White Guard

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 00:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Axis Powers

Hi! I have reveted his edits. He is in violation of the 3-revert-rule and I will report him if he keeps this up. For now I have protected the page. Furthermore I have tried to respond to his claims but much of what he says about the motives of the government in 1940 has already been discussed in my earlier replies on the page. His revisionist view of the war is a) not supported by Danish scholars and b) motivated by his own political views. I will try to find more sources but most of the quality sources on the web is in Danish and hence of little use for people outside of Denmark. Anyways, if he keeps this up I will have him blocked. By the way... is it just me or does he seem like a sock puppet of the weirdo who made long statements on the talk page before? It seems unusual that he comes along right after the earlier one stopped making comments. MartinDK 17:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting him and getting him blocked. I was able to get the page fully protected and your block stopped him from making further edits to the page before that. If he should decide to cause further prolems, especially by creating more sockpuppets, we can always get him as well as his sockpuppets blocked for another 24 hours based on that. I think the protection should stay in place for at least a week to discourage him from coming back. I agree that he may very well be Croatian. At least he has some very unusual and far out views on why Croatia wasn't at least a puppet. To support this claim he tries to label others as puppets and hence distort the very definition of a puppet and what happened in general. I am very open to evidence that will prove my views on Denmark wrong but they need to be of academic standard. Simply reffering to private web sites like he does do not convince me since none of the two sites he found can be considered authorative sources on the matter. I have looked long and hard and all the sources I find do indeed recognize that Denmark was considered an ally be the British and Americans at least.

Furthermore it is widely recognized here in Denmark that Frikorps Danmark was indeed a German invention, that the people who volunteered were supportive of the Nazis ideology and/or war against the Soviet Union and that the goverment only sanctioned it to please the Germans.

His comments about the Danish police are downright lies. The police was arrested by the Germans in 1943 because the Germans realized that although it officially should have helped the Gestapo it in fact was not doing so at all. Much of the resistance here was based on the policy of collaboration. By appearing to be co-operating civil servants, politicans and others were able to disrupt German efforts and this together with very skilled bombings of German infrastructure and suppliers played a major role in the final months of the war because the only German soldiers who weren't either killed, injured or just plain worn out were not able to leave Denmark and Norway. While the Germans were de facto defeated after the faliure and total collapse on the Eastern front the war on the Western front could have been significantly prolonged had the Germans been succesfull in getting its troops from Denmark and Norway. His comparison with Holland is absurd. Had the Danes fought back in the way he wanted them to Denmark would have been a new Holland and how helpful would that have been? Holland was basically destroyed and the people suffered terribly without being able to offer any powerful resistance because their country had been completely taken over by the Germans. I am sure the British were happy that the Germans would never have been able to fire their rockets from Denmark instead, simply because they knew that any such plans would be too risky with a resistance movement as well-organized and armed as the Danish. From the very beginning of the war the resistance was co-operatng with the Bristish intelligence services and the cover provided by the collaboration policy gave them the time and peace to build up a powerful resistance movement that the Britsh described as "second to none" after the war.

There has been a debate for years here in Denmark among leading scholars within this field and none of the people with access to the core archives support his views at all. Cheers, have a nice weekend and once again thank you for your very helpful efforts. MartinDK 11:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

Hello, there. Please take the time to vote for the various candidates over at Core_biographies#Voting_booth. If you can, try to read a bit about the candidates you don't know about so you can get a better idea of how to vote. Thanks! ♠ SG →Talk 10:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, only vote where you yourself have a definite idea for a decision. ♠ SG →Talk 00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Third Reich

Thanks for your comments on Goebbels. I am thinking of launching a new Wikipedia project to rewrite all the major Third Reich articles, which suffer from sensationalism and lack of scholarly standards. I did a draft of a new Holocaust article a while ago, but it needs to be redone with proper referencing. I recently rewrote Horst Wessel, for example, but there are many many articles in need of rewriting and referencing. Let me know if this project interests you. Adam 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism

Hello! The Herero and Namaqua Genocide page has been unblocked. Since you seem to be familiar with the subject, improving it (with sources) would certainly be a good a thing, and block any further revisionist editing (I'm thinking, for ex, on the part about the Herero skulls bring brought back to Germany to compare to German skulls in a scientific racism attempt — I wasn't the one to add this info, and have no source for it, thus I haven't included it again as others users apart of Maria Stella have expressed doubt about it. However, I don't find this surprising - see Saartje Bartman etc. - and it would nice to source it...) You might also be interested in the debate taking place at the talk place of Colonialism, which also involves two Articles for Deletion nomination. Thanks, Lapaz 15:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! This reminds me of the expression "anti-White racism" or "reverse racism" (see racism for discussions on the subject; actually, the poor state of racism-issues is what made me click on the "Herero genocide" and try to improve colonialism issues). Making an Afd (article for deletion) is actually quite simple, although the explanations might seem to make it more difficult. See Afd#How to list pages for deletion. Maria Stella surely has this page on her watch list, so she will probably vote against soon enough. Deleting pages may be tricky in some situations, as on the whole, one administrator can always decide that those who want to support the page have provided good arguments even if such is not the case (see arguments for deletion at economic totalitarianism, for ex.). However, if the page provides no source and is clearly biased, deletion usually follows. Cheers! Lapaz

Xanon

Dear White Guard, the term is correct (though I don't know who he then really is - he genuinely seems unaware of various Wiki customs like signatures etc.) and your observation seems correct as well. I tried to reason with him for a while, according to WP:AGF, but after what we wrote yesterday there is no longer any basis for that. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Anti-Germanism

Hi White Guard. I have started a deletion discussion at the new page Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Anti-Germanism 2, using your comments from the talk page, and listed it on today's Articles for Deletion log. This is how we normally deal with repeat nominations, although in this case the first nomination was a mistake and didn't refer to this article. Feel free to comment more in the discussion, or ask for any more help! JPD (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stalin

It doesn't matter if he in fact was a dictator a if every article in wikipedia about leaders might state they are dictators. That doesn't mean that they are. Many people don't believe stalin to be a dictator, it is a POV statement that should be reverted. He wasn't the de facto leader, de facto means "in practice" and not by the law, Stalin was leader by law! Kiske 03:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe you are right about the statement regarding him as a de facto leader. But you must know that Stalin was not objectively called a dictator. I know that the articles on Franco and Hitler also state them as dictator, but if you really want to be objective, the man shouldn't be called a dictator. Second...never label me as a political activist! This was a personal offense, I never attacked you, and I have no political prejudice, as you say! What would make you say that? Many people do not believe Stalin to be a dictator, at least in Eastern Europe, perhaps your own views might represent an American or western view, but I was born and raised in the German Democratic Republic, and not because I lived there does it mean that I have certain political prejudices like yourself. All you needed to say was call me a communist! That's all you needed! Please refrain from anymore attacks sir, I have no problems with you, but please consider respecting other people. Oh and another thing, if Stalin's real name is not stalin, why do you keep changing what I write? The article is not yours sir, and I believe it can be bettered if we state his real name and then state "better known as Joseph Stalin", just as it is stated in the Lenin article. Second, the fact he was General Secretary of the party can stay in the first paragraph, but the statement explaining what that job means is something else entirely and doesn't really belong in that portion of the article. Kiske 09:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time that I have ever heard of the term 'political activist'-which, incidentally, I did not use-being thought of as a 'personal offense'! Many people in Eastern Europe do not believe Stalin to have been a dicatator? Well, that's news to me and, I suspect, many people in Eastern Europe. White Guard 22:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do realise your assumptions and your personal judgments. You are right, Stalin has been repeatedly considered a dictator throughout the world, and perhaps the article should stay like that, even though I am still unconvinced. I personally do believe Stalin to be a dictator, and he truly was, but it seems to me that saying he was a dictator eliminated the objectivity of the article because we are qualifying his regime as being a dictatorship, and objective reasoning should not qualify anything, but merely inform, and informatively speaking, Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union, whether he was in fact a dictator or not is an entirely different matter. I hope you come to understand this. Oh and as a second point, you didn’t call me a political activist, but you did call me a political revisionist, which was just as offensive, not because I have views which are different from yours does it mean they are wrong or negative, not because I revised the article according to an objective ideal does it mean that I am a political revisionist with prejudices, I don't let my prejudices get in the way of my writing sir. Yes for your information, I do have a left wing perspective and I do have communist ideals, but that doesn't mean I have a communist prejudice on everything I write. I know what communism is like, I have lived in a communist country, I know what it is, and even though many people do not like Stalin and the old communist regimes, there are many who do. Stalin's personal guard, for example, respects the man and venerates him to this day as a man of vision and power, and doesn't believe him to be evil. I know that there are many people that hate him, but this is only because of the influence of western and right wing media and the de-Stalinization that came after his death, but at his time, Stalin was always considered a hero, and to this date, he still is to many people. In regards to the DDR, not because you lived there for a while does it mean you might get a true grasp of what living in a communist system really means. I hate the capitalist societies, I would much rather prefer living in a socialist nation than in a capitalist one, and not because you felt there was an air of "oppression" does it mean that people where not happy. There is oppression everywhere, your so-called "free world" is now turning into a police state, and every day more and more people are oppressed. People were happy in the DDR, I was, and so was my family. If you don't believe me, please investigate further on the Ostalgie movement, a movement of nostalgia of life in the DDR. Believe or not, now that people in the East have experimented your way of life they are now starting to turn back to the old ways, and East Germany is once again beginning to rise, at least in the way life was, not so much in the real political system. I hope you understand what I am trying to get through, and I do apologise for offending you as well If I ever did. But understand that everyone is entitled to his own views, and also understand that I am not trying to "win" the Stalin article, but rather collaborate in showing the truth to the world. I am not like that neo-nazi you are talking about, I would never be, but understand that the world is so entirely biased against Stalin and the communist regime that it is very hard to give them justice in an objective way, because everything objective in these points (same case with Hitler) is regarded as subjective or political by people like you.

Even the “bad guys” like Stalin and Hitler deserve objective articles. Kiske 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Allied War Crimes

I can't locate where you have made your point about the tag in the talk page. I 've started a new section about that. Until you state in the new section why the tag shoul stay, it will be removed. Mitsos 11:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Subversive element is much more open-minded than you. You are too politically correct to engage in any way with a "Greek Nazi". Mitsos 08:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No discourse, no discussion, no debate with Nazis. It is not a question of 'political correctness'-I seek to preseve myself from all forms of moral corruption and decay. Nazism is an abomination, an affront to both man and God. White Guard 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

LTV

From Labour theory of value's discussion page.

The questions arise from the article, and will remain here for those with the wit to understand and the insight to respond. And for your information Socratic questions are a technique in Greek dialectics, intended to probe for the truth. I thought all Olympians understood that; apparently not-(specifrically (sic)-what was that about remedial?). White Guard 06:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

White Guard - Cplot is right, the article discussion page is not the place to argue the toss. I'll try and answer your point here. The article is clear, when we discuss exchange value we are discussing something that follows on from the premise that someone has decided to buy something - they want/need it, and so we are looking at the process by which a price is arrived at. Nothing has exchange value without a use value and a decision to purchase - but the purchaser does not exist on their own. I often put it this way - what price would you offer as the ideal opening bid for any particular commodity? If you were rational, your opening bid would be nothing - you'd pay nothing if you could (ideally, you'd want to be paid to take the good of them, but that might entail some trouble of collecting payment, so nothing is as good a starting point as any). The supplier will then put in a counter bid of something - they want you to pay - the question of value is to decide what decides that something's magnitude.--Red Deathy 07:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages should be used to clarify points with regards to improving the article (so discussion expressed in terms of that end is fine, or on points of information that may assist in editing - but the LTV page is prone to being turned into a debating forum (it takes an act of will not to be drawn in) - but if you do have further questions on the topic, please, do ask, either at my discussion page or at LTV, but in such as way as you're clear that you're wanting to improve the article. Wikipedia seeks to instil productive behaviour - see the talk header at the LTV page...--Red Deathy 08:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WWII

OK, no problem. In fact, the formatting of your edits did make it appear as if you were responding to me. For future reference, a better way of formatting is to use indents to make it clear to whom you are speaking. For example:

1 First line by editor#1

2 Response to first line by editor#2

3 Response to second line by e.g. editor#1

4 Additional response directly to second line by editor#3

Hope that helps. All the best, Badgerpatrol 02:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Our friend Ion-weapon

Your probably noticed I got tired of playing with Ion-weapon. I noticed his new vandalism of Communism, and now he's moved on to personal attacks. I suspect he's minutes from getting himself blocked for trolling and vandalism, but it seemed fair to give him some warning. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do try to assume good faith. It looks like this time it was misplaced. But he's on final warning now. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not open-minded at all

You are either antisocial or too politically correct and influenced by the media. I won't loose more time trying to explain you about the whole thing. I feel sorry for you. That's all. Mitsos 09:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What I am , what I will always be is anti-Nazi. How richly ironic! A Nazi feels 'sorry' for me! The comment I left on this user's talk page-in response to one sent to me-has been edited out. For those who are interested it reads, "I do not talk to Nazis. It's nothing to do with political correctness. For any decent human being Nazism is a moral abomination. You and your kind are beyond redemption. This is the last communication you will ever receive from me."

White Guard 21:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"...till the handle breaks off and you have to get a doctor to pull it out again"! -- Please don't do this, guys, it makes me feel a bit guilty because it started at my place. Just give each other a wide berth and everything's fine. -- Instead, I'd love to see you support Earle_Martin's RfA: real wikibad guys are flocking there to oppose him. If good people, like you both are, cannot pull together despite their personal differences, the others always can, because they are primarily following their ugly common agenda. Subversive 13:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hex RfA

This is the RfA of user:Hex. I believe he would make a good and unconventional admin. Subversive 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! Alex Bakharev 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Auto-Block

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

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

---

Request reason:

Could I have an explanation for this please? I gave clear reasons for my reversion on the Stalin page, believing the article was being corrupted by POV political revisionism. Please check my record; nothing is done without careful thought and explanation. I did not exceed the 3R rule, nor violate any other Wikipedia policy. Amongst other things I have been resisting attempts to remove reference to Stalin as a dictator-you will find a comprehensive explanation of my reasoning on the talk page. I am deeply angry at what seems to be a form of selective discrimination; or, to be more apt, an ill-thought out, scatter gun approach. Why, I have to ask, have I been treated in this high-handed fashion, when it has become clear in my brief time with Wikipedia that many other people edit and revert with no explanation whatsoever? I choose to be anonymous, and continue to choose to be anonymous; but I will say that I am a professional historian. The task I have set myself is to counter the huge number of misconceptions and errors in matters of fact and interpretation that seem to haunt the pages of Wikipedia. Is this how I am to be received-no discussion, no approach, no explanation-merely a blanket ban? This is a HIGHLY disturbing development.

Decline reason:

24 hour block already expired. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

---

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

Could I have an explanation for this please? I gave clear reasons for my reversions of what I believed to be POV revisionism. Please check my record; nothing is done without careful thought and explanation. I did not exceed the 3R rule, nor violate any other Wikipedia policy. I am deeply angry at what seems to be a form of selective discrimination; or, what might be more apt, an ill-thought out, scatter gun approach. Why, I have to ask, have I been treated in this high-handed fashion, when it has become clear in my brief time with Wikipedia that many other people edit and revert with no explanation whatsoever? I choose to be anonymous-and continue to choose to be anonymous; but I will say that I am a professional historian. The task I have set myself is to counter the huge numbers of misconceptions and errors in matters of fact and interpretation that seem to haunt the pages of Wikipedia. Is this how I am to be received?White Guard 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Unblock White Guard

White Guard, I'm sorry this happened to you. I would really like to know which boneheaded admin did this. You have been an excellent contributor on Allied war crimes during World War II, very sensible and eloquent. Please don't let this unfairness discourage you. There are other editors such as ourselves who sincerely wish to improve Wikipedia and will keep working to prevent it from becoming a neonazi/revisionist backwater. If there is any way I can help, please let me know. Haber 01:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth was he blocked? Is this what it has come to now? Rather than blocking the one person here who actually knows what he is talking about you should focus on blocking the nazi trolls who keep disrupting Wikipedia with their POV edits. This users does not deserve to be blocked... he deserves to be honoured for his tireless efforts to combat the fools and ignorants who these admins cannot spot. But then again it doesn't surprise me... I was once warned twice(!) by the same foolish admin for removing Belgium from Axis powers... Maybe we should file a formal complaint against the admin who blocked him... clearly an abuse of his admin powers. MartinDK 07:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we file a complaint? Haber 12:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite sure but this Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_abuse may be a start. Basically I think we need to make the other administrators know that he abused his powers and (as far as I have been able to tell) has not reacted to White Guard's complaint. MartinDK 14:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges may actually be a better place to start. Blocking him for edit warring because he reverts nonsense is clearly against any kind of common sense. He was helping out as he has done so many times before on other pages. If you look at the talk page to Axis powers you will see that this is not the first time I have backed him in this kind of situation and he backed me as well so I feel obliged to help out here eventhough I am on a break from Wikipedia due to a very busy time at work. MartinDK 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is something strange about this block. Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:White_Guard. That indicates that he was conventionally blocked at 19:38 by User:Centrx. But this http://tools.wikimedia.de/~pgk/autoblock.php?autoblock=&blocker=&blockee=White+Guard&time=0&submit=Submit+Query shows to later autoblocks with the same explanation. What is happening here? Why do the block logs look that way? Was he blocked 3 times? MartinDK 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay folks, I'm going to look at the block, but it'll take me a little bit of time, so it may lapse in the meantime. However, please note how you've all done no favours to yourselves with the above dialogue. Whether or not an error has occurred is one thing. That it is something to complain about loudly, to be called admin abuse or otherwise loudly and poorly debated in this way is another. Have any of you - any one of you - stopped to consider WP:AGF and how you have singularily failed to apply it?

You may indeed be correct that the block was wrong - I don't know, I haven't yet checked - but where do you think you were going with this "admin abuse", assuming-bad-faith business? Stop it, now.

If, between you, you can't even work out how autoblock works and why, you shouldn't be complaining here. Please chaps/chapesses - get some perspective: you've certainly put off getting this block reviewed until it was almost over. That's not what you wanted now, is it? ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be an admin, but even so I have to tell you I don't care for your condescending tone. You might not remember, but to normal Wikipedia members it is a big deal to be blocked. It's very discouraging, and could cause good people to become frustrated and leave. I fail to see how us offering support and wondering what we can do to help on a user talk page disrupts Wikipedia in any way. If anything, we are being kind and you are not. You should be working on ways to retain White Guard, an excellent contributor who has much to offer. Haber 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How did the admin who blocked him assume good faith? He blocked him without hearing his side of the story or even warning him. Second, excuse me for asking how autoblock works. I'll make sure to note that the don't bite newcomers policy don't apply to admins. Fortunately I have met admins here who are much more friendly and it somewhat comforts me to see from your contributions that your tone here is no different from how you normally deal with us simple humble lower-ranking editors. MartinDK 21:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hail and farewell

I brief comeback and a short goodbye, everyone, so please do not bother responding to the various messages I have sent out. Sorry for wasting your time. This whole project now fllls me with a deep sense of existential and intellectual disgust. I was blocked for reverting attempts by one Jacob Peters to minimise Stalin's mass murders. Now look at the political nonsense he has posted on the Joseph Stalin talk page. I've countered this by argument and example repeatedly; but what purpose does it serve? He and his kind, in all of their many varieties, just keep coming back. Wikipedia is becoming an exercise in countering the more obvious forms of propaganda. Intellectually it's worthless. Best wishes to all my allies and kindred spirits. And, finally for those who thought White Guard, my nom de guerre, was an indication of far right political sympathies, I am happy to say that all it revealed was my love of Mikhail Bulgakov, one of the greatest Russian writers of the last century. The Day of the Turbins is now over. White Guard 01:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend. First of all let me thank you so much for your message on my talk page. As you may have noticed I gave up on the Axis powers article. It was, as you described above, becoming an exercise in countering arguments and propaganada rather than a collective effort to improve an article. I fully agree with your criticism of Wikipedia. This is why I have advocated the use of designated committers rather than letting any person edit the articles without examining his og hers motivations and ability to do so. I took a break from Wikipedia to focus on my work because I too was disgusted and intellectually disappointed. You stood firm when I was being to soft on the people trying to fill the page with propaganda and factual nonsense. I realized that mistake and I am sorry for it.

I have the deepest respect for your knowledge of russian/soviet affairs and history and I feel like I have so much to learn from you. I really hope that you will come back after you have had a chance to get this behind you. Wikipedia is not a scientific project nor will it ever be. But without countering these misunderstandings and attempts to revise history and economic science I feel like we are giving these people what they want. If a person looks up, say Joseph Stalin, on Google he will most likely visit the Wikipedia article first. If no one is around to make sure that the factual inaccuracies there are disputed then that person will become victim of the propaganda by people like Jacob Peters. It is exhausting work and most of the time not very satisfying but it is vital that people like you are there to help out. I only wish there were more people here like you.

We must not allow ourselves to "sell out"" and let the fools who lack any understanding of basic academic principles prevail. We must pursue the facts and not allow ourselves to divert from that path just to reach a consensus. This applies to all sciences; history, economics and mathematics. It is the basic principle that guides all researchers and professional academics no matter what their work may be. Until you return to Wikipedia you will be thoroughly missed. Hail the White Guard! Defender of facts and the truth! Rest assured that your work here will be continued by the people who support you!MartinDK 06:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had the time now to look over the Jospeh Stalin talk page. Clearly this Jacob Peters is making personal attacks, even trying to use your user name as an argument against you and claiming that this and that is CIA inspired or right wing inspired. Maybe the best method would have been to report him when he got nasty. I see that several editors are fed up with him and have expressed their dissatifaction with him on his talk page. Also, it appears that he is quite alone with his views. So my suggestion is to report him and do so together with the other editors. Also it might help if you briefly write on your user page what your academic background is so that people can see that you really know what you are talking about. I think that might possibly help although I can understand why you must be very sick of this. MartinDK 14:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi White Guard.

It is always a shame to see anybody feeling forced out of Wikipedia. If you wish to leave then I naturally respect your decision and I wish you all the best, but I hope you will reconsider your decision. What the Danish mess on "Axis Powers" reminded me about is that - unfortunately - it is sometimes necessary to find references for things I'd never imagined it should be necessary to find references for. If I get the feeling that a situation has the risk of getting out of control, I sometimes simply chose to walk away for a day or two. Normally when I return, somebody else has normally made a comment similar to the one I was going to make anyway. The pause also gives me a chance to thoroughly analyze the situation. Sometimes, I also find it useful to mentally turn everything "upside down"; becoming the Devil's Advocate for a while, eventhough it can be painful to do so. When I come back to the situation, I try to look at the current version of the article and its talk page and I try to determine if I could in any possible way have misinterpreted the situation or the intention of the other editor. I have not looked into the content nor the edit history of the Stalin page but from skimming the talk page, it looks like you simply reverted something more than once. This is normally a bad strategy since people can misinterpret a user's motivation for doing so.

It would be so much easier if history was an exact science like mathematics or physics; only one interpretation applies and right or wrong can be decided pretty easily in 99% of the cases (Cold fusion seems to be the exception that proves this rule). As we both know, this is not the case. Whenever writing about something controversial we have to look up references for everything that can be questioned by others (whether they do so in good faith or not). I'm sorry to see you were blocked but the admin's job is merely to observe if he believes an edit war is going on and/or if he thinks a current situation will lead to an edit war. Why he didn't react to the other user, I don't know, you would have to ask him. It is, however, a possibility that he misread the intention behind your user name. Please forgive me for saying so but a redlinked username which can be interpreted in at least two ways might have made him doubt your intentions. Many people become suspicious when they see a redlinked userpage or anonymous editing. Why? Because unfortunately we have seen all too many of these examples turning out to be vandals. Judging a book on its cover can only be described as unfair, but being flawed is also pretty human. If you'd made a userpage simply saying, "Hi, I love history and literature" that might have avoided any such confusion.

Please don't interpret this post as anything else than a little rant about my own methods for dealing with similar situations. Wikipedia can be incredibly frustrating, but I still think it is built on more good will than bad. Again, I hope you will reconsider your decision, but if you wish to leave I naturally respect it. In any case, I wish you Godspeed and all the best. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for those remarks; I sincerely wish Wikipedia was populated solely be people like you. Sadly, it's not. Martin, I have, as you suggested, provided a little biography on my user page. I hope it does no sound too conceited; but it's all true, I assure you! My very best wishes. White Guard 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, White Guard. I've not always agreed with your talk page comments, but I've always found them interesting and worth thinking about. I hope you reconsider your decision to leave. john k 00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The door is always open. (sort of). Haber 14:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the really nice words my friend. I like the presentation on your user page. If you ever decide to come back I think people will be more forthcoming when they know a bit about your background. I'll still be around to read here once in a while but I will not be doing much editing. I am too busy at work anyways and there are better things to do like read or just go outside. So I am just going to step back and see what happens. Oh and by the way I am a liberal but definately not left-wing. Just thought I'd let you know now that you told your political views. MartinDK 12:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear White Guard, I just stumbled across the last "Stalin" discussion. I am indeed shocked. I can understand your frustration at those extremists and POV pusher but please, if you read this, don't let them win like that. Anyway, cheers and fare thee well, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add me to the list of editors that miss your contributions. I feel your frustration with Wikipedia. It seems like extremists rule the roost here. --C33 09:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mitsos

Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, →Bobby← 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are missed

MartinDK has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please don't stay away much longer. I miss editing with you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just wanted to tell you about your post in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Great_Terror

Yes, I agree with you, that the 'Match the Number' games played by both anti-soviet and pro-Stalin historians are disgusting. But first of all, we need to know the 'fact'. We need to know what the Soviet people had to sacrifice to build a world superpower.

And yes. Killing millions is horrible. But such horrible incidents happened throughout everywhere everytime. Not only communist countries like China or Cambodia, but also in United States, Turkey, UK, or any other nation too. It could be thousands, tens of thousands, millions, but it is always present. Which means, it's not the fault of Marxism or any other social ideas, but a fault of one man, a few men, or an entire society.

So I really should ask you to well... with all respect, cancel your word "the true rottenness at the heart of all Marxist thought".

Thank you for reading and sorry for horrible english. I'm not a native speaker.

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) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)