Meishern

Sobibor Jews

Thanks for your edits. They are great.--Jacurek (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Leon Feldhendler.jpg

Hi. This copyright for this image is actually held by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Copyright is asserted on this page: http://inquery.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/photos/2245 --Rrburke^(talk) 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You are correct that the USHMM claims to hold copyright. The legal problem is two fold with their assertion of copyrights.

(1) This photo was taken in Poland 64 or so years ago and according to Polish law, all photos taken in Poland prior to 1990 are considered public domain.

(2) The use of this image falls under fair use for historical images since

(a) It is a historically significant photo.

(b) It is of much lower resolution than the original.

(c) It is only being used for informational purposes.

(d) It depicts a non-reproducible deceased historic figure with no free equivalent available.

The use of this image to illustrate the article about Mr. Leon Feldhendler satisfies all four requirements regarding fair use.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock expires in about 20 minutes. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tampan language

I was about to post a "Nice Catch" on your deletion, but then I thought I'd approach the internet search a little differently. I googled "mafia tampan language" and got multiple hits! Heres one: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080810/ARTICLE/808100348?Title=Gotti-arrest-has-Tampa-in-Mafia-territory-again

You might read through a few of those google hits, and draw a different conclusion, one which may prompt your re-addition of the deleted material. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for double checking google.

The link you posted : http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080810/ARTICLE/808100348?Title=Gotti-arrest-has-Tampa-in-Mafia-territory-again

If you read the newspaper article, and see what we had on the wikipedia article (before i removed it), the language is practically identical. The newspaper article states : "Authorities credit the Trafficante family with creating a mob language known as "Tampan," a hybrid of Italian and Spanish created to confuse police." Wikipedia had "The Trafficante family was also credited for creating the language known in the old mafia days as "Tampan." Tampan was a language of an Italian/Spanish dialect. It was spoken by the Mob mainly because the police could not understand the language." I just checked revisions for Trafficante article, and this paragraph about Tampan has been around since at least January 2008. The article from Tribune was written in August, 2008. Chances are, the reporter just rephrased the information from wikipedia. I've been reading about mafia for a long time, lived in Brooklyn and Tampa, and this is news to me. I will look on google some more maybe "mafia tampan -tampa", but for right now lets remove this Tampan unless either one of us finds something concrete. What do you say?Meishern (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well That was a nice catch. I have failed to consider that WP was the primary source for the Herald article. *shakes head sadly. The axiom "Don't believe everything you read in the papers" is becoming more and more true! I will do some research on "Tampan" as well, and perhaps together, if indeed there is such a dialect in use, we can write something definitive.

I should mention that I have also done alot of reading on criminal organizations, but my research tends more to the early appearence, and development of such. I started the article Five Points Gang as a matter of fact! Since I started it, it has grown into quite a nice article on the subject. Good work, on your part though...Kudos! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

ip problems

{{unblock-auto on hold|1=ProcseeBot|2={{blocked proxy}} <!-- 119.82.249.58:8080 -->|3=119.82.248.67|4=|5=On hold per comments noted below. There's no autoblocks, simply a proxy block. We could do an IP exemption after investigation. NJA (t/c) 06:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)}}

Hi, I am not a bot. Please unblock me and check my edits from past 1/2 year from same location. Meishern (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we know you're not a bot. You appear to have been caught as part of a block against an open proxy, which are not allowed to be used at Wikipedia. I have reported this to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies for further investigation. Please be patient to see what they turn up. --Jayron32 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

On the advice of the good folks over at WP:OP, I have granted this account IP Block Exemption status, allowing you to edit through any hardblocked IP addresses. Please be aware that this IPBE status has certain stipulations which basically say that you should not attempt to game or abuse this status, doing so can result in sanctions. However, given the likelyhood of being caught by collateral damage in the case of this IP-block, I am granting the IPBE in good faith. Please see WP:IPBE for more details. Should the folks at WP:OP ever sort out the details on this IP address, and the hard block is removed, the IPBE may be revoked as unneccessary. However, as it stands now, you should be free to edit. --Jayron32 18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. Appreciate the vote of confidence. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oakland Ebonics controversy

On these edits of yours: If you'd like to write up your fantasies about language, please do so on some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will get photocopies of the research paper then get consensus. Don't call my edits fantasies, since you cant back it up, I suppose I must demonstrate that either you have a political agenda or simply full of hot air. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, I am unable to reference what I wrote (in either article) and so far can't produce the same research paper I used as a basis to edit. I am not a linguist but have an acute memory and know I read an accepted publication in Brooklyn College 15 year ago regarding this topic and paraphrased its conclusions in my edits from memory. The edits I made were not bizarre, perhaps the word 'unpolished' suits better, yet they were not malicious inventions either. Thats besides the point since I can't reference them. I take back (what turned out to be my own hot air) that you 'have a political agenda and full of hot air' and apologize to you. My hat (if I wore one) is off to you for protecting this article from unreferenced information. I am not giving up in my search, now more for my own curiosity than for Wikipedia. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. And sorry if I was unnecessarily abrupt -- it's just that this article and some closely related to it suffer rather a lot from undesirable edits, so the patience of their long-term would-be protectors is already strained before we start to read the latest addition. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You weren't abrupt. You caught me just like that pop-song my daughters keep playing "With my pants on the ground". I usually am much more careful with references, trapping people who try to disprove my edits, but this time I was caught unprepared. Perhaps in the future, if I have a dispute elsewhere regarding something that is referenced, I may ask for an opinion from you? Meishern (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. Though I can't promise in advance that I'll be able to give it. Meanwhile, if you as a non-linguist are interested in AAVE or in the kerfuffle about it or both, I highly recommend John Baugh's Beyond Ebonics, a shortish, non-technical, and excellent book. There are several other excellent books on this or related subjects, but Baugh's is the best I've seen. ¶ I've taken the liberty of altering the unnecessarily bellicose title of this thread; hope you don't mind. -- Hoary (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You see, I moved to Brooklyn, NY, Coney Island Projects when I was 10 years old from Russia (1982). I learned English from the Puerto Ricans, Blacks and a few Caucasians from the Projects who only spoke AAVE. Five years later I moved to an all Caucasian high school in New Jersey and had to 're-learn' English so the teachers wouldn't fail me. Now I am just as comfortable speaking with professors in standard English as in AAVE (we just called it street talk in Brooklyn). I non the less have a very heavy Brooklyn/NY accent that I am unable (nor do I want) to change. So whenever I had to do a presentation at work, I always saw mid-western executives smile at my AAVE influenced grammar and pronunciations that normally come out when I am relaxed. I don't think I need to read a book about Ebonics, since I am bi-lingual in English (AAVE & Standard Grammar English). I am moving to China in August to continue medical school, so if you have a book on Chinese Ebonics, I will gladly read it. :) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note

Hello, I have your talkpage on my watchlist (not sure why) but I noticed you removed your own comment because you felt you had gotten too personal. If you are uncomfortable with any personal details you wrote might I suggest contacting an oversighter to remove the comment from your talk page history? Just a friendly note :) ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem OohBunnies. Now that I am sober I will just restore my comment since it wasn't as embarrassing or personal as I thought it was. Thanks for the heads up regarding the oversighter. So I am on your watch list? People told me I am fascinating. :) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeh. East Harlem Purple Gang is why we are acquainted. Meishern (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, you were the one who pointed out that it seemed to be made up :P I assume the info in there now is at the least verifiable? ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 05:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeh the article now looks like it had a gastric bypass. The info about the gang looks more realistic and referenced. I will add a couple of sentences, and I don't see much else that can be done with the Purple Gang. I am working on Aryan Brotherhood rewrite and Sobibor rewrite, but since Purple Gang wont take much time, and I made such a stink about it, I will spend a few hours on it now. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not very important if you ask me, but it's good you brought up issues on the talkpage, we don't want articles with false information. Good luck on your rewrites and keep up the good editing my friend! :) ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 03:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

East Harlem Purple Gang

I must admit I do not much about this gang, but I will see what I can find. - DonCalo (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think you will like my latest change to Jewish-American organized crime. - DonCalo (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not bad. I like it. I gotta re-read the whole thing again, but (at least in my view) the tone of the article became more neutral and balanced. Its 4am here in Cambodia and I gotta go to a wedding in 2 hours, I will hold off till my head is more clear. If you need any help, let me know. My expertise is World War 2, Nazis, Concentration Camps, Soviet Union and Organized Crime. Perhaps we cold collaborate on rewriting some of these mob articles, since too many of them sound like a 1930's pulp fiction novels. Cheers! -meishern 4am, March 27, 2010 (damn keyboard stuck)

I think this is overdue!

		The Original Barnstar
		Please accept this barnstar for your hard work, well written content and general nice-ness. :) OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 04:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! Meishern (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1

Hi, a lot of work has been done to bring this back up to FA standard. Can you revisit it please, and explain whether you think the article should be kept or removed as FA? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Please give me 12 hours to read the article a few times over. I will give my 5 cents with a detailed explanation. Meishern (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks alright. Referenced well from legitimate sources. POV is not blatantly partisan. There are a few minor things that could be rewritten or rephrased in my opinion, but nothing major sticks out to warrant deletion of this article. Needs a bit of polishing, thats all. I just read the article about Rudy Giuliani, and that article should be completely redone. Truman looks fine and in my view up to standards on an encyclopedia article. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Bilal Skaf. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ***Adam*** 04:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Adam, I have not added any defamatory statements to any Wikipedia articles. I have expressed an opinion on a Discussion page using no racial terms. If this opinion (which is backed up by referenced news sources) offends you, perhaps you should learn more about freedom of speech and expression. I didnt add this opinion to the article itself, even though its backed up by referenced sources, so I wouldn't get threatened, intimidated and insulted by people like yourself and others who contacted me so far. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow 3 death threat emails so far and 1 complaint here. I didnt know that a convicted gang rapist Bilal Skaf had such a loyal fan base. Is he a role model for Lebanese children? He must be truly the pride of the community due to the hate e-mail I am receiving. My wife asked me to remove my email from here, but NO, I will not be intimidated so easily. I stand by what I wrote, and gathering sources to make some referenced additions to this article that others (I suspect) are too scared to make. P.S. Please make 100% of your threatening emails in English, Russian, Ukrainian, Thai or Khmer since I don't speak other languages. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

All the same, edits like this one are extremely unwise, don't you think? Inflammatory even. There's no "freedom of speech" here, just a bunch of articles we're trying to improve. Please be more tactful. Arguments that refer to reliable sources are always more convincing than those that refer to analogy or opinion. --John (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I made a mistake getting into discussion of this article in the first place. My friend told me his daughter (who I know) was one of the victims this week. Never even heard of this crime before. Emotions (and beer) got the best of me. I broke my own rule never to comment/edit articles unless I am neutral. I'm going to leave it alone. Cheers Meishern (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ironically

Nice. This is a word that should almost always be in a quote, or not at all. Like "seminal". Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. I was trying to think if you been sarcastic, sardonic or ironic. I decided that you are just being zany. I only saw 'seminal' used in lectures on reproduction or porn movies, and dont remember any quotes, not that I was looking . Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Using words like that breaks WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in most cases, unless it is sourced, so well done for taking it out. --John (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed POV to me as well as nonsensical to insinuate that drinking a Heineken beer while playing pool equates to shooting heroin. The movie scene tries to make it ironic (and fails i think), but since the movie is narrated by Renton, its a depiction of a heroin addict's justifications. Just a wrong use of the word 'ironic'. It would be ironic if Begbie injected cocaine and meth while putting down Rent-boy for injecting heroin. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the book is much better of course, the movie oversimplifies it, though it's also good. --John (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Book is great. I like Porno and Glue as well. Welsh matured a bit and the quality of writing improved. I doubt Porno will be made into a movie due to content, McGregors reluctance and Carlyle/Welsh dislike of each other. Glue could be made since Renton is barely in it (can use body double) and its an excellent story. Meishern (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

2009 Richmond High School gang rape

Hey Meishern, the article you used as a reference is clearly an opinion piece. The article is in written in the first person and the author expresses her own surprise at certain reactions she noted from some readers (which contradicted her own opinion about the incident). But the bigger issue is that by mentioning the races of the involved parties in the Wikipedia article this heavily implies that race was a significant factor in the rape. However the only source you supplied to back this up comes from opinions expressed by a select group of readers which does not make for a reliable source. SQGibbon (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Many articles and books are written in a 'first person style' which are valid as references. The reporter (not author), discloses the race of the victim and the alleged rapists in a non-opinionated sentence. Her LA Times pedigree gives credibility to the disclosure. The significant factor of most rapes are psychological problems, opportunity, intoxication, and sexual urges; not race. Yes this victim was of a different race than the alleged rapists as well as the observers. Nobody assisted the victim for hours while she was beaten, raped and had objects inserted inside her. Did race play some role? The question here is if such behavior would have been allowed by the spectators had the victim been of the same race as they are. I can't find a source on that question yet. Thus, I will hold back editing this article until one of the alleged rapists decides to testify. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

SGGibbon@ This user is also responsible for adding content like this (removed) to talk pages regarding gang rape. ***Adam*** 23:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Adam, please use a link in your signature. I stand by the comments I make on talk pages, that is what they are there for. I am careful when editing articles to be neutral as well as reference my edits. Yes in the past 36 hours I may have gone a bit over the line with some comments. However none are racist or repressive and I can reference them too. Adam, it saddens me that freedom to discuss referenced information offends you so much because of your POV. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Adam, do me a favor. Stop instigating about the other article. I made my response on the talk page there. There are too many people who got hurt by these nuts without your assistance as per your comment above. I will take the link out of your comment, for safety of my family. Meishern (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexander Pechersky

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Alexander Pechersky you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. I am making some minor edits while I review. Ishtar456 (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

hi again, I'm not quite finished with the review, but I thought I would give you a heads up about an issue that would cause me to put it on hold. The lead only summarizes his part in the uprising. It should be a summary of the whole article, including early life, his induction into the military, his marriage and his death, etc.--Ishtar456 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

i added some of the things u wanted. the problem is that he lived as quiet as a mouse. a man few would remember seeing in a room with other people. a non-descript, quiet man who spend years before and after the war teaching amateur violinists and saxophone players. nothing can be referenced about his marriage but the 1 sentence how he met his wife, and that is in the main part of the article. I saw no reason to repeat it in the intro since he never spoke about her, and it is unknown whether his marriage was successful or not. Pechersky was basically a nobody who for 21 days shined and did something so incredible that his deed must be remembered, praised and emulated by all oppressed people today and 1000 years from now. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The summary should represent the whole article. It is perfectly acceptable to repeat info. that is in the main article. "He was married and had (insert number of) children." "He died on (insert date)". Since these details are in the article, they must also be in the lead.--Ishtar456 (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See, but they don't have to be in the lead. Show me the Wikipedia rule that states that the lead must list everything in the main article. He refused to talk about his wife, didn't live with her, didn't talk about his children (0 refrences). I am not sure what you expect if there is nothing referenced regarding even the names of his children or their gender. Look at article about Napoleon and see how many of his relatives (who were appointed kings of major European countries) names are listed. Meishern (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexander Pechersky

The article Alexander Pechersky you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Alexander Pechersky for things which need to be addressed. Ishtar456 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I did what you asked. Please see if there is anything else I should do. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are not over the seven day limit. I was going to give you a little extra time anyway, since I guessed you were away. I am going to be busy, at least until Wednesday, so you have a little more time to work on the lead, spend a little more time "tweaking" it. Mention his family. Break it into a few paragraphs (2-4 is acceptable). I just looked at it quickly tonight and I see "World War 2" , the 2 should be Roman (II) and it should be wikilinked. The first mention of a phrase like that should be wikilinked. After I give it a good read I will let you know what I find. I will not fail it without giving you some time to fix anything I might find, if it is small I will fix it myself. I think it is an excellent article, just have to give it an excellent lead.--Ishtar456 (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The introduction to the article about Napoleon never mentioned the love of his life Josephine. The introduction to article about Ronald Reagan says nothing about Nancy. I can mention dozens of other featured articles that don't mention wifes, dogs, cats and favorite brand of underwear in the intro paragraph. Your insistance to mention Pecherskys wife in the intro paragraph has no benefit or logic. I think your criteria is off. I would like another person to review this article. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I will not do the strange suggestions you requested to 'gimp' the article. I would prefer you fail the article than implement your suggestions that would weaken it. I spend over 40 hours researching and writing it, and I feel it is fine as is without mentioning Pechersky's unknown children and wife, along with your other strange ideas. I prefer to spend my time writing original content than listening to editorial suggestions that I know make no sense. You are entitled to your opinion however. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A spouse is not a favorite brand of underwear. If you had not mentioned a wife in the article, I would not suggest you add her to the lead summary. The lead summary should represent the article See MOSlead. I did not say "gimp", I said "tweak", which means "to make better". I'm shocked by your reaction. I think that you are a half centimeter from having me pass this article and you are asking me to fail it. I'll let you think about your request today and if you do not change your mind I will fail the article tomorrow. What a shame.--Ishtar456 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

on second thought. I have your wish. I will fail the article as you suggested. I too have better things to do than get into an edit war over something as minor as this. I think I tried to help you improve your article and have it pass GAN fairly easily. I think there maybe a language barrier, or something impeding out communicate. Anyway. Take Care.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand what specifically you want. Perhaps my reaction was a bit out of order, yet you were never clear about your expectations besides changes to roman numerals and inclusion of wife into the intro section that should be expanded into 2-4 paragraphs. I spend 30 minutes looking at featured articles. Unfortunately this article will never qualify, since there just isnt enough referenced info. If you would please give me a list of what you expect to see in the intro, or anywhere else. I feel Mr. Pechersky deserves recognition so I will follow your lead as long as those suggestions dont interfere with the flow of the article. Sorry again if I snapped out a bit. I guess I am sensitive about the content I write. heh. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I told you that I would not have time to give it a good read until after today. I am on my way to the hospital right now for a friend's surgery and had planned to give the article my full attention this tomorrow. I peeked in this morning to see that you had attacked me is several places. I think that you are an okay writer, but I don't think you read carefully. In any case I think that you overreacted and you have you wish I will fail the article. Anymore communication on this matter should be on the GAN discussion page.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dont worry about article. Friend more important. I will move discussion to GAN. I already apologized for snapping out (overreacting). I was sincere in my apology. In any case I rewrote. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I received your message this evening on my user page. The thing is I already failed the article at your request. I got your apology much too late. Yesterday I removed the article from the nomination list and posted that it failed at your request. I said: "I am failing this article at the nominators request. I felt I was following the MOSlead guidelines. What has resulted is an unnecessary edit war between nominator and reviewer.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)" If you go to the discussion page for the article and read the box that explains that the article failed, you will see that you have the option of requesting a "reassessment" or you can renominate it. I have washed my hands of it.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You were fair since I did ask for the article to be failed. Sometimes my temper does more harm than good. You received my apology, and I hold nothing against you. Wish you the best. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Alexander Pechersky

Hello, Meishern. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

I am glad it is sorted out! For what it is worth, I believe that three general viewpoints: that of the classic midrashim, that of the classic commentaries (e.g. from Mikraot Gdolot) and modern (critical i.e. higher and lower criticism) scholarship all have a place in Wikipedia. Obviously with regards to the Ten Commandments, I think there should be one article on different religious points of view (beginning with Judaism versus Christianity) and a separate article on different views among higher critics. As for your most recent comment: if we succeed in establishing two separate articles and lifting the page protection, I think it would be a great service if you began a section reviewing any debates or major comments by Jewish sages.

Wikipedia's NPOV policy will demand careful attribution of any view (so that it is always x's interpretation of a text, and I think it would be important to distinguish between the views of the tanaim and Amoraim and medieval commentators), but I think Wikipedia needs articles on each book of the Bible, or Biblical topics, to incorporate Jewish commentary. I cannot do this, but you do not need to complain about other editors who do not see things your way. As long as the POV is clearly identified, you and others can just go ahead and start incorporating these views. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't use a name during stating my opinion of him/her ;) ... But seriously, some editors do need to be kept in check, and are, otherwise edit wars, and other problems that hold back progress occur. However this person in particular is a bit strange in my view. To get back to your main point.

I agree that every single view has a place on Wikipedia, and thats what separates it from a 20 volume traditional encyclopedia. I like your view about creation of Judaism vs. Christianity article, that may work (i give it 50/50). I made an honest, intellectual reply to a question a few days back, when someone asked why Christians call the Old Testament the Hebrew Bible, and was accused of trying to start a Holy War. I don't think Judaism vs. Islam on 10 commandments will ever work. I edited an article about an Islamic gang rapist to include referenced info, and received 20 death threats in email. If thats the reaction for a gang rapist I can only imagine the reaction for creating a true NPOV article.

I am not sure why there is still page protection here since there's such an overwhelming consensus. I say, lets just edit through it. If it is reverted, I am sure you know the laws of Wikipedia as to how to properly proceed. I just write articles or commentary or edit; POV, not to revert more than once, and not to insult people directly in comments are the only laws of Wikipedia I know.

I will gladly begin compiling referenced commentary and looking for what the sages said on all versions. Lets just isolate the real (Jewish) version away from the other ones. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why "more problems?" Because kwama reverted my edit? Of course he reverted my edit! he is a "POV-pusher" and will not accept consensus. He will keep reverting edits. He is not interested in dialogue and I do not think it is worth my time to try to explain things to him any more. It is up to editors who share the consensus to keep restoring the consensus version. If he keeps reverting, we can report it to the Administrator's noticeboard. But no single editor can be allowed to hold an article hostage. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. He an admin, pretty much invincible if he chooses to sabotage this. I foresee a battle over every verb, adverb and noun in the article since the lopsided consensus must have upset him. We are just getting a taste of it now. Non the less I am still collecting what we spoke before about, and its up to you and others to stop this tyrant. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Need a reviewer for Chinese economic reform

Hello; I have nominated the above article for GAN for several weeks and it has not yet be reviewed. I noticed you were reviewing GA nominations right now and I would like to ask you, if you have the time and inclination to do so, to review my article as well. Thank you very much.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will when I finish with current article. I worked on Wall St a few years, have an MBA, so maybe it will be article right up my alley. Give me 5-6 days with my current edits. If you don't hear from me, please drop me another message here. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a regular visitor of Mergers and Inquisitions so I guess I have an interest in this too. Thanks for your help!Teeninvestor (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Heads up that you requested after 5 days (don't begin if you're not ready though, there's no pressure).Teeninvestor (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! i am almost done with this Greek article, 48 hours more. Sorry, took much longer than I thought. If you want I can start on your article, but u gotta factor in the time for me to finish the Greek article first? Is that fair? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the link you gave me is dead. And the books are cited in a series (like the book China's Great Transformation is a collection of academic papers, so they are not "individual books" so to speak). How would I cite this (collection of academic papers in volume).Teeninvestor (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Nvm. I think I fixed it. Cheers!Teeninvestor (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I will see if they will allow me to review two articles at the same time, since from reading portions of yours, nothing serious is jumping in my face. i will just check a few of the refs, and follow the checklist. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

<----

Teeninvestor, you didn't mention that this article is in the middle of a heated debate/edit war. #4 point i look at is "The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars." I am not gonna quick fail it, but will put it on hold until I finish reading the article, better understand the issues behind the conflict regarding the content of the article or consensus is reached. There is no way to GA this article when there are dozens of edits and reverts in the past 30 days which are likely to continue. I suggest you and the other editors reach a compromise as was done on dozens of other emotionally charged articles. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Noemvriana

That are great news! Although I did write most of it, your constructive criticism and critical input was very important. Thank you! Best wishes!A.Cython (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I learned about History. So win/win situation. Good luck! Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thieves in Law

Hello! But I certainly did not write that myself!!! It was laready there, and I thought it was very strange indeed, but then I thought maybe it's true, as if the thieves had brought peace... I did not dare change it to the more logical "World of Thieves" as I have no background on the topic. So PLEASE take a look at the edits I did make and not the text that was already there and that was not at all my doing. ))) --Cata-girl (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the edit history, and it looked like the edit came from you. I am sorry if I made a mistake. In any case that article needs some major re-writes since its practically unreferenced, often vandalized, has some POV issues as well as a mix of referenced facts mixed with folklore and practically a whole section taken verbatim from a gangster pulp-fiction book. If you are new to Wikipedia, please try to reference when you add new info (unless grammar/spelling corrections) even if you are editing a topic you are unfamiliar with. If something sounds wrong to you, check google for a reliable reference, and change it. But don't be shy, and please edit/add new content! Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He there again. The edit didn't come from me, but maybe it looked like it did because I was about to change it to "Thieves' World", so maybe I actually started to do that but then stopped. However, I never saved those particular changes. Hmmm, oh well. nyway, that's basically what I was trying to do, was to fix some of the most outlandish parts of the article. I'll try to be more referential in the future, but some of it was just plain common sense. The article has some serious problems, but I think it's beyond me to fix them right now, as I don't know enough about the topic. Thanks for the feedback anyway. Take care! --Cata-girl (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

- I was thinking about the changes you made to the article in question, and it occurs to me that you may be wrong. We both know that the Russian word "mir" has 2 translations in Egnlish, peace and world (I studied Russian for 4 years at university, and yes, it was my specialization. I have not lost touch with the Russian-speaking world and speak Russian on a regular basis even here in Barcelona. There is a large Russian community. Also, I am in touch with the former Soviet world through my husband, who is Ukrainian and who grew up and studied in the Soviet Union.) Now "воровской мир" may very well be "Thieves' Peace", as an ironic statement about how the end of the "Russian Revolution" (which was basically a bloody civil war with "rampaging" lawlessness) may have been brought about by bandits and thieves coming into control. What did YOU base your edit on??? I see no references to anything in your edit. The author may have known what he or she was talking about, though the article may be poorly written and the English not quite up to standard. When I decided not to change the translation, it was because I was unsure, and also because I looked on internet for the term in Russian and found didly squat. However, I will ask my husband, who is currently in Ukraine, what could be the true meaning of the phrase, but I would not just jump to the conclusion that it's not "Thieves' Peace". I was also looking at my edits from yesterday. What I did was add the Russian-language version of Vorovskoy mir in parenthesis (as well as correct the English, I believe. If I remember correctly, the English version said "Thieve's peace". And you can see that that is wrong. Also, I may have added the italic format to the phrase "Vorovskoy mir", I can't remember for sure now). I also changed the first part of the sentence (improved style: "according to + author's name") and the first part of the quote in the sentence which now reads "Furthermore, according to Michael Schwirtz, "ethnicity has rarely determined whether someone can join the club, and ...", as the author of the article had MISQUOTED Schwirtz. He had written something along the lines of "ethnicity doesn't matter", which skews the sentence a bit and leaves a lot out, when you think about it. So, let's see what we can come up with to clear up this mystery, but I have a feeling the author of the article was right about the "Thieves' peace" translation... --Cata-girl (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Cata-girl. I was born in the Soviet Union (St. Petersburg) and lived there prior to escaping to America, so I am 100% fluent reading/writing/speaking. I am not proud of it, but I was part of the criminal world, and Vorovki Mir is the lifestyle, the world, the behavior of its criminal members. There is the world of law abiding citizens who have their own rules created by politicians; and there is the world of the thieves with their own rules, customs, slang, etc.. To an extent such a world (vorvski mir) exists in every country, and the rules are quite similar. In an American prison (just as in Polish, Russian, Cambodian, Brazilian, Egyptian) there are certain laws that must be followed. For example, child molesters, people who informed on their fellow prisoners or cooperated with police to testify against accomplices are usually murdered by their fellow prisoners, so must be kept in isolation. This is an example of vorovski mir. It is the world where the rules of a law abiding society do not apply. It is world where the bank robber has a higher status than a burglar. This concept is the same in all criminal underWORLD (vorovski mir). mirovoi mir means world peace. however in the context of vorovski mir, the word represents world (underworld) and not peace, love and happiness. I will put some references regarding this, including photos of my tattoos (since they aren't copyrighted) that identify a zoknie vor (vor v zakone). Cheers and thank you for your input! Meishern (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

- Wow! Well, then I guess you are truly an expert! Sorry if I sounded vindictive, I didn't mean to. Anyway, I believe you now! In addition, my husband says he just doesn't know about the phrase, so there's no contradiction there. Take care Meishern. )) --Cata-girl (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Meishern

Hi Meishern. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read WP:GRFA, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and WP:NOTNOW, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that RfA and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fastily, If you feel 16 months editing, is a new user still, I will go with your advice which I appreciate. Please delete the app if it has no chance of success. Thank you for your advice. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC),,,,,,,,,, Let me ask you though, should I get one of those bots so I can get 20k edits quick? Because I see people who were approved for admin, were here not as long as I, but have tens of thousands of edits, which I am not sure is possible without a bot. Any feedback would be appreciated. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

100% of all recent successful RfA candidates have ~1½ years of experience AND 5,000+ (this is bare minimum, the average is around 10k). The reason I'm warning you is because many members of the RfA community find it extremely distasteful when an inexperienced user runs. Although of course, if you want to continue, that's not my call, but I do strongly advise you against running at this time. I think you may have "bots" confused with tool-assisted edits. Bots are automated program scripts that run on special accounts. Tool assisted edits are made with scripts or programs where the user approves every action the tool makes. For example, a popular anti-vandalism tool is huggle; you can make a large number of edits in a short time with the tool, but you still are controlling every action the tool makes, as opposed to a bot, where you don't need to control any of the actions. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fastily, Please withdraw my application. I don't want to disrespect anyone, and if I am not ready I will do what I have to do. Thank you for taking your time to reply and give me pointers. I appreciate it. I am quite happy being an editor and continuing what I've been doing. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Babi Yar

You charge of "highjacking" the article is uncalled-for and out of line. Your edits were in good faith, but factually incorrect and unencyclopedic. Again, Jews comprise 1/3 of the victims of Baby Yar, and many of the latter were in fact Ukrainians, some notable ones.-Galassi (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hijacking is my personal opinion on the talk page, and I stand by it. There seems (in my view) an attempt to rewrite history on the article page. 80,000 Ukrainians were killed at Babi Yar and around 40,000 Jews? Would be very interesting to see references for that. I am collecting references now from witnesses and historians who feel otherwise. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of vilifying Ukrainians you might want to save your passions for this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blood_libel.--Galassi (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I will stay away from Babi Yar, and I am not touching Blood Libel with a 10 foot pole. I already have strong personal views regarding both topics, so I think its best I stay away from both of those articles. However I still don't agree with the Babi Yar article. I don't vilify Ukrainians. Christian Ukrainians didn't die by the thousands in Babi Yar nor in Rwanda. Why try to insert Ukrainians and 100,000 Gypsies using sources that say nothing about either? Right now, there is not 1 reference in the article that backs up the claims it makes except about.com (which probably just paraphrased Wikipedia) and a forum posting (can a forum even be used as a reference?) I will contact admins interested in this segment of history to take a closer look at this article. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They didn't die by the 1000s, but they were regularly shot there in smaller numbers, mostly as zalozhniki. Smaller numbers accumulate over 3 years, naturally. At least 621 of them (killed in the antiOUN actions) are known by name. There are plenty of references apropos, largely in Ukrainian. The reliability of these sources is not disputed. I agree with your sentiments re participating in these articles. As for myself, being of both J. and U. descent gives me a pretty fair perspective of the issues.--Galassi (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand Ukrainian well. I read accounts of ã few hundred Ukrainians being executed at Babi Yar, and a few hundred Gypsies, Communists and Partisans. However the article tries to make claims that Jews were the minority of the victims. Just as the vast majority (90%+) of concentration camp guards were born in Ukraine which you feel is incorrect despite facts. There are just too many eyewitnesses (who proudly admitted to their participation), German trial testimony, and survivor testimony. Lots of nations hate the Jews, there is no need to pretend Ukrainians loved them. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:C.Wirth.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:C.Wirth.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) 09:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) This photo was taken in Poland, 64 or so years ago by Nazi SS Photographers, which became part of the US Govt. Archive (public domain). According to USA law this is the equivalent of a mug-shot of a criminal, which is public domain. Besides, according to Polish law, all photos taken in Poland prior to 1990 are considered public domain.

(2) The use of this image falls under fair use for historical images since

(a) It is a historically significant photo.

(b) It is of much lower resolution than the original.

(c) It is only being used for informational purposes.

(d) It depicts a non-reproducible deceased historic figure with no free equivalent available.

The use of this image to illustrate the article about Mr. Wirth satisfies all requirements regarding fair use. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

German submarine U-35 (1936)

I've added in more sources to the article. Any more comments to the GAN would be nice to see what else I need to do to get it passed :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 22:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude

Re your contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Burn a Koran Day, seriously, you need to toke up or chill or something. Comments like these make it harder for other editors to work with you in the future and thus tend to compromise your ability to edit to your best ability. I recognize it's a fraught subject, but we need light, not heat. Herostratus (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I second that. I find it difficult to believe that an editor in good standing would make such a comment, and removing it would be a very good thing--not because Wikipedia is censored, but because the comment is revolting and adds nothing to the discussion. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Answer: I apologized about pigs and toilet usage on the link above. I had 2 friends who died in Tower 1, I was heated, drunk and should not have made that comment. HOWEVER, I didn’t make it in a live encyclopedia article, or in an article discussion. I gave a short statement behind my vote as the rest of editors.

I believe 100% in the wisdom of the 1st Amendment right of US citizens to freedom of speech and expression. So if people want to burn Brittney Spears CD's or Korans, it’s entirely up to them. There are no Federal US laws that forbid the burning of the Korans or Brittney Spears CD’s.

If you choose not to work with me, it’s ok. My edit/original article history speaks for itself. I made 1000+ productive edits, never abused privileges that Wikipedia granted me, never started an edit-war, and when I saw one form I withdrew from the debate without using rollback. I look for consensus before making edits.

If you didn’t like my personal intoxicated opinion (for which I apologize), and choose to ignore me, that is also fine. I wish you both the best in writing quality articles and making npov edits. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed your apology here. Who got fired for doing it? Just curious. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Derek Fenton was fired for burning the Koran by NJ Transit during 9/11 demonstration besides where the towers stood. He was not wearing a uniform and was not on duty. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not necessarily agree that all of your edits are productive. I checked your contribs after reading your pretty uncivil responses to the 2010 Qur'an burning controversy article, and decided to come here to see if others have commented on the POV you instil in articles. Among them, you clearly insert anti-German bias into Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union: You captioned an image to label a group of people "grinning murderers" and added an unbalancing section about the forced labour of Soviets in Germany. Wikipedia needs facts, not appeals to emotion. - BalthCat (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

BalthCat, read my 3 articles about SS Concentration Camp Guards. Find 1 word about 'grinning murderers' or any other skewed expression. They are balanced articles. If out of 1200+ edits you found 1 which you feel is not productive, perhaps you should spend more time writing original content rather than nit-picking to prove an obtuse point. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexander Pechersky

The article Alexander Pechersky you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Alexander Pechersky for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check the article. I've corrected what you requested. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ernie Fletcher

You have new messages

Hello, Meishern. You have new messages at Talk:Ernie Fletcher/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I'm glad you found the article to meet all the requirements. I agree, it's been a pleasure, but since nearly all my work is done on political articles, our paths may not cross again for some time! :) Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if nobody else is willing to tackle complex and lengthy articles, after a break, I will do another. I see you have 2 more in the queue. I just don't want people thinking we are in collusion. For now I am finally doing a complete rewrite of Sobibor article, with enough solid refs to stop revisionists. I liked how your article had practically every sentence referenced. I am going to model Sobibor article on your reference style. Keep up the good work! Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscout of Rio Branco

Hi, Meishern. Will you resume your review of José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry I had Anatomy mid-term exam that just finished. Will get to it within 24 hours. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was counting on that! Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hello. I have noticed that all of your edits are marked as minor yet most of the are not. Please read this Help:Minor edit to understand what a minor edit is. If you have checked the "mark all edits as minor" box in your editing preferences please go in and uncheck it. If, on the other hand, you are clicking the "this is a minor edit" box before you save and edit please only do so when your edit truly is a minor one. Your cooperation in this will be appreciated. Thank you for your efforts here at wikipedia and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 11:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I just looked, and the box was checked. Thanks for pointing it out for me. Sometimes a minor edit turns into a major one, once I start reading the editing screen. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome and you are correct about what can happen when you start editing. Cheers of the holiday season to you. MarnetteD | Talk 16:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

ShadowCrew

You have misunderstood me if you think I am defending an informant of any kind. I was just saying for you to talk down on that guy (which I don't disagree with), yet threaten to inform on me for the 3R is pretty much the same thing. In my opinion, all informants should be killed. I have too many friends in prison, both state and federal, who would never have been there and been taken from their children and wives if not for some low-life who betrayed the only people who ever helped him. I despise informants and believe they should be EXPOSED. Look at the Black Mafia Family article; I quasi-know Demetrius and felt the names of those who betrayed him and the organization should be exposed, so I listed them all up on there. Anyways, I agree this article needs to be re-written, it's never been Wikipedia-quality. If I knew enough about it and had enough cites I would. jlcoving (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Late here and time to get back to real life. However, if you want to team up editing this thing, its fine by me. Yet it pisses me off when I see people getting 15 years for carding and a gang rapist getting 5. Its hard to describe the nice feeling I used to get browsing trw dumps, trading, and i want to incorporate that in the article as well as the point of view of society, law enforcement and whoever else. so when people read it, they will see the points of view of all the parties involved and draw their own conclusions. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a PACER account anymore, but if you have one I bet most of the documents needed that would source a lot of this would be there. jlcoving (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

right now i have a word file with 21 different sources. within the article all those <add source tags> i put there because i got the source, i just am trying to figure out the direction i am going in first. It would be nice if can list all the sub-forums somewhere. and i gonna take a snapshot of the way site looked at its prime, upload and link to it.

there is also a lot of discrepancies about who the guys with the most power were (admins). the two people i put as founders are on every list, but after that, there seems to be a lot of confusion and finger pointing.

PACER would be great, cuz after sentencing these guys just vanished into thin air. i got indictment document for 19 of them which is quite useful, and i also got interview with that snitch david thompson (sp?). hard to wade through the nonsense. it seems all 4000 members were there just to help abused women get new identification to escape their husbands and start a new life. heh Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd edits

I'm a bit curious about an edit by you. this appears to be some kind of joke or vandalism. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hobit. I was present at the 2010 medical school commencement at Nantong. The first year headmaster spoke with a deep bass voice in English but when he spoke Chinese, he sounded completely different, speaking in a high tone and nasally. I wrote my observations down, and added them to the page much later, since the page lacked content. It is written a bit tongue-in-cheek, yet foreign applicants to that school made similar observations. Yet since its not referenced, like every other statement on that entire page, I will look for some to make the page up to standards. Thank you for taking your time. Cheeers! Meishern (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of killings of Muhammad (2nd nomination). 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese,

I am saying it like it is Wikipedia:Spade. I have multiple examples of you distorting or inventing quotes to damage editors reputations or portray them as fringe hatemongers and thus devalue their vote. Your actions are becoming a pattern, so please stop this disruptive style of editing - character assassination.

I think I've been quite civil considering the quotes you attributed to me. Please make sure the things you claim people say are actually there on the page, before attributing horrendous viewpoints and wild statements in quotation format to editors.

Please help Wikipedia win the war against Character Assassination which is the leading cause of attack against the assassins according to Meishern (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC).

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was dismissed 2 days later as frivolous nonsense and exonerated me completely. I was re-reading my record many months later and added this since the above statement just kind of hangs there with no retort on my part. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

I have been perusing through the AfD discussion for the List of Killings of Muhammed, and I noticed instances that seem to broach the lines of WP:UNCIVIL on your part. Specifically, accusing others of "deceiving people by making up/lying/inventing quotes" constitutes a breach of WP:AGF, and such comments should not be made, even if you believe them to be true. I understand that deletion discussions involving religious figures and subjects can be the subject of heated emotions, but I ask that you reflect on your edits before submitting them and consider what their tone and style say about you as an editor. Much thanks, VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vanisaac, so does that mean I can hypothetically write that you just wrote in the 1st sentence above "I have been perusing you with the intention to besmirch your legacy through the AfD discussion and seen you conspire with vandals to desecrate the List of Killings of Muhammed, and I noticed that you cursed every person twice using the foulest of words which is mighty WP:UNCIVIL on your part." So even though its easy to tell that my quote of what you said have 0 in common, and my quote is something made up/invented that I just attributed to you, it would be uncivil of you to let others be aware that those are not your words but that meishern is making up/lying/inventing those quotes? Because if you say nothing, that would mean that you accept my version. Need to add rule to reference quotes of editors, but thanks in any case, i was driven a bit loony in there, I hope there won't be a 3rd deletion review. lol Meishern (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Erich bauer sobibor.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Erich bauer sobibor.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Hoops gza (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine. I agree with your assessment Hoops gza. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Franz Stangl.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Franz Stangl.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Hoops gza (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A long list of problems

The user you are currently dealing with about images has undergone a lengthy list of problems on Wikipedia with regards to understanding our policies. Just on the surface, there have been numerous false image licensing tags, attempts to delete or move articles without consensus, as well as a string of improper category creations. The user means well, but doesn't really seem to think he/she will really get in trouble for disregarding our policies and pretty much acts as they please - so far, there has been no real repercussions. I've tried to draw admin attention to this, but there really was never any interest. Maybe with this new round of knowingly uploading images with false license tags, people will start to listen. -OberRanks (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The above two images he deleted, I could have used the nice ones he replaced them with also. However they don't fall under fair use. As to whether the editor means harm or not isn't relevant since harm is caused. I am certain no drunk diver means harm either getting behind the wheel, and though my example may be a bit rough, deleting all images on Wikipedia only to replace them with copyrighted content will surely make Wikipedia more fun to read, but ... these photos aren't public domain. I seen this editor argue about fine points and details of Wikipedia policy on admin boards, so a simple concept such as copyright can't be above their level of comprehension. I understand your frustration though, OberRanks. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Meishern, I'm confused. I see nothing wrong with this new upload, which only improves things. The photo you had uploaded of Franz Stangl is the same as this one, only this one is of higher quality. The photo you uploaded had the copyright tag of 70+ years old on it, so I applied the same tag to the new file. Also, regardless of whether the photo is actually 70+ years old, it is certainly in the public domain, as it was used when Stangl was a wanted fugitive.Hoops gza (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I used 70 year rationale. For Nazis I use this:

(1) The use of this image falls under fair use for historical images since

(a) It is a historically significant photo.

(b) It is of much lower resolution than the original.

(c) It is only being used for informational purposes.

(d) It depicts a non-reproducible deceased historic figure with no free equivalent available.

Yad Vashem is claiming they own that photo and on their info page they list requirements if anyone wants to use it. Just change rationale of image and use it. I am not a lawyer and if some 100 year old nazi ss photographer wants to claim copyright let him sort it out with Yad Vashem. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Bolender kurt ss.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bolender kurt ss.gif, 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. Hoops gza (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Article looks really good now with the new photos you found. Cool. Meishern (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

feedback

can you tell me if there is anything wrong with the article mentioned in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misconceptions2#Request_for_comment

Thanks--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion: help preventing edit war, solving conflict

Please give your opinion here, it would be most welcomed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#William_Muir.27s_opinions_in_Life_of_Mahomet

Thanks in advance--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For helping to prevent edit wars Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know what to say. I would like to thank my second parole officer for not giving up and the court mandated anger management classes. Thanks Misconceptions2. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Pechersky

He is my relative and I'm wondering if you have any information that would lead to what I assume is his uncle Chaim Pechersky, who changed their name to Peck when moving to St. Paul Minnesota USA around 1900.

Chaim Pechersky would most likely be his uncle, and my grandmother Shirley Peck (Chaim's daughter) is the maternal relationship.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,

Harlan Blumenthal Minnetonka Minnesota USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.106.195 (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I never found anywhere I've read that he had relatives who moved to the states prior to the Russian revolution. Then again it was not the sort of info one would disclose to anyone during Socialism, and would destroy all evidence of such a relative. You could try his daughter, but in my experience your best bet is to use Freedom of Information Act. My guess is he arrived in San Francisco or NYC and immediately changed name so perhaps that could be a start.

I looked around on Google, and I am pretty good at finding info, and while there are some Chaim Peck out there, they all seem to be in their young adulthood in Minnesota.

There are Pechersky's in Missouri, in Pennsylvania and in California. Perhaps they may know something

A good place to start is here : http://search.ancestry.com.au/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=pubmembertrees&rank=1&sbo=t&gsbco=5216%2cSweden&gsln=Pechersky&gss=angs-d&gl=&gst=&uidh=000&hc=100

or this is a bit more targeted:

http://search.ancestry.com.au/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=pubmembertrees&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_r_db&gsfn=Chaim&gsln=Peck&msdpn__ftp=Minnesota%2C+USA&msdpn=26&msdpn_PInfo=5-%7C0%7C1652393%7C0%7C2%7C3247%7C26%7C0%7C0%7C0%7C0%7C&uidh=000&mscng0=Shirley&mscns0=Peck

(disclosure: i don't work for ancestry.com, nor receive a commission, nor vouch for accuracy.)

Wish I could be more of help. Wish you luck. Pechersky had it, maybe some passed through the genes to you. :) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Stung Treng - Local Customs

Can you please provide a source for your addition to the article Stung Treng? Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I was with a tour group when the guide told this, and I found it so fascinating that I wrote it down, and decided to add it to Wikipedia , hoping that an editor fluent in Khmer can reference it or expand on it. Feel free to correct what's there since the stub lacks references as unfortunately does the rest of that section. Have you found something to expand that passage that's better referenced? That would be great. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there again. I tried looking for references, though not in Khmer as it's not one of the languages that I can read, write or speak, but didn't find anything. No mention of any Dr. Klong Wang, nor any mention of an institute called the "Royal Cambodian Think Tank". Neither did I find any information whatsoever of an archaeological dig at Stung Treng involving an ancient garbage dump. Not much else to do than tag that section for references and hope that someone comes up with one. - Takeaway (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for taking your time researching this as my own attempts (feeble as they were), led me to dead ends. My in-laws live one province over and next time we take a drive up there, I will stop by and at least get something in Khmer, scan it, and place it elsewhere with a link. Hopefully someone who is fluent can get something useful out of it. It's just I travel extensively and this was my first encounter with a sacred garbage dump, so was not something easily forgotten. I always am meaning to update Cambodia provinces on Wikipedia since they mostly are stubs, but so few sources are available in languages I understand but oral tradition is definitely there. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ada Pritchard

Thanks, Meishern. I meant to add a link to the Legislative Assembly page as a reference. I'll make sure to do so for all future articles.

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oafp (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Meishern/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Meishern/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What page? That's inside my Sandbox. I will just recreate it again since that is the purpose of the sandbox , no? Nobody ever bothered me about the pages I am working on., gathering information and slowly writing them. I contest this. Meishern (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. You were correct. I reread the sandbox rules and I am in the wrong. I thought its a section protected from spiders where I can just drop a lot of data and slowly go over it. I apologize. Meishern (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have restored the history of the sandbox, so that you have access to its content, in case you can use bits of it to create a more acceptable page. However, you must not restore it in its original form. Promotional pages are not acceptable anywhere in Wikipedia, and if the page becomes promotional again it may well be deleted and this time stay deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the reason why I just tagged the page for deletion, rather than deleting it directly, was to give you a chance to change it. Unfortunately, it seems that didn't work, as it was deleted before you got a chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I figured out what happened eventually, because initially I was just confused since I didn't know it was open to Google. Yeh I am still trying to find the right language with that page, that's why I thought I can do it in the privacy of the sandbox. i will just keep it in notepad and once in a while stick it into the sandbox to format and make sure it looks right. When I am done, it will be neutral. I appreciate you taking the time and digging out the urls. Thank you. Meishern (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kriesi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Booker T. Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reconstruction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bifurcation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for this?

This edit looks to me like a prank or vandalism. Do you have any evidence for what you claimed?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! That was a while ago, but too amusing to forget. Interesting someone brings this up here as I recently just spoke about this very incident in Copernicus life. From what I remember (since this was almost 3 years ago) I found the source as a pdf pamphlet on a UK govt website (or possibly EU) teaching about STD to recent immigrants or EU citizens living in other EU countries, and they had a few dozen different brochures each in a different language about STD with language specific content in each, but none as interesting as those I copied from the STD brochure in Polish.

I thought that the anecdotal use of Copernicus promiscuity leading to and STD which possibly delayed human technological development was priceless, as well as a good example of butterfly_effect. However, this example was a tad too crude for my audience at the time so I gave it a pass, though I added it to the articles on the town's history and also to the bio of Copernicus and perhaps elsewhere here, need to look.

I am sorry but this is too odd to be a coincidence since I mentioned that wart Museum in a private phone conversation with my daughter about her upcoming trip to meet her friend's family in Poland. dazzle her fiance family during an upcoming trim to meet his family. Did my future son in law just revert me using you as a proxy? He will be disappointed since UK or EU government thinks its real enough to print it.

Please allow me a bit of time since I see links on Google though not as notable and authoritative as the source I used those years ago.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sweet Jesus, how much of this have you done? Like [1] and [2]. You're like a modern day Herodotus.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't count the number of edits in total, but if you liked that rephrase and addition, you will love what I contributed with this rephrase [3] or with lots and lots of minor modifications of articles like here [4] . Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Meishern, these answers are cavalier and unsatisfactory. It looks very much to me like you are making things up out of thin air and inserting them into Wikipedia. If you can't convince me otherwise, I'm going to recommend that you be permanently banned.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, my mistake in the past was not adding references. For the record, the reference for [5] is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/1362581/Nazi-chiefs-seal-found-in-Alpine-lake.html .

The crusade article, if you read what was there before and after my edit, you can see that I expanded on the information that was there and discussed it on the talk page for the article (since the original information was nonsense in 5 sentences and my highlighting that fact by taking that exact information and expanding it a bit further into 2 paragraphs without changing the meaning what so ever, led to the rewrite of the section which now makes sense. The key here is that I did not add any new information, nor change the meaning in any way.

My edit about the Stung Treng garbage dump I already tried to defend that a few years ago, its above on this talk page [6]. As you can see by my IP, I am located there and what I wrote is how things were relayed to me. There was very little information in KHmer online in 2012 to reference even if I knew how to read it.

As for the original reason you contacted me, I am still looking. However does banning me because I can't produce references on 2 edits that are 2+ years old out of a couple of thousand seem a fair action to take?

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not just a few edits here and there, and the fact that you still seem to think these were harmless and "defendable" is deeply disturbing. It seems that pretty much all your history edits are unsourced and based on hearsay or whatever else you think you know. I just removed another such edit of yours on Crusades [7]. This[8] was another such piece of WP:OR. So, please take this as a formal administrative warning: in the future, you are to add substantial content to historical articles only if you have a reliable, pertinent written source for them right in front of you and cite it properly. If you make unsourced history edits again, you will be blocked for disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving your reaction here from Talk:Crusades. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I took what I thought were 4 dull sentences of the current 3rd paragraph and I rewrote them using the same ideas as were there but making the words less boring [9], which were removed as original research. I expanded on the meaning of the phrases "under feudal rather than unified command" (why?) and "the politics were often complicated" (how?). Please let me know what parts do not fall in line with what was there before (and what is there now). Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You really see nothing wrong with just randomly expanding and embellishing things with ideas that you think might be the explanation for the initial statements, making things up as you go along, just to make them sound less "dull"? You really think that inventing all those things about it being an "insulting idea" to give up command to another, or being motivated by "upward mobility", or situations being "rather bizarre" and whatnot is just a legitimate elaboration of the sourced content? Did you ever bother to actually read the works that were used as references there?

Given your response here, I'm about >>>>this<<<< close to just indef-blocking you right here and now, preventively, because your reaction gives me no grounds for the expectation that you will not repeat this kind of conduct. You really need to wrap your head around the ideas of WP:V and WP:NOR, pretty quick. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am an educated man with an MBA degree and 1 credit shy of MSIS degree. On the talk page of the article where you reverted me, I asked other editors about what needs to change with my previous edit for it to be more inline and less personal research. I asked for help because I didn't want to ask you that question here and sound like I am being a wise guy and trying to piss you off. I agree with what you wrote before. I will add references to my future edits, and thus was asking for opinions as to which specific sentence or idea needs a reference. That post asked for clarification, since had I made it here, it would have been confrontational, which is the last thing that I wanted. I didn't make a similar post on the talk page for your other revert, since you were absolutely correct. The crusader article edits by me took 3 hours to write after reading [10] and [11]. Again, to summarize: 1) I will reference all my edits from this day forward. 2) I asked the community for that specific article how best to go about changing that ambiguous 5 sentences on that article's talk page.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

---

To address your specific question about use of the word 'bizarre'. The antonyms for the word 'bizarre' are 'commonplace, regular, customary'. I used the word bizarre to describe the event when an Islamic army joined the Christian crusader army. Would such an event (Islamic army joining forces with Crusaders) be best described as commonplace, regular, customary or bizarre (and be referenced just for that word) when keeping in mind that one doesn't need to provide a reference that Paris is the capital of France since it's pretty much common knowledge (as it says in definition of Original Research on WikiPedia). It's pretty much common knowledge that Crusaders did not customarily joined forces with Islamic armies during the Crusades, thus that particular situation during that one crusade can rightfully be called bizarre. Meishern (talk)

---

To address your specific phrase "You really think that inventing all those things about it being an "insulting idea" to give up command to another, or being motivated by "upward mobility"

Lets take a look first at page 25 of [12] and see if indeed "insulting idea" and "upward mobility" played any role in the Crusades. (This is the reason why I wanted to have this discussion not here but on the article talk page where others can add something).

"Bohemond clearly hoped to find a way to claim Antioch for himself, just as Baldwin had done at Edessa. If a direct assault were successful the city would likely fall under the control of the most powerful lord. That would be Raymond." Based on those sentences, is it fair to say that lesser lords such as Bohemond strategy was to prevent those more powerful than them from gaining additional titles? So the overall goal was not just to conquer the city, but more importantly to conquer the city in a way where a less powerful individual moves up in the royal peerage (upward mobility)?

Page 26, same source, . During the siege of Antioch, Bohemond found a way to bribe the captain of the guards to let the crusaders in. However before revealing it to the other barons, he called a meeting of all the lords and first he made them swear that if he can take the city without a fight, that the rights to the city would belong to Bohemond. Would you consider such a move a desire on the part of Bohemond for 'upward mobility' , whereby he would no longer be just a baron but a king of Antioch. Is this in line with the desire for 'upward mobility' in peerage?

Lets look at top of page 30, same source.. The only thing that Raymond accepted to leave Antioch and continue towards Jerusalem, was the title of "Commander in Chief of the Crusade". Why didn't he accept gold? Was the additional title more important to Raymond because it increased his personal prestige thus "upward mobility" in rank was more important for him than his oath or gold.

Lets look on page 36-37 , same source, and see how the title "King of Jerusalem" was schemed over. How Raymond trying to be clever first declined it, hoping he will be asked to become King of Jerusalem twice, and how insulted he was that another nobleman instead was asked. When instead the crown was given to Godfrey (Lord of Bouillon), along with the title "Protector of the Holy Sepulcher".

The 2nd paragraph on page 36, states "When Raymond heard the news, he was incensed". Why? Because he didn't move up in peerage and remained Raymond IV, The Count of Toulouse, while Godfrey, the former Lord of Bouillon, all of a sudden became Godfrey, the first ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and "Protector of the Holy Sepulcher" - a ruler of his own kingdom and not a mere Lord or Count. Raymond, was so insulted by this turn of events (page 36 cont) that he capriciously refused to remove his troops from the Tower of David, despite other crusade leaders begging him to do so because another aristocrat Lord "moved up" the ladder of peerage and not him. Finally Raymond agreed to allow the Bishop of Albaria to hold the Tower of David until after the battle with the Egyptian army. But as soon as Raymond left, the bishop betrayed him and gave the Tower of David to Godfrey. When Raymond heard that, he withdrew his men to the Jordan river. Why? Because he was insulted that someone who used to be equal to him, Godfrey was now above him, the King of Jerusalem and probably at his own stupidity for refusing the title when offered to him first - but whichever it is, he pouted because 'upward mobility' in the peerage system was very very important to him and he was jealous that someone else moved up and not him.

So my answer is yes, the scholar who wrote the book that I used as reference for that section really wrote that Crusaders were incensed and insulted when aristocrats and their former equals advanced in titles and peerage rank (upward mobility) in the peerage system and in some instances even initially refused to be placed under their overall command (see page 36, same reference).

So can I add my edits back in referencing them from these 2 sources? Again, this was the reason I wanted to have this discussion on the article talk page with other editors as per your original instructions to only add referenced material. Could we move this part of the discussion back to the Crusade article please? By the way that was a good catch on that same Crusader article where you removed Vatican, since I wasn't aware that the Holy See wasn't located on Vatican Hill at the time.

And again, let me repeat, as you requested I will reference everything I edit from this day forward as I have done above. Meishern (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Glad to see all this back and forth on other edits, but you've yet to come clean and admit this [13] was a flight of fancy, including, "Mirsk residents have capitalized on the legend by creating an annual Venereal Disease Summer Fun Festival as well as opening up the worlds only Museum of Genital Warts."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Had you asked 2.5 years ago, I would have an easier time doing so than today. Thus I can defend my edits of the Crusades which is a few months old much easier than edits a few years old when for all I know that Museum may have closed down during the interim period. Is it really fair to ask to account for edits multiple years old and demand accountability when most articles over a certain age contain multiple dead references?If the EU or UK website changed, I can't even use the 'time machine' to look at the URL since I no longer remember all these years later where exactly I grabbed that nuget from. However I have not lost hope, and am still looking, so unless you care to join in and help, please be patient. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Come now, Meishern, one cannot seriously entertain your feigned seriousness about this one any longer. Claiming Geraldo Rivera reported on the DNA evidence of Copernicus was a beautiful reference to idiocy from Rivera like The Mystery of Al Capone's Vaults. Indeed there was DNA testing done to confirm Copernicus's remains (not by Rivera), and which was widely reported in 2009,[14] but of course that did not confirm Copernicus died of a vicious genital warts infection caught from Mirsk prostitute. Alas that science has not yet reached that state of advancement. I can confirm that there was no such reporting by Rivera nor anyone else. Now of course you could be banned and come back the next day with a new name and do the same stuff again; my hope is that you'll decide not to. Your comedic talents and research talents can be used for completely non-fictional subjects, e.g., witness my work at Plunge for distance, a sport that is inherently hilarious. Let's admit the jig is up on Mirsk and move forward, friend.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know you well enough Milowent to prognosticate much about your future behavior, yet you feel confident enough to divine my whole future besides claiming to know the past. You are wrong however, and I will search even harder since funny as it may sound reading it (I still get a chuckle). When I found that quote in a pamphlet located on a government website, I didn't think twice about adding a gem like that since it made me laugh (like many other quirky events in history that are featured on shows like 'believe it or not'), thus I thought it would amuse others as well, and shared it here on Wikipedia, never expecting that nearly three years later I would be put on trial over its validity.

I am not sure who exactly you are, or what your purpose in butting into this conversation, and for you to accuse me here while playing Cassandra and fantasizing about future new names, and all the while trying to attribute false statements you invented and embellished to me. I never wrote that Copernicus died of genital warts caught from a Mirsk hooker - so no need to muddy the waters, and embellish yourself all the while convicting me of embellishment. Please prove that statement you've made is true and that I wrote that anywhere, since otherwise you are embellishing and distorting the facts for your own amusement (why exactly are you here trying to make things even murkier by attributing things to me that I have never written anywhere ?) Meishern (talk)

• [15]. Edit 16:54, 15 January 2012, by Meishern. I reject and denounce myself for incorrectly stating you flatly said Copernicus died from the event, even though your text implies it contributed, and it is all utter baloney. I am student of internet hoaxes, not that it matters, and yours is sitting nicely at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia already with a respectable age of 2 years 9 months. I know not all your edits are vandalism, I just want to see if you'll come clean on this one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting on the right track since at the time, an exhibit was touring Poland [16] since original I found in Polish translated with Google, perhaps a mistake between 'musum of genital warts' and 'genital warts exhibit in a museum'. The time frame though seems correct. Jimbo Wales, I hope that after reading this page, you can see that my mistake in the past has been to make edits based on sources but frequently never adding the attribution to the edits due to laziness mostly of finding the template and having to look up additional information. I admit to that oversight, which it was and not a premeditated attempt to vandalize Wikipedia. If in the future even a single edit from me can be found that lacks a reference you would have a just reason to ban me permanently. As I have stated to administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise, I vow to always reference my edits from this moment forward and continue to make valuable contributions as I have done, but this time each referenced with a notable, reliable, and valid reference as per Wikipedia rules. I am sorry to have taken up your time. Meishern (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You are making things worse. The page you linked to has no connection to Poland, no connection to Mirsk, no connection to Copernicus, no connection to the Middle Ages, no connection to a touring exhibition, no connection to Gerardo Rivera, no connection to genetic testing, and of course no connection to any "Venereal Disease Summer Fun Festival". Do you really think you could fool us into believing that just because you show us that unrelated page about the US, we would consider it more likely that you actually saw some other source back in 2012 that could have reasonably (even just as a distant memory) given rise to the phantastic and absurd claims you were trying to make with that edit? When you're in a hole, stop digging yourself deeper. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I got no time to read through all the variations of searches I am doing. Considering the article is #8 on Google for keywords "poland venereal disease exhibit" [17] it's kind of weird it has nothing to do with Poland wouldn't you say? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have answered all your initial questions and concerns on a line by line basis with references. I have made the vow you asked of me and stand by it. I am having a difficult time finding the reference due to the nearly 3 years that have passed. So now we are back at 1 edit from 3 years ago. I have created enough articles, rewrote others to G level that some benefit of the doubt should be extended to me since this was not the systemic pattern that some other editor recklessly accused me of. I am not here to dig any holes but to tell the truth, which I have done, referencing it here too, whenever the date of the edit was reasonable. Yes, it looks unbelievable like more that a few weird yet verifiable historical oddities, that academics uncover every few years so it's surprising that 0 benefit of the doubt are given and you already made up your mind, yet that PDF I found the story in exists or existed and it sucks that I haven't found the page yet. Meishern (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you address this one [18] above? I mean this stuff IS GOOD. Its just made up .... or AGF ... extremely hard to believe otherwise.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have. You can use [CNTRL]-F (if you use Windows) looking for the word "Treng" without the quotes to easily search this page. P.S. The first rule of WP:AGF: Don't talk about WP:AGF. Meishern (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Whats up

Whats up?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, How are you? Been a while. Not much with me, well besides me being in a lot of trouble. My own stupidity for being too lazy to reference. When did you return? Meishern (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Started editing again about 1 month ago I guess. I dont see you on google chat anymore? Anywhere else I can catch you? It would be great if we could work together to make articles if you know what i mean :) --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeh, though I can't remember any articles we worked on, I think you were looking for an opinion about something because you saw my edits elsewhere, though can't remember for sure. My email is the name I use here on Wikipedia, at, yahoo, dot, com /// Gchat, I stopped using since google became too intrusive since after chatting about eating a good bbq i would start seeing bbq sauce advertisements on every website i visited, so instead I use Skype instant messages, where my name again is same as here. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Leo Frank GA review

Hi Meishern, just wanted to see how far along you were on the GA review. No rush, just curious. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Any updates? Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and asked for a 2nd opinion as I didn't get a response above. Also, this will take care of Tom's objections. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The options we have with the review regarding closing it, is:

1) I can take over the review, and if you have no objections, close it according to how I feel it meets GA criteria, which may be to list the article, and the close will be recorded in your name as you are the initial reviewer

2) You can close it as a fail, allowing the article to be renominated and for me to start a third review

3) I can delete the review, moving the current conversation to a sub-page, and restart the review - this is my preferred option, as it's the cleanest and quickest, and resets the GA bot, so the review is listed against me rather than you.

Unless you have a preference for option 1) or 2), I will do option 3) in the next 48 hours. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I rather not outright fail the article just yet primarily because I haven't seen Tom address the points I've made on the review page and also because I agree with Tonystewart14 point regarding (written on your talk page) regarding the implication that multiple failed GA reviews would have on the article's future. Though I want to do the review, I am overextended for at least a month, and it would be unfair to Tony to hold him up further. There is a process to substitute reviewers here Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/FAQ that's outlined under the question 'What should I do if a review page (Talk:ArticleName/GAn) becomes inactive?'. If that is your #3 option, than I have no objections of you taking over the review of the Leo Frank article. Thanks SilkTork. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Option 3 sounds good. As Meishern reiterated, I don't want another failed GA, and cleaning out the current GA2 page would make it a lot easier to follow. Thanks SilkTork for your willingness to review and Meishern for your input above. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

POV

(Note: I've moved Meishern's text here in a subsection and responded below it.) Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Tonystewart14, sorry for the delay in replying to you. I passed the review over to SilkTork since I really am overextended and by priorities had to give it up.

If you have a moment, please read the article Alexander Pechersky which I rewrote in whole 100% from a tiny stub, about the Jewish WW2 hero who led the escape from Sobibor death camp ( made into an 80s movie where he was played by Rutger Hauer in the Escape from Sobibor ). I wrote that while fighting off revisionists and nationalists and nominated that article to GA, which it is today. That article is balanced and reads pretty smoothly without any attempts of hiding inconvenient facts to distort history. Does it read as though someone pushing a revisionist fascist agenda wrote this?

Now please re-read the intro to the Leo Frank article afterwards. There is no flow, disjointed sentences often with weird syntax are lumped into paragraphs. Facts that go against a specific narrative are kept out and needlessly hidden from the reader - for example (1) in the lede the fact that Frank was sentenced to death has been pushed to nearly the end to overemphasize the POV narrative (2) no mention of the governor's huge conflict of interest in commuting the death sentence is allowed in the article, since it would take away from the POV narrative. Wanting those facts included does not make one a fascist. Let me explain why.

What Tom don't want to allow for, is that Frank's pardon was one of those situations - where Frank was doomed if the governor commuted his death sentenced, and doomed if the governor did not. The day Frank was to be executed was fast approaching, so the governor despite his conflict of interest, and knowing fully well the consequences/backlash he will face from his constituency, still commuted the death sentence. Why? The fact that the governor was already a very wealthy man makes any suggestion that he was bribed to commute the sentence a non-issue. He committed political suicide because he saw that Frank got a raw deal, and so he made a moral choice to commute the death sentence. No sum of money would be enough for an extremely wealthy politician to willingly commit political suicide. Belief in Frank's innocence is the only logical reason for a rich, popular and very wealthy politician to commute the sentence and thus instantly turn himself into the most hated and despised man to be run out of state under guard.

However the governor's conflict of interest was the straw that broke the camel's back for the local population who were - (1) simmering after decades of Yankee interference in local matters during the post-civil war reconstruction - and (2) very heated up by the daily rhetoric by that one agenda driven publisher - causing the well educated group of respected citizens to murder Frank, no longer caring whether he was innocent or not. So by commuting the death sentence (while having a conflict of interest everyone knew about), and without moving Frank to a prison in some far away state, the governor in essence sentenced Frank to be lynched, since he must have known how his pardon with the conflict of interest would be interpreted - as a corrupt act by a governor bought off with a Yankee bribe. (Now the actual events start to make sense a bit more.)

Without this addition, the reader is left confused and learns nothing. So history will repeat itself since in a misguided effort to do the 'right thing', a POV narrative was introduced to the article turning everyone into a cartoon character : ( Southern ignorant bigots arrest and convict a man in a sham trial and then in an enraged bloodlust lynch him for no reason but his religion, while everyone knew well that he was innocent ). Anything that goes against making this narrative stronger is reverted, leading to readers being puzzled and feeling that something is being kept out in an effort to artificially sway their opinions.

More importantly some conspiracy minded readers will assume the article was skewed and facts are withheld on purpose by an organized agenda. So who do you suppose will be stereotyped and blamed for the agenda and thus enflaming anti-semitism even further? Tom and you are not members of the tribe I don't think, so perhaps some time from now when the pushback against this narrative will show itself, it won't be directed at either one of you. I on the other hand do have a dog in this fight, and would have liked to see more neutrality and facts, and less misguided agenda driven censorship in this important article. Good luck. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the clarification regarding the review and passing it on. It seemed to stall, but I'm glad it's back on track. As far as the article goes, anything that's added would have to be backed up by published sources, and not just be the analysis of the editor. So for Slaton's conflict of interest, any line that is added must have a source that says that Slaton had a conflict of interest. It shouldn't be added merely to resist accusations of pro-Frank bias.

I also read the article you linked to and made a couple of edits there as well. For the comment on the lead of the Frank article, it is written mostly chronologically and thus the death is the last paragraph of the lead. If you have specific examples of what could be changed to improve flow or syntax in the article, please let me know or make the edits so it will be improved. I remember you mentioning that there were some places that it was apparent that the article had been edited over time, but in reading through it I did not come across any serious gaps in flow. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Addition: I noticed now that under the "Commutation of sentence" section, there is a paragraph that quotes Oney as saying that there was a conflict of interest in Slaton's pardon. I believe this paragraph should suffice. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the next few weeks I need to stay away from this since it's sucking up too much time that I have to use elsewhere to make a deadline. I have a rewrite of the intro from May/June that I never showed yet, and in mid-September when I have time again, will paste it somewhere for you to read and hopefully give me feedback. I appreciate you reading the Pechersky article and your edits made sense. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I asked a few editors who hadn't posted in a while to give feedback, so the GA should be pretty lively. I'll be sure to get your feedback before moving to FAC. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cuckservative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative movement. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank GA pass

Hi Meishern, just got the message a bot sent on your behalf. I got Leo Frank to GA after Tom rewrote a lot of content and the reviewer and I contributed quite a bit as well. If you like, feel free to look over it and let me know if you have any other suggestions. I remember you had some critiques of it that you didn't have time to elaborate on, but perhaps some of them have been resolved in the meantime. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tonystewart14, what bot, lol? I started reading the intro section and wanted to rephrase 2 adjacent sentences so clicked open the edit section. Spent an hour fiddling with them but without being satisfied i just closed the browser window without saving. From all that you got a message on my behalf? That's why I asked what bot informed about my attempted edit.

Congratulations on the GA for Leo Frank article. You picked a fine editor to do the review, he did a solid, professional job.

I read the intro, and I gotta say that I liked it content wise. It really told the story a lot better than what was there before. The two sentences in the lede i was trying to rephrase a bit were: "Newspapers outside Georgia expressed the belief that Frank's conviction was a travesty. Within Georgia, this outside criticism fueled hatred for Frank and antisemitic attacks against him." I really hate the end. Rough on the ears.

I was thinking more like "National and local press outside of Georgia united in condemning Frank's trial as a farce and his conviction as a travesty of justice. This criticism by those perceived as outsiders further fanned the flames of antisemitism within Georgia, escalating their hatred of Frank to a boiling point, with open threats of violence openly made against him and his supporters." Like I wrote, my rewrite attempt of those 2 sentences aren't there yet, though your thoughts on these sentences would be appreciated. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the post made by Legobot, supposedly on behalf of you. For your quote, I think it looks good except for the redundancy in "open threats of violence openly". I would take out the first "open". Tonystewart14 (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Leftist nazis

Hi there! I read your posts on the talk page of national socialism and must say I find them very interesting. Not easy to find people who see the staggering similarities between socialism and national socialism. But what about fascism? I still can't see exactly how it's exactly in the left, if I understand correctly. Would you mind explaining me in detail the connexions between the three or at least sending me some sources? You seem to have researched and are able to explain it very well.

Thank you very much!

4a98a77f(at)opayq(dot)com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.165.69 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. If you accept that Socialism is at its foundation is when the means of production are under the control of the government as a proxy for all the people living within a geographic area, then the rest is simple. Since this definition is so broad, and without a specific requirement as to how this control of the means of production should be achieved, and nothing about the workers of the world uniting, there is a lot of room for all kinds of Socialists here. International Socialists (Marxists) are those Socialists who insist on uniting the 'have-nots'/'opressed'/'exploited' of the whole world to seize the means of production in a violent revolution that requires rivers of blood belonging to those who exploited and oppressed them to be spilled. When Bolsheviks seized power from the interim government in Russia, they proceeded to implement Socialism by seizing all privately owned businesses, executing and jailing the management and the most productive/ambitious workers and replacing them with whomever was left over (seizing means of production is one thing, but nobody said anything about knowing how to operate those means of production).

This led to a lot of resentment and a bloody civil war which resulted in a significant segment of the population either murdered or imprisoned. Riots were put down, famine killed off millions more, mismanagement was universal due to incompetence and corruption and lack of incentive (except fear of arrest) was universal. Forced labor camps with millions of the best and brightest being worked to death in order to keep the country with enough gold to buy food from capitalists and provide timber and bricks, clothes and furniture, cars and toys for the population, all the while blaming the lack of essentials, empty stores, bad infrastructure on traitors and spies working for the capitalists to destroy Socialism before an impeding invasion in multiple show trials kept the remaining population in check.

Hitler, already a Socialist, came to the conclusion that (these are Hitler's conclusions, and not mine):

(a) Bolsheviks failed because of inherent flaws within their Slav and Jewish races (greed, laziness, alcoholism, slave mentality, self-deception) which make it impossible to successfully seize power on behalf of the people, and to use that power not for personal gain or to settle scores or to become a king, but to use the power for the good of the people and then have the altruism of Washington or Cincinnatus to give up that power and walk away with a framework firmly in place for the policies you set in motion to continue.

(b) Socialism can only work when it is implemented and controlled by a homogenized people of one race within one Nation, who are disciplined enough to follow through, with the right mix of selflessness, hard work, meticulous planning and so on. So the only way for the world to become Socialist, and usher in 1000 years of peace and prosperity for all, is for this one Nation to administer the entire world on behalf of the various races who are too corrupt and flawed to be able to do it themselves. Of-course not every race would be allowed to remain, and being a good Socialist, Hitler believed in Eugenics and Natural Selection and much like Marx and Engels advocated genocide of certain races (including extermination of Jews), Hitler believed that you can't bake the Socialist omelette without cracking a lot of eggs.

(c) Here is the brilliant part of Hitler's Socialism. How do you take people's private property, their land, their houses and businesses that they worked hard to build up all their lives and planed to let their children inherit. How do you take all that without repeating what happened under the Bolsheviks? Hitler saw that it was imperative that people who knew best how to correctly run their company, or farm, pharmacy or a utility remained to prevent a revolution, famine or the need to exterminate a portion of your population with nobody to replace them with.

(d) Controlling the means of production was always understood as seizing them by force. Hitler instead passed laws which in effect allowed the government/people to control all means of production while allowing the original owners the illusion that they still owned their business. Yet what they produced, where the raw material was acquired and for what price, who can be hired, fired and how much they should be paid, length of their breaks, benefits packages, to whom the company is allowed to sell the products and for what price, the maximum allowed return on investment for stock holders, how much ceo is to be paid and the company janitor. So even if on paper the company remained private, de facto it was unable to set any policy without explicit approval of the National Socialist government. This is how Hitler socialized industry without a revolution or the need to cripple the country.

Just because Hitler hated Communists doesn't mean he hated lefties. The first thing all Socialists do when they come to power (whether Nazis or Bolsheviks) is that they attempt to exterminate first all other competing left wing groups, for whom special savagery is reserved. Just see what happened when Bolsheviks took over to all the members of competing Socialist parties, whose bones litter the permafrost in Siberia - Union of Socialists Revolutionaries Maximalists Party, Socialist Revolutionary Party, Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Mensheviks), Popular Socialists Party, Left Socialist Revolutionaries Party.

In fact, forget everything I wrote. Just go read this two articles to understand better why Hitler was a proud left winger:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-the-biggest-lie-in-history/

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Nationalsocialism = socialism is clear to me, I understand the similarities and connections. Though what about fascism? How's that on the left exactly? It quite often seems to tend towards neoliberalism (state enforced/controlled "capitalism") which if I'm not mistaken is on the right. Or, am I mistaken?

What were the at that time contemporary philosophical connections between socialism/Hitler/Marx/Lenin/Stalin on one side and fascism/Mussolini/Schuschnigg/Franco/Salazar etc... on the other? apart from the facts that they originally started from the same point. Would I be correct in grouping Yugoslavia's Tito under nationalsocialism (though without the extreme racism) since he was definately a socialist but also rather nationalist (compared to the SU's international socialists)? Do you know of some good definitions of what exactly can and what cannot be considered left-wing and right-wing? It seems difficult to classify certain rulers such as Argentine president/dictator Perón.

Ah, so many questions! I do hope I'm not asking too much. Again, thank you for your time if you reply. Even any pointing towards objective relevant literature is helpful, I am a fervent reader. 190.22.229.164 (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How can fascists be right wingers when their motto is 'might through unity' - a single stick can easily be broken but a bundle of sticks is nearly impossible to break. That is a Socialist slogan, no different from - united we stand, divided we fall. That sounds like a call for farmers, factory workers, the weak and the oppressed to all join forces together under one banner to overthrow their oppressors. It's a call for the individual to forget their own (selfish) needs and to focus on the needs of the entire group - hive mentality.

If both ultra-left and ultra-right involve a totalitarian police state, and an attempt to take over the world by force, and a small group of people at the very top who dictate to everyone else what they can and can't do, say, think, with the rest of the population being told to follow rigid guidelines, everybody equal in misery and equal in lack of opportunity, with little difference in salary between the best surgeon in the land, and the worse toilet cleaner

So that would mean that by this definition both left and right are (a) authoritarian (b) individual is lost to the group (c) conformity is mandatory (d) a large super powerful government of the privileged few are in complete control of the many who are all equal in their powerlessness, hopelessness; (conclusion) The only difference between right and left is that (ultra-left) is oppressing everyone for their own good since the leaders of the left are hand selected to know what's best for everyone, while (ultra-right) is oppressing everyone for their own selfish reasons in order to enrich the privileged few at the top at the expense of everyone else. So this would mean right wingers are pure evil and left wingers are pure good. (Have a feeling some self righteous a$$ in Berkeley or Columbia came up with the current right/left political spectrum).

There is only one problem with this left/right paradigm. The real opposite of an ultra-left state should be something with (a) almost no central government at all (b) no power to force will on population or deprive population of freedom (c) only centralized forbidden behavior is depriving anyone of life, liberty, property. Local communities can create whatever else each wants. Now in this left/right paradigm it is the left who is pure evil trying to impose the will of a self anointed group of rulers to lead the masses for their own good, while the right is pure good by allowing individuals the freedom of choice as to how to live their life without the need to conform to group behavior. Thus it is libertarians who are ultra-right and fascists are just Socialists who haven't yet completely seized all the means of productions to finalize the transformation.

Look at the 14 points that define a fascist state [19] and you have USSR on every point but the one about corporations. So if Bolsheviks waited to seize means of production till the very last, then USSR would be considered fascist. Which confirms that left wingers see ultra-right as an evil version of themselves. This definition of fascism was of course created by left wingers who are trying to hide that fascism is a left wing ideology, and is but a final step in the transformation process into pure Socialism.

So within Socialism, Marxists would be considered ultra-left Socialists and Fascists/Nazis would we considered ultra-right Socialists. Yet on a scale of all political philosophies, both Marxists and Fascists are left-wing Socialist ideologies. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia turns 15 on January 15, 2016.

Are u still in PP? I was thinking on joining other Wikimedians to celebrate.Dan Koehl (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Dan Koehl, yeh I am still here. When is (was) it? Meishern (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Its January 15, 2016. If we just decide a place, its easy to setup the celebration meeting, and even founding a Cambodia Wikimedia chapter. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Dan Koehl, how many people were you able to reach besides me? As for the place, I would think some no-smoking bar around the river area would make sense. I would suggest to just pick a place yourself that's convenient for you and spread the word and see who else comes, which I think is fair since you are making it all happen anyhow. My email is my name here at yahoo. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank Article Reference Removal

You played a major role in the evolution of the Leo Frank article by bringing it to the attention of silktork. Since silktork took stewardship of the article as a dispassionate adviser it has improved. So thank you for that. Recently, an editor named MarkBernstein is attempting to remove a link on the Leo Frank to The American Mercury which was placed there in context. I was wondering if you could respond to the discussion about why it is relevant to the article in context. Thanks DopeyBoB (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Jasons cradle.jpeg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jasons cradle.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cuckold. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LL212W (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Next time your bot reverts my constructive edits automatically that I've explained in edit summary, it will be reported. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cuckold, you may be blocked from editing. LL212W (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake. I was using Wikipedia:Lupin to revert vandalism. --LL212W (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice bot though. My first encounter in 10 years so I was a bit stumped. Out of curiosity, how customizable is it? Would it break the 3 revert rule? Would it post in Admin noticeboard automatically? Can you create complex logic to determine if something was vandalism (automatically look at past edits/if edits by IP etc...) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, not a bot. It is a tool which filters potentially vandalistic edits from recent changes, and shows them in list form to the user. The user decides if the edit shown is vandalism or not and whether to revert it or leave it. If you would like, follow the instructions here. Happy editing! LL212W (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Meishern. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Meishern. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Michel hermann 1938.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Michel hermann 1938.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2021 in Phnom Penh!

Hey Meishern! We are coming together for Wikipedia:Meetup/Phnom Penh/August 2021 in Koh Pich, and it would be great if you join that you give us one of the 3 short TED-style talks about your involvement on Wikipedia as you seem to be the most committed user living in the Kingdom of Cambodia. You can contact me through Facebook (Will Conquer) or Telegram (+855 96 236 3478) for more info. Willuconquer (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please join the category

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedians in Phnom Penh

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians in Phnom Penh indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gerrit Kleerekoper.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gerrit Kleerekoper.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)