User talk:Rsloch/Archives/2013/July

Australian Wikipedians Noticeboard

Hello Rsloch. I think you're Australian, so come on down here to keep up to date with the Australian related stuff on wikipedia. Thanks.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

British, Company, Europeans, Mughals

Hi Rsloch. I, as you can probably see :-), disagree with your wholesale changes of Company to British, etc. etc. Since the Company was British, and derived its authority to govern India from various acts of the British parliament, I think it can safely be characterized as being British. Similarly, substituting Europeans for British is not correct for two reasons: First, the rebellion was solely directed at the British; Second, the term Europeans is often colloquially used in exclusion of the British. Using Europeans would be definitely very odd. Finally, the Mughal empire was more than 350 years old, had inter-married extensively, and had not remaining ties with Central Asia or Afghanistan. If, at the time of the rebellion, they could be called foreigners, then almost all of us Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Australians, etc. are even more 'foreign' today than the Mughals were during the time of the rebellion! If you feel that at specific places 'Company' is better than British, then that is a different thing, but a wholesale change is not correct. Thanks!--Swans and ducks (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it like this. To me it's quite clear that, at least at the time of the rebellion, the Mughals were almost wholly Indian in nature. About the rest, the British/Company and British/European, I agree that there is less clarity. If you want to make your changes without the Mughal as foreigner reference, go ahead and we'll see what happens with others. Thanks for your response and for not making the edits without discussion! --Swans and ducks (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857

User:124.124.0.1 Reverts.

I think we were reverting the mentioned user edits at the same time, and i ended up actually reverting yours. I have amended this, and apologies for the error.--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rsloch, thanks for reincluding the info which I added on Amaresh Misra's estimates of the death toll during and after the Indian rebellion, regards, Knockadooma (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian rebellion book

Hello, I will copy what I left on Slatersteven's talk page since the topic is very similar. I have undone the edit you made deleting the disambig link I put in the article. The link is to a seperate article which exists on the book which itself has some notabillity, and since it shares the name that a lot of Indian do use to describe the event, I therefore believe a disambig is neccessary and have added an appropriate link. Moreover this is according to the building the web editing guideline. I have reinstated the link. I dont understand what you mean by "Openeing floodgates". Also, I pointed in the last edit summary that it would have been courteous to have informed me since you reverted outright an edit I made, and maybe seen as confrontational. Please leave me a message if you disagree. Thanks rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also left a message on the talk page of the article. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 00:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalin

Hi, you recently edited the Joseph Stalin article to say that his father was an Ossetian cobbler. However, the Vissarion Jughashvili article says that he was "the grandson of an Ossetian called Zaza." This would imply that Stalin's father was only 1/4 Ossetian. Can you please clarify what Simon Sebag-Montefiore said in his book? If Stalin was indeed 50% Ossetian, then the article about his father needs to be modified as well. Thanks. Khoikhoi 01:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Any chance you could provide me with p. 19 of Young Stalin? That would be great. Khoikhoi 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've read the source, and it says for sure that Zaza was Ossetian, and I'm assuming that his wife was as well. But how do we know whether Vano's wife was Ossetian or not? The book does say, "When Stalin’s dying father was admitted to hospital, significantly he was still registered as Ossetian" – but does this necessarily translate to him being 100% Ossetian? Khoikhoi 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

River Thames

Sorry to be difficult about this, but terminology on anything to do with Britain/Ireland is controversial. The last thing we want is yet another geography article getting pulled into that. --Snowded TALK 12:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

River Wye

There probably was a Roman crossing of the Wye near Chepstow - but I don't really see why a bald statement to that effect needs to be inserted at the start of a section which primarily deals with the history of navigation and trade on the river. The section does need to be expanded with references to other aspects of the river - including bridges, of which there are many, and other factors - and at some point I'll no doubt get round to it. So, I'm not questioning the validity of the statement, just a question of style - the existence of a Roman bridge at one time is, frankly, quite a minor point, and it makes the section read a bit oddly, in my opinion. A general point relating to Chepstow as the lowest bridging point would, to me, seem less odd. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bibighar Massacre

Hi! Although I can follow your reasoning on the inclusion of the victims of the Bibighar Massacre in the list of disasters article it does not fall within the remit of the lists. The massacre was an action that took place due to events in the Indian Rebellion of 1857. As such it was neither a natural disaster or an accident, but an 'act of war'. You did wikilink the massacre to the Siege of Cawnpore which states Sepoys did the killing, though I an aware they were only partly responsible in that they shot some of the prisoners and butchers actually finished them of with meat cleavers. A more descriptive narrative is located on the Nana Sahib article here:- [1]. However as its a debatable issue perhaps you would like to take it to the article talk page to enable others to have a say and form a consensus, before re-inserting the event. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter Mandelson

In answer to your question, please see WP:COATRACK. biography articles shouldn't become "lists of embarassing things". More specifically, controversies need to be notable - there needs to be substantial secondary source coverage showing that this is an actual controversy of significance for the subject, and not mere tabloid fodder. Disembrangler (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Indian students

you are just randomly removing stuff. pls note that the article is about attacks and not racial attacks. are you supporting to title the article into "racial attacks"? --Like I Care 22:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take care while editing 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia. It is not necessary for the attacks to be racially motivated to be included into the article. Philwalker87 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Villages and railways in Oxfordshire

Thankyou for starting the South Leigh article, and for your compliment on my talk page about my additions to it. Along the route of the Oxford, Witney and Fairford Railway I've also worked on the articles for Yarnton village, Yarnton railway station, Cassington village, Cassington Halt and Alvescot railway station and created the article on Langford, Oxfordshire. There are still no articles for Eynsham railway station and Witney railway station, the articles for Yarnton Station and Cassington Halt need infoboxes and "disused rail" boxes, and only one of the East Gloucestershire Railway stations has an article. It's easy work, but it will take some methodical and patient soul a spare hour or two. If you have the time and inclination to work on any of them, please do! :o) Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for adding articles for some more of the stations on the Oxford, Witney and Fairford Railway and a couple of references for Charlbury. I've worked on the "disused rail" boxes for each station along the line and User:Bruern Crossing has added photo's and other details for some of the stations. I've added a lot more references to Charlbury and removed the "unreferenced" tag. I've enough source material to expand Charlbury a lot more, but not enough time to do the job. Between us we'll get there one day! Motacilla (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for creating an article for each of the stations on the East Gloucestershire Railway. I hope that you won't mind that I've tidied up a few dates and details for you. Your efforts are greatly appreciated! Motacilla (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

Hi Rsloch, I want to have a look at the ..is he a therapist story in the draper article..I have commented on the talk page and I have got no replies...do you want to work with me a little and try to work that story out.. I know the guardian at the time was made to make a public apology.. can we have a look? let me know..no pressure. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Yeh, I like all of your ideas, if you like, your welcome to insert, or I will do it tomorrow or ....soon. Cool. thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

File copyright problem with File:Barrenjoey path.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Barrenjoey path.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Spelsburychurch2009.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Spelsburychurch2009.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 18:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Kingham railway station

What is your rationale for your recent edits to Kingham railway station? When writing those sections, I had carefully checked the articles of several other stations which had been renamed; and found that the majority had name changes shown in boldface, not italic. I can't remember which I checked at the time; but take a look at Challow railway station, Cholsey railway station, Didcot Parkway railway station, Reading railway station. Is there a policy document that you could refer me to, please? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My rationale, for what it's worth, is that emboldened text should be avoided outside the introduction (which is what happens in your examples). I think we need to expand the introduction and simplify the infobox.

Rsloch (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, it seems that WP:MOSBOLD is in agreement; however, I do think it looks odd to have the name borne by the station for its first fifty years in lighter type than its present name.

In what way should the infobox be simplified? Please respond at Talk:Kingham railway station as others may have views. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxfordshire railway stations

Thankyou for the new Kidlington article. I've added to it, so please forgive me for adjusting some of what you wrote as well. For some reason the "Historical Rail" template was failing to display the "Line and station closed" caption. I have no idea why, as your text looked correct. I re-did the box and this time it worked. Weird.

Thankyou for the new Shipton-on-Cherwell Halt article as well. I haven't looked at it yet. Mum's still in hospital so I'm still not getting many moments to edit, but I will log in from time to time when I can. Thanks for your work so far, and best wishes with your editing. It's great that nearly every Oxfordshire rail station has been added now!

Motacilla (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The 'wierd' problem described above was caused by spurious pipe characters immediately prior to the <br> tags within:

|previous = Terminus|<br><small>Line open and Station closed
|next     = [[Shipton-on-Cherwell Halt railway station|Shipton-on-Cherwell Halt]]|<br><small>Line closed and Station closed

These pipes terminated the |previous= and |next= fields, and |<br> is not a recognised field, so the wiki was ignored until the next valid field. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hereford, Ross and Gloucester Railway

Hi Rslcoh, your welcome to create the articles, you seen to know quite a bit about the line! I'll come and help expand them now and again.

Bye! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 15:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way have you seen these two videos, their amazing! [2] and [3].

WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Blaisdon

Spencer Road Halt is a stone's throw from my house. I tried to tell "them" that Spencer Road Halt railway station was tautologous but they would not have it. I see that you know this standard, so if you created Blaisdon Halt by mistake, you should have changed it to a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Western Main Line diagram

Re your recent edit, I've started a discussion at Template talk:Great Western Main Line diagram#Uffington and the Faringdon Branch --Redrose64 (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wantage Tramway

Re your recent edit: the article used the parameters |line=Wantage Tramway, |manager=Wantage Tramway Company and |owner=, the last being blank. These display as "Original company Wantage Tramway" and "Pre-grouping Wantage Tramway Company" - the third doesn't display becauser the value is blank, but would have shown as "Post-grouping").

The parameter names aren't very meaningful except for stations which are (or have been) a part of the post-privatised rail network, so I altered these to the forms which correspond with the displayed headings, ie |original=Wantage Tramway, |pregroup=Wantage Tramway and |postgroup=Wantage Tramway. I removed the word "Company", because virtually all railway undertakings were companies - and so the word is usually omitted. I added a value to the last one to make it clearer that it wasn't grouped - I have seen it (incorrectly) reported elsewhere that it was grouped into the GWR. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Have found that |original= and |pregroup= were introduced with this edit and |postgroup= with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wantage Tramway diagram

Some weeks ago I started getting a diagram together, this can be seen in my sandbox (left-hand diagram). I've not altered it since 17:59, 3 August 2009, and I'd like to put it live somewhere suitable. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not overly propriety about the template so edit it as you feel fit, though that version is possibly a tad too complex for a short line.

Rsloch (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Aves ditch

In June you created the article Aves ditch and in July User:Postcard Cathy tagged it as an "orphan". I have added links to the article from Kirtlington, Lower Heyford and Middleton Stoney and deleted the "orphan" tag. I know nothing about Ave's Ditch beyond what little the Kirtlington section of the Victoria County History has told me. Are its origins and date similar to those of the various Grim's Ditches around southern England? Motacilla (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Leamington Spa former branch lines

I have corrected what was probably my error re the point at which the Great Central Line crosses this one. Thanks for the heads up! Britmax (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Clive Standen

i have found the reference for the aclaimed tom browns school days but don't know how to link it as a reference so have added it to the external links section?i was hoping you may be able to place it correctly for me.??please

Re:Indian National Army

Hello Rsloch, here are some sources I had handy, in fact because of an earlier debate on an almost identical issue.

It is neccessary to emphasise "many" does not mean "all", and "some" does not neccessarily mean "almost no one". But the argument is certainly not only of Indian historians, but from many others, and eminent ones at that. Hope this is of help. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

'Indian freedom struggle'/1857/template

The relevant discussion has been moved to Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars#.27Indian_freedom_struggle.27 Zuggernaut (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Waterhouses railway station

Hi, just to let you know I've moved your article on Waterhouses railway station to Waterhouses (County Durham) railway station and turned the old page into a disambig page between that station and the one for Waterhouses (Staffordshire). I think I've changed all the links so that articles like Deerness Valley Railway etc point to the right place but you might like to check for yourself. NtheP (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

NPoV

As an experienced editor, you should know that using PoV terms, as you did in this edit is not allowed. If you persist an admin is likely to block you from editing, per WP:NPOV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make that edit, so am not sure why I was credited with it. Will investigate.

Rsloch (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Louise Mensh

Hi Rsloch. I reverted your edit on the above as the original meets the criteria of WP:NEWSBLOG. It does however give a one sided view of LM as it fails to mention she had previously disappointed. Please feel free to add this. JRPG (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Kelso Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Eastern Railway (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) 11:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

tb

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

x2.VolunteerMarek 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC) x3.VolunteerMarek 01:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And again

Once more, you are just making reverts without explaining or justifying them [4]. I don't see a point in changing "So-and-so was honored by the city of Szczecin" to "So-and-so was honored by "Polish authorities"" unless you think there is a substantial difference between the two phrasings. I can see that somehow the second version can be taken to imply that if these "Polish authorities" are only temporarily in control of the city (until Germany gets it back and all those historical injustices are put right) then yeah, sure, there is a substance to the distinction between "Polish authorities" and "the city". But if that's not the case, then it is more accurate to refer to the city bestowing the honor.VolunteerMarek 05:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you has some pro-German motivation. My motivations for editing the Szczecin are twofold, one to correct errors and two to make it less one sided. This edit falls into the first category. Play the ball not the player.Rsloch (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Eyemouth branch

I have referred to an Admin who is experienced in the production of Historic Scottish Railway articles --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 13:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be me, I guess, but I don't think that the discussion should be private, so shall we discuss at Talk:Eyemouth Railway Company? In connection with this: if you wish to revert a page move in future, please use the "Move" function, rather than cutting and pasting, see WP:CUTPASTE. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Danzig

Usually the number of Poles in the Free City of Danzig is given as 3 to 5 percent. Henryk Stępniak estimates (!) that about 25-30 percent of the Catholics where in fact Polish (thus estimating (!) a number of 30-36,000). On the other hand Samerski estimates (!) 10 percent of the Catholics to be Polish (about 13,000). I'm sure both would have used the official census of 1929 if that census would have shown a number of 35,000 as Polish as Cieślak seems to claim. Probably he also estimates that number based on a (more or less arbitrary estimated) percentage of the Catholic populace. In short: Cieślak's claim is highly dubious. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S.:Could you please cite what Cieślak exactly writes.

It wasn't a Free City's judgement but a Wehrmacht court martial judgement and yes, a German court can revoke that. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User name

Nice. W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

1942 raid in southern Bačka

Hi,

I noticed that you removed several cited assertions with this edit without any explanation. Will you please explain why?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The only assertions removed entirely, are that Sándor Képíró 'alleged' move to Argentina and the extreme right applauded his aquittal. The first is by its nature suspect factually, and the second could be read as implying guilt by association and thus raises NPOV issues. Both are better included in an article on Képíró. Hopefully that answers your questions.

Rsloch (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You removed three cited assertions. Besides Argentina move and extreme right applause you removed assertion that he was found guilty twice.

• Source: Kepiro was found guilty of involvement twice - Removed cited assertion: Képíró has twice previously been found guilty: once by the wartime Hungarian courts, and again after the war, in 1946.

Argentina move was properly mentioned as "allegedly". Reactions to his release are notable and should be presented to the readers as well as conclusion about any guilt implication trough association. Please be so kind to restore all three referenced assertions into the text of the article.

Since this discussion is not anymore just about your specific edit but about the content of the article I will copy-paste it to the article's talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's polite to ask before cutting and pasting.

As to your points, we are here to provide facts not conjecture, it raises NPOV issues and thus shouldn't be there, and you'll find that earlier in the section. My overarching point still stands the article is on the raids not Képíró.

Rsloch (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Will you please be so kind to present wikipedia policy or guideline which say that I need your approval to copy-paste this discussion about the content of the article to the article's talkpage?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Good behaviour is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Rsloch (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• "It's polite to ask before cutting and pasting." - I did not cut.
• There is an essay which describes this situation. It says: As soon as the talk seems to be centred around a specific article, policy, or template, etc., the discussion should move over to the topic's talk page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

January Uprising

Re: [5]. I don't think there are actually any places in present day Eastern Poland on there (and if so, not many) and the map is titled as depicting Lithuania and Ruthenia. It's not a big deal, though.Volunteer Marek 04:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

North-West Rebellion

Hello, thank you for your interest in Canadian history and the Northwest Rebellion in particular, but I did undo you last revision. The Parliament of Canada does refer to the Commons and Senate, the federal legislative bodies since 1867. It's common practice here to refer to provincial bodies as legislatures or legislative assemblies, with the exceptions of Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador.McMuff (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Times

The Times is not free nowadays, and it would be necessary to pay to read the whole story, although there is a preview of the article opening. Times articles are marked as requiring a subscription on Google News.[6]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Schloss Meseberg

Hello Rsloch: Do know how to link this new article so that it is shown on the German page as an English translation? I have done this several times in the past but things seem to have changed and I don't know what to do. Interesting user name! Mikeo1938 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've now worked out how to do it. Mikeo1938 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deal, Kent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandown Castle (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) 00:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Firing Squad stuff

Hi Rsloch, just seen your removal of the Austrian/ Serbian pic on the Firing Squad thread, as "probable" propaganda. I agree it could well have been, but is there a source that suggests that? "Probable ≠ actually", of course. BTW, I don't insist on it either way. And maybe if it is proved to be staged (is that what you mean?) propaganda, maybe there would still be a place for it in the article as an example of such usage? Anyway, the reason I ask is because images are few and far between and not as easy to come by as written refs (and harder to keep too!). Cheers mate. Basket _Feudalist 13:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead then. Funny it's been there so long though. Must be that Serbian Wiki Cabal we gotta watch out for I see you do stuff on disused stations etc, I should be able to get you photos of ones in London if you want them? All the best Basket _Feudalist 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You removal of information about mass executions and murder of Jews after Nazi invasion of Poland.

In this edit [7] You have changed the sentence

"After the German invasion of Poland in 1939, the Jewish population of Silesia was subjected to executions and murdered, placed in ghettos or ethnically cleansed into the newly created General Government."

Into

"After the German invasion of Poland in 1939, the Jewish population of Silesia was either placed in ghettos or expelled to the General Government."

The sentence you have inserted lacks information about mass executions and murder and has changed ethnic cleansing into expulsion. Why have you done that? Mass executions and ethnic cleansing against Jews happened during that time and needs to be mentioned. I don't understand the reason for your edit and would welcome an explanation. Right now the sentence misses the most important events and atrocities made by Nazis. I believe it should be restored to clarify the primary actions of Nazi Germany against Jews in Silesia. If you disagree I will raise the issue on talk. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Then add the detail you feel is missing don't revert valid material Rsloch (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I added details numerous times, which you have removed without any serious argumentation. Do I understand that basing on your above sentence you agree to reintroduce vital information that Poles and Jews were subject to mass murder, ethnic cleansing as overall part of organized Nazi genocide.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)?

It is very simple, an article on Silesia should be the home for material on that region not generalised material that could fit on hundreds of other pages. Can't we honour the victims of the Nazis in Silesia with something other than generalised badly written Nazis are evil boilerplate text? Rsloch (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your removal of crucial information and accurate description of Nazi atrocities doesn't improve the article. Clearly describing Nazi actions and aims in Silesia-classification of Poles and Jews as subhumans and their eventual extermination-is in no way dishonouring the victims of Nazi Germany. I don't understand your "boilerplate" text at all. I am afraid you would have to elaborate. However-it seems that majority of editors in the article disagree with you. Since you continue to oppose precise description of Nazi actions and crimes replacing it with very generic and euphemistic sentence I will ask others on the talk page of the article how should we describe them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Silesia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

How should we describe the Nazi genocide of Polish and Jewish population in Silesia during Second World War?

I have started discussion on this [8]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Silesia-please accept the consensus reached by editors on talk page and don't remove information about about Nazi genocide

Silesia-please accept the consensus reached by editors on talk page and don't remove information about about Nazi genocide. Several editors voiced their objections to removal of information concerning genocide committed by Nazis in Silesia. I will thus restore this information and ask you to respect the consensus reached on discussion page. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No consensus exists. Rsloch (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It does. 5 users have rejected your version and nobody besides you supports removal of information about Nazi genocide of Poles and Jews in Silesia. You are the only user supporting removal of this information.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page: 'No consensus has been reached. Two editors, Piotrus and I, have proposed a link to Nazi war crimes, and you want the text you have written, variations of which are appearing on numerous other articles. Until a consensus is reached any edits you make are subject to revision. It would be best to leave the text as is until a consensus is reached or seek alternative forms of dispute resolution'.Rsloch (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for the barnstar. Keep cool and always remember: it's just a wiki. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop mass deletions of sourced information about extermination of Poles and Jews in articles concerning Nazi policy and activity

Please stop mass deletions of sourced information about extermination of Poles and Jews in articles concerning Nazi policy and activity. Thank you. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-English sources

[9]

Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, where English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page

Non-English sources are perfectly fine. If you have any specific request feel to ask for translation. History of Gdansk is one of my favourite topics. Of course also remember that we don't need really to cite obvious facts like that the Sun is a star, or that Nazis exterminated other nations. Such statements require no citations. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is the ability to verify that a citation matches the text, yours didn't. You seem to be making a specific claim and multiple editors believe that needs a citation. If this is just part of your obsession to put the same boilerplate text on as many pages as possible then at least make the text understandable. Rsloch (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"a citation matches the text, yours didn't." Really? What part of the text you want sourced? Could you be more precise which fragment according to you wasn't matched by citations? I believe all of it was, if you could be more precise I could add even more sources.I am looking forward to your answer.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The text that preceded the citation needed tag. Rsloch (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you quote it as your statement is very imprecise. What sentence/statement do you want to be sourced exactly?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh Rsloch (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You were very imprecise. I propose you simply quote the sentence you wanted to have cited here and I will do so. How about it?

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The text in question has been identified. You are perfectly capable of making valuable additions to articles so it is a shame that you seem happy to add poorly worded generic dross to so many articles. Discussion closed. Rsloch (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Detroit. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Southam & Itchington railway station

I've left a comment in that article's 'Talk' page. But jusdging by what I've read above on this page, I suspect you won't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.64.191 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you suspect wrongly. It's clearly an error and well spotted. Do you want to change it or should I? Rsloch (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I am always ready to cooperate provided scholarly material and sources is not removed and information that Nazis wanted to exterminate Poles and Jews is not removed as well. I again ask you not to delete information about Nazi atrocities or sources confirming this. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)