Linksnational

CSD tagging

When tagging images for speedy deletion, it helps to use the listed criteria or use descriptive explanations. Saying something is a copyright violation, without specifying anything else, is not very useful. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Linksnational. I've declined all your recent speedy deletion nominations. None of these files are copyright violations (a copyright violation is when a user claims a work that they are not the copyright holder of as their own) because they are tagged as non-free content, indicating that the files are copyrighted and that the uploading editor does not hold the copyright to them. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is, you don't have the permission to use the pictures. They are taken from webpages. -- Linksnational (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced your non-descriptive CSD nomination with the correct {{db-person}} tag at Devir Kahan. Please be more specific when nominating an article for speedy deletion. You might want to consider notifying the person that created the article. While not mandatory it is more civil. Jarkeld (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your speedy deletion nomination of Deutsche Soldaten Haus because the reason you gave ("wrong grammar") is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. In view of the above messages I strongly urge you to read the list of criteria for speedy deletion before tagging any more articles. Speedy deletion applies only in a very limited set of circumstances, and nominations which do not fit the criteria are unlikely to serve any useful purpose. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - German brothels in World War II. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at German brothels in World War II - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. -- Linksnational (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Polargeo (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Linksnational, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Polargeo (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop moving articles without discussion

After I already warned you for moving articles without discussion you have moved it yet again to another location without discussion. Can you please stop doing this. Polargeo (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Polargeo (talk)

Having read the complaint at WP:ANI and reviewed the article history I have moved the article back to its former location and restored an earlier version of the text. While we encourage editors to be bold, your edits removed content and references from the article and were contentious; it is very important in instances like this to establish consensus on the article's talk page before taking drastic action. Please ensure that you engage in a discussion on the talk page before making further major edits to this article or moving it to a new title. Thank you. waggers (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

without discussion? Maybe someone respond to my arguments: [1]. -- Linksnational (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the Nazi Germany section of the forced prostitution article.

Can you discuss these please on the talk page? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss and bringing up arguments all the time. Nobody is interest in the talk-page. -- Linksnational (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

War crimes of the Wehrmacht

Please don't remove cited material without an explanation as you did in this edit. I have also reverted the addition of this claim as it was uncited and highly questionable (the entire German campaign was based around rapidly advancing into the USSR and destroying the Soviet military). Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The German troops went forward very quickly and were not prepared to take of so many prisoners. Reason: The russian troops weren't in a defensive, but in an offensive line. -- Linksnational (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that only explains the "uncited claim" that Nick-D removed, not the main blanking which appears to be part of your ongoing efforts on wikipedia to try to show that the Nazis never raped anyone. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's part of propaganda due to anti-german sentiments from past to present. In the way of presenting I consider this as very doubtable, it's not approved by reputable literature. It seems like a continuation of propaganda stories, not uncommon in polish media. Since mass rape is a heavy accusation, it cannot be presented as fact, while being doubtful. -- Linksnational (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010: WP:NPA

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Polargeo. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Telling someone that they're out for fame (!?) on Wikipedia and that they aren't good enough to write is no way to start a talk page post, and your comments get worse. I strongly urge you to de-escalate and seek consensus. Insulting other users is the very essence of being counterproductive. Awickert (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say he is not good enough to contribute to wikipedia. As he showed, he wasn't familiar with the basic facts, I stated, he doesn't seem qualified to write this special article. Maybe he is a very good glaciologist. I'm not and so I do not write on that subject. Elsewise he accused me of being interest in euphemizing nazi crimes. That's a personal attack. -- Linksnational (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That might be a personal attack; it's in a gray area. What you told Polargeo are definitely personal attacks. No matter who is to blame, this needs to stop, and I'll try to keep my eyes on it.

On another tack, in my professional life, I do a ton of physics and geology. But I edit articles here with people who don't have that background (but who have an interest), and strike up successful collaborations. I would therefore strongly note that working with non-experts is a good thing, not a bad one. Awickert (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Wehrmachtsausstellung, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to The House of Dolls. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of your contributions to date, I have reached the conclusion that you are editing on Wikipedia only to push your personal views:

• In edits such as this, this, this, this, this (edit summary of 'evidence brought up by Smirnov not approved') plus others you removed material cited to what appear to be reliable sources and replace it with material more favorable to the German Army. I also note edits such as this in which you add questionable statements favorable to the German Army without providing a citation - it is curious, to say the least, that you reject at least some reliable sources stating that the German Army committed war crimes yet add entirely uncited claims of your own. I also note this edit in which you removed reliable sources and changed the article's text so that it contained only one interpretation of the book (eg, that it's fiction), rather than reflecting the fact that the New York Times story you cited provided differing interpretations (the article states that some experts regard it as being entirely fictional while others regard it as being based on reality).
• In this ANI thread you essentially rejected guidance on discussing changes and taking the time to reach agreement with other editors on the grounds that you believe the changes you are making are clearly correct and that there's no time to delay, stating that "I might have been quick or rude in my approach. Please regard, that I'm not a native speaker. Discussing is giving me a hard time. I have to look up in the dictionary. I'd rather spend my time on improving articles - especially when I see, how necessary it is."
• When challenged on this kind of behavior your responses demonstrate that your editing is motivated by your POV, for example: [2] (refers to the fringe theory that the Soviet Union was preparing to attack Germany in June 1941), [3], [4]
• Moreover, many of your comments have been uncivil and unconstructive. For instance, [5], [6] and the other examples given at: User talk:Polargeo#historian's work

The common thread running through your edits appears to be a determination to soften material critical of Germany's conduct during the Second World War, regardless of whether it is supported by a reliable source and without discussion with other editors. As such, I have blocked you for an indefinite period on the grounds that this account is primarily being used for disruption. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

That's arrant nonsense. I'm not soften it, but quite the contrary. I'm giving it a scientific ground. Any other approach redounds to the revsionist advantage, who in fact try to whitewash the most terrible regime in history. That Nazi Germany incarnates total evil, is probably the common view, but shall not make careless in presenting historical facts and harm the scientific approach. A scientific approach means, every subject is treated the same way, not based on paradigm or mere conjecture. As Polargeo can attest, the articles contained nonsense as "rape camps". Nazi Germany was arguably the darkest chapter of German history. That doesn't give the right to spread rumours and conjectures. How can you know, what's right or false? We have to stick to the reliable literature. If there are different views, both views are regarded. At last Polargeo used a original document from the nuremberg trial as a reference. That's original research and problematic, cause it's missing the source criticism, usually done by scholars. Counsellor Smirnovs demonstration at nuremberg, Polargeo refered to with the document, is not approved. Mainstream scholars of the Holocaust consider a lot of his accusations as part of WWII folklore and atrocity tales. That's not my opinion, that's not whitewashing. That's the status quo of scientific discourse on the holocaust. I'm not always able to communicate my concern in the proper way, I'm not a native speaker. That might lead to missunderstanding. I hope, that I could dispel doubts on my contributions. If you have questions, I can explain and justify my last edits detailed. I've learned, that I have to expect disaccordance and cannot run over it. The problem is, as I'm not a native speaking, discussing gives me a hard time. I didn't want to be disrespectful and do not want to whitewash history. Regarding my sooner contributions, I do promise to proceed slowly and will not provoke conflicts. -- Linksnational (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS which by definition requires discussion. If you're unable to discuss (we even have a bold, revert, discuss cycle) then there is no possible way that you can edit in a consensus model. You will need to either rethink your lack of desire to discuss, or your desire to edit Wikipedia. I beleive you have much to add - although beware of the WP:TRUTH. However, you cannot add your knowledge if you cannot obtain consensus for it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Neither I'm unable do discuss, nor do I have a lack of desire to discuss. I just wanted to point to the actual problem as I see it. But having a hard time to cope with the language is my problem and shall not be yours. In future I will respect the rules - that means to discuss - no matter if it costs me special efforts. -- Linksnational (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. It does not convince me that you understand why you are blocked and will not repeat the conduct for which you are blocked.  Sandstein  07:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Block evasion

Please note that this editor has continued to edit as 82.76.59.131 (talk · contribs) in evasion of his block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Very likely further block evasion as 200.222.115.60 (talk · contribs) Polargeo (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article, to give this user time to accept that he really is blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked Zaki Papadopoulos (talk · contribs), who appears to be another sock of this editor (same POV pushing and use of German language sources). Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Cretino (talk · contribs) just came out of inactivity and started editing the same articles. (Hohum ^@) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting because the POV of Cretino fits very well with Linksnational Polargeo (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)