I understand that interpretations of the circumstances and policy will vary. I don't mind paying the price of a block on this one. Since you've taken an interest in WP policy violations at Adolf Hitler I do ask, if you have the time, that you have a peek at the discussions regarding sockpuppetry by User:Giovanni33. I don't think the sock check run earlier was deep enough, though I've no doubt the problem will work itself out. Thanks :) Wyss 17:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Rather fishy. Looking at pgk's RC bot, I got this

<pgkbot> Freethinker99 already on blacklist, updated, "Autoblacklist: with an expiry time of 48 hours: Sockpuppet account to avoid 3RR". Expires18:07:01 06-Mar-2006 UTC

I agree that FT99 is a sock of G33 Sceptre (Talk) 18:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The two additional suspected socks of User:Giovanni33 (aside from User:BelindaGong who he insisted was his wife but which IMHO is highly unlikely given User:BelindaGong's edit history) are User:MikaM and User:Kecik. Although a sock check run by Fred Bauder failed to turn up related IPs for these latter two, User:Giovanni33 had already been caught socking with User:Freethinker99 and User:BelindaGong through the identification of related IPs so it can be reasonably assumed that this user found a way to log on through other IP addresses (this is not so hard to do).

Anyway please note the extremely limited edit histories of:

See how similar (or wontedly identical) these limited histories are to the edits and PoV User:Giovanni33 and User:BelindaGong, never mind they use the same syntax and tactics in edit headers and, where applicable, on talk pages. Also note how the sundry taunts scattered about by User:MikaM seem interchangeable with those made by User:Giovanni33.

I imagine you can see why I don't feel too bad about having made four reverts while dealing with this (though when I made that fourth revert, I was aware of the count and not happy). WP has its issues, but its a helpful encyclopedia and my edits are always made with scholarship and the needs of readers in mind, never mind AH is a fork in the road for so many of the problems we all deal with here. Wyss 18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Mika earlier, and blocked Kecik to be fair. Sceptre (Talk) 18:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that after you had properly blocked User:MikaM... User:Giovanni33, having noticed your block of his sockpuppet, mentioned me to you (revenge... a tried and true tactic on WP). I bring this up because I happen to know that several admins had previously ignored my four reversions, understanding the circumstances. Anyway, I hope this helps you in understanding the context! Any help or suggestions, obviously, will be much appreciated. Thanks. Wyss 18:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[Personal attack removed] Giovanni33 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sceptre (Talk) and User:Tom harrison. Wyss 23:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[Harassment (dicdef) removed] Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of bio about me

I was brought up in an extended Swiss-English family, half of whom were descended from Anabaptists and Calvinists, the other half with a largely Bretheren and Presbyterian heritage (not a single papist among them! :). I have an English ancestor who came to America on the Mayflower and cousins in America to show for it. As a little girl, during long conversations at the supper table, I was taught repeatedly never to refer to any extreme absence of human ethics, compassion and morality as evil, because in their view there was no evil, only "good" or its lack.

I was sent to weekly church school all through my childhood with the admonition, "Don't believe a word they tell you about god or concerned spirits who care about you or physical miracles or visions of real angels, these are only beautiful metaphors for something much more important. We send you to church school so that you might learn to hear your conscience and be a moral person, and you will be an ethical and moral person! Until I was packed off to boarding school at 14 I was asked to say grace before every evening meal (if at home)... God is great, God is good... and pray before I went to sleep (if at home)... Now I lay me down....

Following the wonted follies of twentydom, I arrived in adulthood with much of this instruction firmly intact and forever fixed in my mind. I never use the term evil but understand and relate to what people mean by it and consider this a misnomer for something even worse, the utter lack of what we might call "good" which is represented only by the actual living of an ethical and compassionate life. Wyss 21:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you invited us to your page, I'll leave a couple thoughts as they spring into my head from what you wrote. Good has no meaning without evil. It's the latter that gives definition to the former: A dialectical unity of opposites. Those that do "evil" usually think they are doing good; the majority of "good Germans," thought so as they marched en mass to their leaders drum beat, despite their good Christian upbringing. For evil to get transformed into good, it must interact with it, and struggle with it, indeed even unite with it (not that it can ever really escape it when it exists). So the first step is to not deny it but see it. Sometimes that is the hard part. Are most Americans now being evil? What will be history's verdict 100 years from now on us? Giovanni33 22:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I respect your remarks, even if I strongly disagree that there is a dialectic need for the human mind to carry any notion of a palpable force of evil in order to hold a helpful, meed and human take on ethics and empathy (which in shorthand might be called good). Wyss 22:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Your welcome. Just some food for thought. You would not even have a word called "good" if its opposite didn't already exist in your mind. Can I ask how old you are? Im just curious. :) Giovanni33 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Born in '75 :) There's no issue there since I don't wontedly use the term good in any moral context, only as sloppy shorthand if conversation requires it (docking good chips, now that's another tale altogether, I do support a dialectal notion of "bad chips," though they are rare indeed, heh heh). Wyss 23:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I was taught repeatedly never to refer to any extreme absence of human ethics, compassion and morality as evil, because in their view there was no evil, only "good" or its lack. Isn't that a neoplatonic notion?--shtove 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael K in Chicago

Hello Wyss: I somehow missed your note to me that Michael K had been removed from the Haymarket article. I was going to not re-post it for several reasons but then I noticed that you are a regular worker at the article so decided to discuss it with you. The shot was taken at the 100th anneversary of the eventwith my camera[ I am next to Michael in the shot] and Michael definately suggested that he knew about the blowing up of the statue, and he was someone who could be trusted on this sort of thing. Elsewhere on wikipedia [someone else's talk page who was interested] is a picture of his widow at the IWW memorial service for him, so he can no longer be consulted. Do you think that the shot really belongs there? If so, I will try and find it again and repost it. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Carptrash, yeah, I do think it adds to the article. First, "something tells me" he was involved, which makes him absolutely relevant to the text in the article. Second, the picture gives a good idea of the desolation of Haymarket square during those years when the barren, beat up pedestal was the only public reminder and monument to the event. I remember visiting Chicago one summer when I was still in university and persuading someone to take me there (huh?! was the reply :) and the neglected, passed-by nature of the site, this was in 1994, made a big impression on me. I saw it again in 1996. Having the picture back would add insight to the text and as I said, Michael is rather obviously a part of the history referred to and the caption we had there made this clear without saying anything problematic or provocative IMO. Please re-upload it? Either way... thanks! Wyss 00:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There. Michael is back at his post. The caption is the one that User:AnnaAniston had written, based on my original one, which was not great. Because she seemed to care who Michael was, I posted this on her user page. It's of Michael's widow, Ingrid, at his memorial service, which doesn't really tell you who he was, but it is how he went out, at least from the IWW. Carptrash 02:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool :) Thanks! Wyss 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nazis in the Holocaust

URL to discussion

Hey - just wondering if my comments in this section are out to lunch; would like an objective opinion - not necessarily on that Talk page - if you're interested. You can respond to my talk page or email me at madorosh@shaw.ca Michael Dorosh 03:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded here. Wyss 18:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
As did I. :-) Michael Dorosh 19:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need some assistance please

Someone really messed up the HTML in the article Battle of Bunker Hill. Since I no little to nothing about HTML could you fix it? I already removed a nonsense prahse from the top but, can't fix the rest. (Steve 19:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC))


[ineptly formatted block notice removed]

Note: I could not edit my talk pages or send emails to any admin during the time this unjustified and negligent block was in force. Wyss 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)