Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 25

The word "violence"
This word has been justified over and over and yet only one editor seems to have a problem with it, namely Wyss, whose arguments against it haven't held up under scrutiny. Since I am loath to repeat myself, and since some editors are loath to pay attention to facts and others' arguments, I'll just repeat the previous arguments verbatim in the hope that someone will actually read and then apply them. -- Simonides 05:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Brute force


 * Brute force may be op-ed language, but it is not untruthful; if you want references and scholarly material, look up the acclaimed "Nazi Germany and the Jews" by Saul Friedlander. Here's a quote from the early pages in my copy: "Anti-Jewish violence spread (my note: SPREAD, not BEGUN) after the March elections... In Breslau, Jewish lawyers and judges were assaulted in the court building... in Gedern, the SA (Storm Troopers) broke into Jewish homes and beat up the inhabitants... The list of similar incidents is a long one. There were also killings... (etc.)... Much of the foreign press gave wide coverage to the Nazi violence." Also note, on the previous page:  "The primary political targets of the new regime and of its terror system, at least during the first months after the Nazi accession to power, were not Jews but Communists." Also look at the works "Holocaust: A History" by Deborak Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, "Holocaust" by Martin Gilbert. Jews were being publicly humiliated in the streets by police, arrested, their homes were broken into and wrecked, and groups of Jews started being transported to concentration camps almost right away. All the scholars mentioned are reputable, not hacks like Goldhagen or other agenda-driven ultra-Zionists. Brute force or some variant needs to be reinstated. I think the onus is on you to prove the contrary, particularly this absurd statement "for the first several years lots of Germans didn't find him brutal at all". -- Simonides 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they used violent means. However, I'm not sure the use of violence is remarkable for a dictator and hence the word wontedly doesn't show up in introductory paragraphs about this particular violent, murderous sociopath. Wyss 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how "remarkable" it is. Violent is a neutral word, it is factual and attributable, it belongs in the header. Adding it says more than merely mentioning that police forces were involved. -- Simonides 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * for starters. ... Wyss 01:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, all of the sites you linked support the fact that anti-Semitism was a major factor in Hitler's popularity, and that violence was frequently used by Hitler, both of which you tried to play down with your edits. ... -- Simonides 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why "violent" is not redundant & op-ed langauge


 * At least three users don't seem to understand the diff between saying police powers were involved and violent police power was involved. It's very simple, it helps if you know a little history:
 * Stalinist Russia was a police state in which millions were deported, tortured, executed without fair trial, etc. Police and para-military forces were involved, of course. However, unlike Nazi Germany, these forces did not beat up people on the streets, in their homes, in full view of others, and so on. The Post-Stalinist era did not see great changes in method; of course, the arbitrariness, censorship and death toll decreased drastically, but the Soviet Union remained a very strict police state.
 * East Germany, practically micro-managed by the Stasi, was a police state which used similar methods, again with lower numbers of victims and with less visibility, but with equally dangerous consequences for anyone implicated in any "subversive" activity. The same extends to other Soviet "satellite states" like Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.
 * North Korea, and certain Latin American, Middle Eastern and African countries are among modern police states with the grimmest human rights records. Once again, military and police forces are always under the government in these countries, but they do not all engage in public violence against citizens.
 * As shown above, all of the Nazi violence was of a different order and the words chosen are perhaps better than "brute force"... Finally, NPOV is not about giving equal time to every single opinion and making every personality look like a mix of good and bad. It's about using unbiased information to project a contextually accurate picture. Trying to throw in information about, for ex., how much Hitler loved little furry animals to "balance" an article is no longer about NPOV, it's about being un/able to judge the value of facts. -- Simonides 04:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that North Korea, Guatemala, and Zimbabwe are "not violent." We simply don't have to spell out every single method in the intro; that's what the article is for. Establish who he is, without specifics or judgment. --Golbez 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Zimbabwe, from time to time yes. I don't know enough about Guatemala; North Korea - the streets are practically deserted a lot of the time. Please look at what I'm saying - secret/ military police are violent, but not always publicly, and that's what I want to emphasize. It's not about "spelling out methods". Are you deliberately being trivialising? Do you think the difference between public violence and humiliation and secret torture is just a question of method? In the Soviet Union it was possibly to deny torture and it is true that even now many people don't know/ don't believe in Stalinist crimes, in Russia. In Nazi Germany the crowds cheered on. Talking about his violent methods is specific. Mentioning "keen political skills" is judgement. I find your judgement on the header rather skewed, not for any partisan reasons, but probably simply because you don't want any changes. -- Simonides 10:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Violence and Request for comment


 * I came in through WP:Requests for comment/Politics, on whether or not "violence" and "anti-semitism" are suitable terms for the into.


 * I've read it over a few times, and feel it to be quite balanced at the moment (dont know whose reversion it is, and dont want to know!). There are some issues with the phrasing imho, for example the mild suggestion that violence was a tool he used to come to power, which was not really the case. Some intimidation, certainly, but the true paramilitary and police violence came later. ...  The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 09:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the open violence should be mentioned along with anti-Semitism, and I think we tried to point out that he used the violence to gain totalitarian control, not popularity! ... -- Simonides 10:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Incarnation of Evil


 * ...you restored the word "violent" to the intro. Hey, in truth we're not that far off in our takes on this. ... So far as his racial beliefs go, he did stir up the thugs with Jew baiting but most middle class Germans were far more afraid of communism, anarchy and hyper-inflation. ... Wyss 01:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hitler's anti-Semitism and his use of violence are NOT gray areas, they ARE significant aspects of Hitler's popularity (both within his party and among the public) and rule, they are VERY well documented, your own "sources" back this up, he was not responsible for the SYSTEMATIC deaths of more "ordinary" Germans than Jews/Communists, the use of violence went well beyond merely "Jew baiting", and all the scholarly works I cited above go into GREAT detail about both these aspects of Nazism, in fact you could say Nazi Germany and the Jews, which only covers the period from 1933-1939 by the way - ie BEFORE the war - is about this subject only. You're just wrong on this and if you look up the books I mention (which are just ones I own by the way, there must be several others), you'll understand. -- Simonides 02:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Final version and POV tag


 * As for the use of the word coercion: "coercion" implies that people were being forced into doing something specific. In fact, apart from the public humiliation in which Jews were forced to clean latrines in front of crowds etc, people were not being "coerced" - they were being beaten up, deported or killed. That's why I used "violence." -- Simonides 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. You mean Jewish people weren't forced to get in those cattle cars? Wyss 01:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Violence is a broader and more accurate category than "coercion"; it's like the difference between saying Hitler ruled Germany and Hitler ruled Bavaria. The analogy being that you want to insist that since Hitler ruled Bavaria, he couldn't have ruled Germany too. -- Simonides 02:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Truth be told I think coercion is the broader category. Lots of Germans complied (or, say, "adapted") because it was easier than getting one's head lopped off or starving to death in a Gestapo cell or concentration camp. The implied threat of violence is a much wider and more efftive tool than violence itself. Wyss 02:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)\
 * You wouldn't have so many semantic troubles if you actually knew something on the subject. There wasn't just an implied threat, there was a lot of documented violence, and it's an important aspect of Nazism. ... -- Simonides 02:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "violence" - other comments
I don't think the word 'violence' is particularly elegant or all that applicable to how the National Socialists established power. Concentration camps, certainly, and events like the Night of the Long Knives were certainly violent, but Hitler's rise to power was done democratically, and the totalitarian state created was based more on fear and threat of violence than actual violence itself. Once private ownership of firearms was curtailed and opposing parties made illegal, the potential for violence was greatly reduced. I think a better word can be found also. Michael Dorosh 05:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael, there was more violence after Hitler established power than before (I want to use the word in reference to Hitler's rule, not his rise to power). It's a fact, it's neither opinion nor elegant summary. See the sources quoted above. -- Simonides 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you make a credible case; I agree with the others - violence is the wrong word to use. It brings to mind visions of anarchy, which the Third Reich most certainly was not. Any threats of violence came from a very ordered vision of society, and friction was created when persons ran in opposition to that perception the ruling organizations had of "order". Unfortunately, that order was rather exclusionary. Sorry, but I don't feel "violence" is an appropriate word to describe Hitler's rule in the manner you intend. Perhaps criminal would be a better word or sense to capture - the importation of slave labour kept the economy fed, and the quest for racial purity led to wholesale thievery of personal possessions and property, mass deportations, and eventual mass slaughter. But there were no riots in the streets; the crimes are noted for its near banality. Most victims of the Holocaust gave in to deportation meekly. Some insurrections, ie Sobibor, took place, but violence was far more common in the occupied territories (think French Resistance or Eastern European partisans) than any internal strife in Germany itself. Violence brings to mind all the wrong images when speaking about domestic politics in Nazi Germany. Michael Dorosh 07:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not making a case, I am repeating what are established facts. Copying again (From "Nazi Germany and the Jews" by Saul Friedlander:) "Anti-Jewish violence spread (my note: SPREAD, not BEGUN) after the March elections... In Breslau, Jewish lawyers and judges were assaulted in the court building... in Gedern, the SA (Storm Troopers) broke into Jewish homes and beat up the inhabitants... The list of similar incidents is a long one. There were also killings... (etc.)... Much of the foreign press gave wide coverage to the Nazi violence." Also note, on the previous page: "The primary political targets of the new regime and of its terror system, at least during the first months after the Nazi accession to power, were not Jews but Communists." Also look at the works "Holocaust: A History" by Deborak Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, "Holocaust" by Martin Gilbert.


 * I feel you are making comments based on your personal intuition, and not on any specific knowledge of the subject. The above source material, and there is much more on the subject, justifies the use of the word violence rather than coercion. I'm open to other suggestions, but between violence and coercion the former is a better, more representative word. -- Simonides 07:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Couple of observations: He established a totalitarian regime based on propaganda and violence. This sentence has been changed completely, and it now seems to resemble an attempt to explain the term totalitarian state. Since we are linking to that article already, it might be better to either use the space for something more useful or abbreviate the intro even further. If you risked a peek at totalitarianism, you'd notice the terms violence and coercion are not mentioned there at all. Instead the the term terror is used, which has not found a lot of support here.


 * Since the question has been raised before: I believe Hitler's leadership deserves more credit than is implied. I'm quite certain that he was personally responsible for supporting and promoting rapid development of motorized infantry and tank units, which turned out to be a significant tactical advantage at the outbreak of the war. Other examples of projects far ahead of their time are the autobahn and the KdF Wagen. I'm not that familiar with his personal influence on these two (or other economic initiatives). 67.180.197.16 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the word terror (your other observations are probably better placed in a new section) but I have given my reasons for the use of the word violence vs such blanket words as "coercion" and "terror" which could also apply to other police states where violence in public was not one of the methods. -- Simonides 07:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Repeating flawed arguments won't make the term any less vague or op-ed. Wyss 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your opinion, which you have shown nothing to support. -- Simonides 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're attempting to edit by revert again, Simonides. This tactic may work for a time, but you'll eventually find that its lasting effect on the article will be nil. Wyss 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling the reinstatement of edits that have been justified at length and removed purely by force of opinion as "reverts" is typical of your largely superfluous domineering on this article. The insertion of policy is wordy and redundant, yet where crucial information would require only two words - "propaganda" and "violence" - you choose to compromise as much as possible. That reflects on your uncritical position more than it does on anyone else. -- Simonides 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let others decide as they will, I'll abide. I'm not here to be intimidated by reverting editors who might do better by reviewing WP:Civility and WP:NPA, thanks. Wyss 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no desire or need to "intimidate" those who get | hysterical over trivia and choose to | ignore police when they like- Simonides 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe "violence" is POV, but I believe it belongs into the context of his rise to power, say 1930 to 1934, especially if you preface it with "paramilitary" - that was of no great importance after 1934 (with the exception of the Kristallnacht). As to the comparisons above, you didn't see police or paramilitary beating up people as described in Nazi Germany either, after 1934.
 * In the context of Hitler's rule I think coercion is better, as it involves the threat as well as the action, and it also includes the concentration camps (not the Death camps of course).
 * Re the Friedländer quote: he is right but this passage wants to portray the nature of Hitler's state. We cannot include every event in the intro and further down "racial policies" are already mentioned. Also, anti-Jewish violence, as in open violence, was not the mainstay of Nazi Germany until 1938. There was a big lump between the failed boycotts of 1933 and the Kristallnacht.
 * Re 67..., let me say that other Wiki articles are not quotable sources. These other articles might be wrong or missing something. Also, there is no doubt that Hitler is the prime mover behind the military build-up but not behind the economic recovery. And you are overestimating the Autobahn issue - Hitler didn't invent the Autobahn. Plans were already in the drawer and the first German was not opened by Hitler but by his successor Adenauer, who then was mayor of Cologne.
 * Str1977 09:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For me, Str1977's take on this is also a helpful example showing why the intro is too long, trying to accomplish more than it reasonably can. Wyss 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Paramilitary Coercion??
Why not just "paramilitarism"? I think it would cover all the bases and hint at how structured Germany was under the Nazis - from the Hitler Youth to the Reichsbahn, post office, dog catchers and every other official government agency who wore a military uniform complete with dagger and rank insignia. Then you avoid the whole argument over violence/coercion and are free to explain those concepts in detail later, while still hinting at the ways in which Hitler and Nazis gained and maintained power. It is vague and broad enough to include both coercion and violence in the meaning without being exclusive to those concepts.Michael Dorosh 21:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your thoughts. Wyss 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael, paramilitarism is far too vague and applies equally well to nations where the paramilitary plays an important but diminished role, such as certain modern East European/ Middle Eastern/ Central Asian countries. I explained this too above. I am fine with the word "terror" as suggested by other editors and used in other articles, though I find it more general and less informative than "violence". -- Simonides 21:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the notion of paramilitarism being vague is precisely the point... :-) See my comments above. Michael Dorosh 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael, the vagueness plays down the brutality of the Nazi regime. As I wrote earlier, I feel editors here would better appreciate the perspective this article needs by reading the accounts of victims of the Holocaust, whether documented by scholars or themselves, rather than glorifying his "talents", to use the word Wyss did. -- Simonides 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that a stark reference to the 6-11 million people killed in the industrial slaughter of the Holocaust is already in the intro, I hardly think the brutality of the Nazis is being downplayed here. Please see my additional comments below. Wyss 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The systematic genocide and the domestic violence are different aspects which need mention. Let's not oversimplify. -- Simonides 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I too like the vagueness. Based on Simonides edit history, in effect, it appears he wants the word violence in the intro no matter what. Meanwhile, I have such a docking big problem with using a broad and potentially distracting word like violence in the intro to a serious, high traffic, sensitive encyclopedia article, that I've been resisting it. Simonides and I have a polarized disagreement on this and I think we could use continued input from other editors, thanks. Wyss 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Terror
Although I agree that Mr Hitler used tactics which could be broadly characterized as "terror," without listing his other tactics the use of this term in the intro will only mislead readers. Worse, the modern usage of the term terror implies specific tactics which were not employed by Hitler, thus the term will further mislead some readers (and ruin the article's credibility for others). In my view, using the word terror is even less helpful than using the word violence, although both adjectives could surely be worked into the main text. Wyss 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see this modern terror usage you talk about at all. Terror is not Terrorism. Paramilitarism is of course no substitute. --Yooden
 * I noticed :) Reader interpretations of the word terror will fall in too wide a range of meanings. I'm not sure readers can be expected to draw a distinction between word forms here. Personally, I think the intro is too long. As I mentioned above, the more one tries to list in a simple intro, the probability of well-intentioned but unhelpful, misleading spin creeping in rapidly approaches 1. Wyss 22:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to comment on these wild extrapolations - choosing words based on what is assumed to be the full range of meanings of a word, not to mention the patronizing attitude towards readers' comprehension abilities - which one might as well extend to the rest of the article if not Wikipedia. Words should be chosen on their representativeness of a given situation, not on what a faddish journalism want them to be. Speaking of trying to include too much, Wyss' re-insertion of the note on foreign policy is the best example of crowding a header. -- Simonides 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Terror is what happened on the streets then. I can think of no better word to describe that, and certainly no shorter one. Since it's only an introduction, perfect clearness cannot be achieved and shouldn't be attempted, or the introduction would proliferate as you describe. --Yooden
 * Ibid Yooden - Wyss' concerns are well off the mark. -- Simonides 22:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken, Simonides. We're discussing appropriate wording for a summary intro here, not if Mr Hitler employed violence and terror... he did and even the intro makes that clear without using those vague terms. Wyss 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Wyss - go vague on the introduction and then develop these themes in the detailed articles. Devote a whole page on Violence in Nazi Germany if necessary, but take the loaded words out of the intro.  I think additional input is also necessary here given the impasse.  Nazi Germany, for all the "violence and terror" it dealt out, could often be a deceptively benign state within, in which mass murderers could refuse to carry out their duties without consequence(see Browning and Goldhagen, for example). I'd definitely like to see additional opinions on this also; so far I feel Wyss has been right on the mark.  Michael Dorosh 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are on about - I merely wish to repeat Yooden's comment "Terror is not Terrorism. Paramilitarism is of course no substitute." which you don't seem to understand. -- Simonides 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, terror is not terrorism is not always a true statement, it depends on usage. What I'm on about is that you seem to want a strong, sweeping adjective like violence or terror in the intro to the article and I think it's misleading, since for the average German citizen of the 3rd Reich during the 1930s, violence and terror were at the most, rare events. Since these words are linked to how Mr Hitler rose to power and gained the support of millions of Germans, using them is quite misleading. For most Germans, the coming to power of Mr Hitler was not at all about blood, pain and violence (save for memories of the Great War perhaps). Rather, it was about sundry hopes, fears and sometimes, pride (volkish nationalism). Wyss 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you trying to say here. Yes, terror is, for the sake of this discussion, never equal to terrorism. I don't want to introduce the word terrorism here. The usage is clear here.
 * For the average German citizen of the 3rd Reich during the 1930s, violence and terror were at the most, rare events unless they were communists, unionist, jews or anybody else mentioned by Niemöller. --Yooden


 * Sheesh, even after all the extensive documentation points to the very opposite, you want to continue insisting that "for the average German citizen of the 3rd Reich during the 1930s, violence and terror were at the most, rare events." You are arguing against history here - should anyone even take you seriously? -- Simonides 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wyss's interpretation of these points, life in Germany itself was relatively benign - for the good Germans. No one was forced to join the Party or the Hitler Youth, though it was strongly encouraged.  They may have lived in fear, but it was mainly via psychological means, not physical ones. Michael Dorosh 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good Germans? So Socialists and Jews were bad Germans? --Yooden
 * This is not an accurate picture because it hinges on making sense of "the good Germans", and if you wish to include the widespread psychological fear as opposed to physical ones, then "terror" is an eminently suitable word. -- Simonides 22:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Michael Dorosh is correct. Wyss 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[Personal attack removed] Simonides 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Simonides, that was a blockable offense. Wyss 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not, and you are not at liberty to unilaterally remove comments on the Talk page. Let it stay so that others can comment on it if they feel they must. -- Simonides 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Under WP policy and practice I most certainly can remove personal attacks on sight. Wyss 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a BA in History and have researched the Third Reich to a fair degree, concentrating on military matters, but also general topics. I see no need for name calling; in fact, I feel it is your understanding that is suspect. Other input needed. You call others dilettantes, yet your User Page is blank. How is it you expect to be taken seriously yourself? Looking at your User Discussion page, however, is certainly eye opening.Michael Dorosh 22:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That, too, is a personal attack. Could you guy take a break please? --Yooden
 * I am relying on the works of well known scholars who comment on the terror tactics of the Hitler regime, not life as a pre-approved Aryan in the sweet ideological miasma of Hitler's promised land. And sorry, I didn't realise that having a self-glorifying user page was a prerequisite to being taken seriously. -- Simonides 22:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * user:Simonides, please review WP:Civility. I'm not arguing against history, Adolf Hitler was not swept into power in Germany on a wave of violence and terror and this is widely documented.Wyss 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No one claimed the latter - however your talk of life being somewhat benign under Hitler is false. -- Simonides 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was benign. Wyss 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly on this talk page (and long before this discussion ever began), it's helpful not to reduce Mr Hitler down to a cartoon caracature of evil, which tends to rob readers of the tools necessary to identify the next genocidal sociopath who may come along. Wyss 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a single editor here has argued for or tried to insert description that would make Hitler look like a cartoon character. That is your favourite little strawman attack. Some editors think it is appropriate to mention Hitler's terror tactics because they were employed, large numbers of people suffered or were killed because of it, and because these are crucial and verifiable facts. -- Simonides 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I think you're the only one who has done it lately. They come and go. Wyss 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Inserting proven facts as opposed to hysterical opinion is cartoonish? Wait, this is like how terror equals terrorism... Sorry. -- Simonides 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As for degrees being reliable qualifications, Goldhagen is cited as a reference, when in fact he's a notable hack. -- Simonides 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First, On the Interent, nobody knows you're a dog. Second, academic qualifications suggest probabilities, not guarantees. Wyss 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Which was my point in the first place... -- Simonides 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were equating Michael Dorosh with "a notable hack." Still, you might want to have a quick look at WP:NPA, thanks. Wyss 23:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what was written: Goldhagen is cited as a reference, when in fact he's a notable hack.
 * This is what was understood: I thought you were equating Michael Dorosh with "a notable hack."
 * I see why the debates on this page make little progress. -- Simonides 23:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Had a look in the mirror, did you? Wyss 23:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this really necessary? --Yooden
 * you might want to have a quick look at WP:NPA, thanks. Wyss 23:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Had a look in the mirror, did you? Wyss 23:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Simonides 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)