User talk:Haber/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Jkelly 23:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

World War II
It seems as if we keep reverting each other's work. I like my revision because I think it allows the text to flow more smoothly. Could you please explain your position on this? Green caterpillar 15:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You're changing the text for style reasons, making it longer and unnecessarily wordy.  Readers are capable of processing "defeated" at the same time as they learn who the combatants were.Haber 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment
The "spin", which you humbly acknowledge as "crap", will become more prominent in historeography as the war becomes more of a distant memory and less effected by Allied propaganda. As with most things in life, neither side told the absolute truth, which lay somewhere in between. Only when one approaches different viewpoints and angles does the narrative completely make sense, unless we digress to the notion that the world is black and white and become calvinists in regard to good and evil, the reliable side and the fabricator. In modern times, the propagandist is never in the clear, nor is the straight-shooter. We have learned to question. Regarding the Iraq and US or Lebanon and Israel situations, we could just as easily assume the same. The points I illustrated were valid in the article: Britain's break in behavior, the Anschluss' lack of a relation to the outbreak of war, the situation between Germany and Poland, the Sudeten minority's lack of minority rights within Czechoslovakia, Czechoslovakia's inner tension, etc. Today we not only get the opposite POV of an event, but due to a distrust in the upper hierachy due to events such yes, the Holocaust or even Watergate, many times the third party view is endorsed over that of the governments. Times sure have changed, but if we reallly want to understand the past, we would be wise to apply these same standards. --Hohns3 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we have a responsibility to question authority, but disagree with your methods. One does not arrive at the truth by simply blending the opinions of more than one authority.  This style of reasoning has been discredited since the Enlightenment (though it is making a scary comeback).  One looks at the facts, and forms an opinion only after understanding the facts.  This "he said/she said" business is ok for the six o'clock news, but it's irrational and it inevitably slants toward the side with the more extreme claims.  e.g. A says 1, B says 10.  You say 5, but the truth is 2.  Parroting the lies out of Goebbels' office without stopping to think whether there is any factual basis for them, and deleting relevant facts that we do know are true, is not likely to lead to NPOV. Haber 03:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good example, but who knows that truth is 2? You speak of the rhetoric of Goebbels, but what about your own rhetoric of "knowing the truth"? How do you, or anyone else know what really happened regarding any incident, not just World War II? We can only make educated guesses, nothing more. However, Allied propaganda has been taken as "truth" and repeated as such for so long. Old habits are hard to break, especially when they are introduced to the mainstream for the explicit purpose of not leaving our collective conscious (their version justifies everything they did, from bombing Germany into the stone age to getting involved in the war in the first place. War is a climaxed power struggle, though sometimes more, sometimes less.)


 * Say one side's pov is a 1 and the other an extreme of 10; each end (1 and 10) represents an absolute acceptance of that side's pov. Because there are too many inconsistencies in the Allied version, if we allow ourselves to take a chance and consider other views, you may start to realize that not everything the Germans had (or have) to say was "crap" - In fact, far from it. And with that, the answer starts to look more like a 4 instead of a 2, if a 1 represents the Anglo-Amer. pov. I think World War II has remained in the 1.5 range for quite a long time. (again, if 1 represents total acceptance of Ango-American World War II point of view).


 * Perhaps in this new era there will be less of "winner writing history" because it seems anyone can write it and we are free to form our own version based on the conclusion we reach after reading all samples (of course, if the internet becomes consolidated under corporate control, this will not be the case).


 * I don't want to go on a rant here, but I think I should mention something else: I've read some real whoppers that passed as scholarship regarding the war, but because they promote the "right" view, they recieve mainstream publishing. "Revisionism" isn't always revisionism, but to give you an example of bias, a colleague of mine has a (Russian) friend who has tried to publish Suvorov's "Icebreakers" in English and bring it to the states, to no avail. The book runs at $500 in English, less than $20 in its original Russian form. I don't necessarily agree with Suvorov's conclusions, but where is the open forum to at least read what he has to say and form our conclusion by how well he supports his thesis through documentation others overlook? Fair? This shows the bias in publishing that has made it very difficult to challenge the absurdity of a 1, even if not everything lines up.


 * "without stopping to think whether there is any factual basis for them, and deleting relevant facts that we do know are true..." after reading your revision, i think that pertains more to you than myself. --Hohns3 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)--Hohns3 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really have time to get into it with you, but just believe me there is such a thing as truth. Sure, it's a human idea, limited by our senses, but on a practical level, we know a lot of things.  Even complicated subjects can often be broken down into smaller, less contentious points of agreement.  That's what I try to do here.  I think that what disturbs you is that when the excuses are stripped away, the side with the exaggerated claims tends to look bad.


 * As for the conspiracy theory... I don't know what to tell you. You must be aware that in the United States, people are free to publish whatever they want.  We have Mein Kampf sitting in bookstores.  If it makes money, a publisher will pick it up.  My guess is that the publisher your friend talked to didn't want to take a chance on an obscure old foreign book with a very limited audience.  If your friend wants it that bad, he should self-publish it.
 * -Haber 01:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I'm not sure I agree with you. I have studied the war and other related historical topics for most of my life and, I'll admit, went through some stages where I felt pretty strongly about one theory or two. The problem is so many of them draw from a relatively deep fact pool, yet they sometimes contradict one another in their abrupt conclusions. BUT perhaps we are not in disagreement afterall, because I believe the truth does exist, I'm not sure if I was clear about that. Whether we stumble upon it and are able to identify it as such is another matter. The only way we can gauge such factuality is collecting various evidence that leads us close enough that we feel comfortable to say "this is what happened" even though, there is always the possibility that we were completely off-base.--Hohns3 07:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Haber 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I will gladly give you the citations you are looking for, btw.--Hohns3 01:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems control of this article is held by the one paying the most attention to it. I'm currently involved in research that relates directly to some of the things we've discussed many months ago. I have a number of quality primary sources and this article is in need of citations. Anyway, I removed the "massing along the border" and "war rants" nonsense, but I haven't the time to thoroughly peruse and mark up the article. Please cite this source if it exists. Needless to say, the "War Rant" award goes to Churchill and the minority Conservatives, if you have been paying attention to primary docs.--Hohns3 02:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Woah! I thought you were gone forever.  Reference of German troops massing on the Polish border in August 1939: http://books.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4837140-110738,00.html. Haber 03:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

hello
hello, mr. haber how r u? i have seen ur user page and ur contribution. however, let me introduce my self. my name is mahadi mahmud. i am a new wikipedian. so, i dont know the rules and regulation of wikipedia quite well. so i need ur frindly help. howver, see u soon. keep well and keep smiling. --mahadi mahmud 08:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WW2
Well, we have been having some interesting discussions on the WW2 page. I was simply trying to do a wake up call on the intro, as I thought it could be improved. It seems to be changing rapidly at the moment, for the better, I hope. By the way, I never get upset, if people "call me out". It just means that they are getting interested in the "debate" sometimes. Anyway, I do really like some of your points about the quality of allied soldiers and generals over production. The truth is probably that both were important. I also appreciate that you stopped that poll that was going nowhere. Polls are only valuable, if one side has a big majority, and then the minority can see they may be incorrect. If its 50/50, best to kill the poll, as you did. Anyway, feel free to call me a prat at any time, and I might call you one too, if I get bored. Wallie 07:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warning
Blanking serious material is vandalism and is unacceptable behavior by Wiki editors. Since you are new to Wiki this will be a first warning before being reported to Wiki as a vandal. Rjensen 01:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See Vandalism. Deleting your chart is not vandalism.  The chart is too detailed for an overview article, and it is of low quality.  It lacks units, it's large, it omits important information, and its sole reason for existence is for you to reinforce a point that is clearly explained in the previous paragraph.  Haber 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you're new here and not used to the Wiki policy of providing more information rather than less. (We're talking about 12 lines of text.) It is concise, covering only the major countries and it summarizes vast amount of highly relevant data. The economists and economic historians use it and many Wiki users have the business/economic education to use it. People uninterested in numbers can easily skip over. So please do not vandalize--if you have something to say about the data then please annotate the section with your evidence. Rjensen 02:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your vandalism warning is completely unfounded, and Wiki policy clearly is to keep articles within a manageable length. To any serious statistician this chart as it is presented is useless.  It reports the nebulous variable "munitions" with no units, and omits Italy, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary... all major Axis players at least on par with the mighty Canada.  Furthermore, the WWII article does not have space to present all sides of the "Why did the Allies win?" question.  It's POV to go on and on about industrial production which is only one factor among many.  The article barely has space to tell what happened, and it really cannot do justice to the "why" question.  I'm willing to let the two short paragraphs slide because they are mentioned in passing in most histories, but I think even that is bending NPOV a little bit. Haber 02:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation re WW2 economic data
I have requested mediation on this edit war via Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-25 World War II Economic data  Rjensen 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Haber, I am from the Mediation Cabal and am here to help with this dispute about the economic chart. There are basically two ways I can go about this, so I am offering both methods to the parties involved. The first way would essentially be that I consider the old arguments, along with any new ones that are presented, and render a decision. If you choose this method, please also agree that my decision will be binding, no matter the outcome. The second method involves a negotiation process whereby we will discuss the matter. If you choose the second, I would ask that you be willing to compromise. Please let me know on my talk page which method you prefer, or have another suggestion. LawrenceTrevallion 02:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Haber, I am sorry if I offended you. I examined the Cabal's policy, and realized that my offer of making it binding was a bit unusual and perhaps uncalled for. I apologize. Please view the talk page of the WWII article as I have started a discussion about the chart. LawrenceTrevallion 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Haber, I must ask that you not refer to Rjensen's work as "sloppy" and in need of "babysitting," as it violates Wikiquette good faith and civility. I understand and appreciate your concerns with the chart's appearance, but calling it "sloppy" does not help the mediation process. LawrenceTrevallion 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Haber, I understand you have some concerns about the graph's clarity. If a footnote was added to the chart, clarifiying some points, would this satisfy your concerns? (Along with improving quality of the graph's appearance?) LawrenceTrevallion 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you disagree? Do you think that this project was well thought-out and carefully presented?  Do you think that it hasn't required extensive feedback to get it to adhere to basic academic standards?  I think forbidding the words "sloppy" and "babysitting" when clearly referring to substandard, incomplete, careless work is taking civility a little bit too far.  I don't see how good faith applies to this at all.  I do not believe, and have not said or implied, that his mistakes are deliberate. Haber 04:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

White Supremacist?
Please explain now, why you called me a White Supremacist. Subversive element 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * User_talk:Subversive_element is disgusting, and you are not as subtle as you think you are. Haber 23:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please point out what especially you are so disgusted by on my talk page -- and how exactly this makes you think you can call me a white supremacist. I am clearly not in agreement with the other user on my talk page over political attitude - and just talking to him doesn't make me identical to him, you know. Maybe you never talk to persons with opinions different from your own, maybe for fear it will somehow magically compromise your point of view, but I do it because I like to discuss outside of groupthink. About not being as subtle as you claim I think I am: Not being subtle doesn't make me a white supremacist, either. I think you owe me an apology or a much more accurate answer as to why you attacked me like that, calling me a white supremacist. Subversive element 08:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.


 * I will not respond to threats. Go ahead and report me.  User_talk:Mitsos, User talk:Subversive element, and Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II speak for themselves. Haber 14:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to be honest: Your comments are a bit confusing to me. It is certainly not my intention to threaten you in any way. How, in your opinion, am I threatening you? By issuing an (adequately justified, in my opinion) NPA warning in compliance with WP policy? And how does any of the mentioned places give any hint whatsoever as to me being a white supremacist? We obviously do disagree on how they are "speaking for themselves". Finally, I assure you, I am not going to "report you" unless absolutely unavoidable. Let's try and work things out between the two of us, that's why I posted here in the first place. Sub  versive  18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You came jackbooting in here demanding immediate answers and threatening to have my account blocked. It's obvious what you're about.  Go to hell. Haber 02:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You called me a white supremacist on an article talk page. I'd just like to hear an apology or a good explanation for that because I can't think of any. That's all. I don't like being denounced and discredited like that, and it's against WP policy. I didn't "demand", I said "please". I never meant to threaten you in any way, I am not even an admin and I cannot block you. With your "Go to hell." however, you leave me no choice but to issue a second warning. Please read WP:NPA and please take this serious and let's just talk about it in a civilized manner. Sub versive  08:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.


 * Please reply and let's talk in a civilized manner. Sub  versive  00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Response is here. Haber 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Complaint
After reading a complaint, it did come to my attention that you did, indeed, commit a personal attack. I am therefore asking you, kindly, to please apologise to some extent to Subversive element; otherwise this is going to go nowhere. People who commit personal attacks, and the extremity of yours, will get you blocked in future cases, perhaps banned. For the sake of kindness, please apologise. Thanks, Kil  o • T  13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Subversive element has been blocked permanently. Haber 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay then. Thanks anyway. Kil  o • T  19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Haber-my friend
As you can see, Haber, I'm back in action. I can not really thank you enough for your positive comments, which helped me out of a very black mood indeed. I was just so completely pissed that I though of throwing the whole thing over, caught as I am between Nazis, Stalinists and administrators, who seem to combine qualities found in both. The whole thing was just so arbitrary-no warning, no discussion, no explanation, nothing. I'm in the process of trying to register a complaint, but it's very difficult working through the bureaucratic Berlin Wall. I'm asking others for advice. Anway, I really value your Wiki friendship, and will assist and support you in any way I can in times-and battles-to come. My very best wishes. White Guard 00:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I know the mood you're talking about well.  Remember, whether we participate or not, Wikipedia will still be a very popular way for people to get their information about history.  With those who remember WWII dying off, we can't afford to leave this medium to the revisionists.  About the admins- they may have a few tools, but they don't own this project any more than we do.  My recommendation, if your complaint isn't well-received, is to just let it drop and keep editing.  We can still feel superior to them, influencing people out in the world rather than dealing with internal disputes all day long.  See you around. Haber 01:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply from MartinDK
I have given your comments a lot of thought today and I agree with you. The main reason I became discouraged was that while I don't consider people with long educations better people I do think that, when it comes to discussing specific topics, hard earned knowledge through years of education should be respected. I see a lot of nice and respectful admins here but I also see some that are 18-19 years old. How is a kid that age going to be able to settle disputes or judging whether a specific edit constitutes vandalism or an attempt to correct a serious error? The way Wikipedia seems to deal with this issue is to disallow any major edits before a consensus has been reached on the talk page.

BUT I agree with you that this should not deter us from correcting such errors and contributing to the most common reference on the Internet. It is our responsibility to participate in this process even if it is not always rewarding work.

I will do as you suggested, spend a few minutes every day editing and try to stay out of debates that cannot be settled. There is plenty of work to be done elsewhere without engaging in heated debates with people who just want to cause trouble. Hope to see you around though I doubt I will be engaging in the WW2 articles for a while. There are just too many emotions involved and too much controversy. So I will leave that to the people with more time and energy to spend here at least for the time being. But rest assured that your work is being appreciated and fortunately the vast majority of people born well after the war ended can understand why revisionist views holds very little value. Unfortunately it is the small minority of troublemakers who seem to be making the most noise. To stay calm in such a situation requires more patience than I got right now anyway. MartinDK 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're back, and thanks for the words. You're right that patience is often tested around here, and in my opinion this veneer of NPA/AGF/Civility/etc. is simply producing more sophisticated behaviors, rather than more cooperative or civil.  We'll do what we can.  See you around.  Haber 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You've violated the 3RR rule by reverting four times in less than 24 hours at Animal testing. You may want to take the opportunity to revert yourself. If you don't, you may be reported and blocked from editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ok Haber 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility
If you do not desist with comments about me I will report you for them. Comment on content, not the contributor - saying I am whiny is not on, whatever you may think. Why should I enter into debate with you when you refuse to be civil?-Localzuk(talk) 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You obstruct, then recite the AGF/NPA/Civility tune and threaten to have people blocked at the slightest offense. Get a thicker skin. Haber 22:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Haber, but you seem to misunderstand what this site is. It is a collaborative project to create an encyclopedia. 2 editors have now stated that your edits are too wide ranging - this indicates that the users prefer the old version better and you should alter your proposal. Instead, you have launched yourself into a series of uncivil and borderline personal attacks (calling me whiny for instance). This is not the way things are done on this site - if you think I'm being 'obstructive' that is your perogative but do not make it personal and revert to attacks and uncivil language.
 * I am perfectly open to improving the lead on that article, as I have explained there, but a unilateral change followed by your method of argument (such as saying 'inadequate response on talk' in your edit summary) is not acceptable.
 * Don't take this is another case of 'point at the policy' like you seem to be assuming I'm doing, but if you take a look at WP:BOLD there is a good line in there that adequately sums things up: If you would like to edit an article on a controversial subject, it's a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page and it goes on to say If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references... If there is a WikiProject associated with the page, you might also want to mention your proposed changes there if they are substantial. That pretty much states that, as SV and I have said, you should have discussed first. If you look through the talk archives you would see that there is a large amount of discussion on the topic of the intro - you should have seen that such a large change would be met with aprehension and, in this specific case, opposition.
 * Also note that you seem to be constantly saying that using policies and guidelines to support arguments is a bad thing. The policies and guidelines are there to aid with the creation and expansion of articles. They are created by reaching consensus between many editors. Simply invoking WP:IAR when you do not like the fact that your edit was reverted is not acceptable - it does not help the project, it just causes disruption and causes people to view your edits in a more negative manner in future.
 * Also, one of the things I have learnt on this site is that it does help if you take notice of people who have been here for longer than yourself - for example SV has been here for a lot longer than me, has helped write many of our policies and has a grasp on how things are done most effectively that it will take me a long time to gain. Of course, I don't mean that we should go 'oh they've been here a year longer than me so they must be right', but it should mean 'hmm, they have edited a lot longer than me, maybe I am going about things in the wrong way. Maybe I should discuss it with them'.
 * Remember, we should all try to leave our personal grudges and pov at home when editing this site. Both myself and SV edit from 'opposite' POV quite often, do you? Looking through your contributions to the animal testing article, I cannot see any.-Localzuk(talk) 23:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I didn't get past the first paragraph in which you accused me of being uncivil for the millionth time. Haber 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You accuse me of being obstructive and then when I explain myself you make a comment such as that. I think that pretty much sums up your attitude to collaborative working. -Localzuk(talk) 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Take some advice instead of dishing it for three seconds. If you're going to begin and end every single discussion with the "You're a jerk" hypothesis, then don't consider what you're doing to be collaborating.  The admins will give you points for using the correct wiki-language.  I won't. Haber 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well so far you have not really given me much to go on in terms of acts of good faith. My advice still stands - stop being confrontational. Your edits can be good but your attitude will likely get them ignored - people don't like being treated the way you are treating us. I'm sorry if you think I'm working with a pre-set mind on this but until you show some signs of good faith I do not see how else to treat you. I collaborate well with people who discuss politely, not with those who make wide ranging changes and then revert war, use uncivil language and personal attacks when they are reverted.-Localzuk(talk) 14:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV again
Haber, please don't accuse other editors of "whining," or make personal attacks on them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Friendly Advice
I hope this message stays on your talk page and actually gets through to you and isn't deleted by the net.cops who are surveilling you rather intensely. Wikipedia is heavily censored unless you want to publish pornography, gossip, or pictures of turds. Did you commit a Wikifelony like telling it like it is? :-) Anyway, you're 100% right about what you said on the Civility talk page.  It's a bulls**** policy that I can only describe as reminiscent of a totalitarian nation run on political correctness.  I used to contribute to Wikipedia.  Now, I don't waste my time.  You're already under such intense scrutiny, I suspect this is getting to be a joyless enterprise for you.  The lowest common denominators and bullies with the most fortitude run this place, which explains why the content is so silly, unimportant, and lacking.  Maybe you should close this account and make a clean start.  I did that for a while, moving from account to account until suspicious admins would check my edits and ask me how I was making such "adept" edits if I were a newbie.  That was f***ing unbelievable.  My edits were sound, excellent even, but they had to get nosy.  I also hated getting warning messages for basically nothing and having policy quoted at me with links included by little pipsqueaks and playground tattletales that need pantsed and given a good swirly. It's condescending and rude, and lots of people get off on it. I can't believe somebody accused you of having a problem with authority for suggesting that people say "please" and "thank you." That is civility in the real world. Barking orders isn't. BTW, SlimVirgin is one of the most heavy-handed admins when it comes to "personal attacks." You're on her s*** list, and she's going to keep at you until you're banned. She gets off on it, as she has no other purpose in life. I've got a good idea. There should be an unofficial policy on excessive or hysterical snitching, like they do in jail. First warning is a piece of cheese on your bunk. Second warning is a serious beat-down. Third warning is a shank in the guts or a d*** in the a**. I'm sure templates with illustrations could be made. Of course, anyone using them, even in jest would be blocked under NPA. You can't win for losing around here. If you wish to contact me to bitch or get advice, send mail to Pimposaurus.Rex at alum.dartmouth.org. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 13:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the encouragement. I have edited your comments slightly for word choice.  I hope you don't mind.  So far this has been my first and only account.  I agree that the code of conduct is broken.  I will do my best to work within the system for now.  Thanks for the laugh too.  I'm glad to know that my comments do not entirely fall on deaf ears.  Haber 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Localzuk, please don't discourage people from communicating with me on my own talk page. Haber 22:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. F*** off. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be wary of accepting "encouragement" from somebody who advocates beatings, stabbings and rape for something as trivial as Wikipedia edits. CovenantD 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're a literal minded child moron. That's not a personal attack, as it is the bloody obvious truth.  Didn't you see how I was joking above?  Of course you did, but you chose to treat it as a threat for your own purposes.  Again, I say, mind your own fucking business.  I'm trying to talk to Haber, not you, you worthless pigfucker.  There, you have your personal attack.  Now be a faggoty ratty snitch and get me blocked so I can use another sockpuppet. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He's using over-the-top language to screw with the hall monitors. Of course I do not advocate violence.  But thanks for the tip. Haber 00:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See? He understands, and doesn't want interference or any trouble. He even censored my comments to toe the Party Line at Wikipedia. Leave him alone. Blame me, block me. I have other accounts. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

to administrators
Do not block Haber! Bock Localzuk and/or me. Localzuk is a worthless fucking tool who is gunning for admin by being a hardass about rules and kicking a guy while he's down. He's also a child. Any adult would have refuted my claims of his childhood. Haber represents a minority opinion, but an important one, and he is particularly articulate. Leave him alone! He hasn't hurt anyone! Block my account if you must, as it doesn't matter, but I will fight to the last to defend this Wiki, which is supposed to be a fre exchange of ideas. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Discourage?
No, I was trying to discourage incivility and personal attacks against other users (in this case SlimVirgin). Talk pages are not owned by any individual, the rules still apply even if you are just talking between yourselves.-Localzuk(talk) 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, shut up and f*** off, you as*****. I'll be blocked, for sure, but you'll look stupid for chasing me.  I'll just make another account. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And now you have been, because that comment was totally unacceptable. This is not USENET, and you simply cannot just abuse people. Please be more civil with your next account, if you won't with this one. And Haber, please do the same. Thank you. Snoutwood (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wilhelm, please avoid profanity as it is a bit tedious for me to clean up. Snoutwood, I'm not sure how much more "civil" I can be than I have been in the last day.  If you have suggestions for improvement I would like to hear about it.  If this is about something in the past then I humbly request that you talk to me first before passing judgement. Haber 06:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just a cursory opinion after having read the comments on this talk page, such as "go to hell," "screw with the hall monitors," etc. The purpose of being here is to create an encyclopedia; that requires polite, not reductive, discussion between users. It was also based on your accepting and encouraging comment from a user who was advocating and handing out prolific abuse, as well as saying that Wikipedia users should be beaten and raped as in a prison (comments that are so far outside the boundaries of what is acceptable that it's ridiculous). I am simply advising that you a) build, foster, and continue a polite and courteous manner of speech, and b) not to encourage or support such behavior. If you have been so in the last day, then great! That's brilliant. But looking at this page I'm sure you can see why I might be concerned. Snoutwood (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your honesty. Obviously our styles differ but you did manage to admonish me without using the word "civil" or referring to a single Wikipedia policy, which I can respect.  Regarding the "Go to hell", if you're curious you should do a little research on Subversive Element.  Suffice it to say he was racist, was very disruptive, and self-destructed shortly after his encounter with me, going out with a blaze of profanity and harassment.  Anyway good luck and I hope you enjoyed your visit to my talk page. Haber 21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * a) Suffice it to say I didn't go, neither to hell nor away from Wikipedia. I'm just keeping away from the likes of you, Haber, concentrating instead on building the encyclopedia. b) I have never been a racist, you attacked me as one, just like you are generally abusive. You still owe me an apology, the block against user:Subversive_element is not an excuse for you to call me a racist. c) Anyone may take a look at this and the rest of your talk page and make up their mind about you, just as Snoutwood did. d) I feel sorry for you. -- 87.78.151.19 01:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC) (the user formerly known as user:Subversive element)


 * Complaints received. Haber 04:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, explanations, and point proven, I think
As you can see, you were completely right in your comments. I apologize for the profanity, but I was proving a point. I'd suggest you scrub your talk page. You can do that, since I'm a permabanned user, and what I wrote is considered vandalism. It's pretty easy for me to get around bans, so I can be a thorn in Wikipedia's side for years to come. Really, you shouldn't try to find out who I am, and you should disavow all knowledge of me. All the best, Wilhelm Jagr Klintonenberg 16:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You haven't actually been permabanned. You've just been asked to be polite, and have been blocked to emphasize that. If you will be courteous, then you won't be blocked. I hardly see that as anything onerous. Snoutwood (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. We'll continue to try to make the encyclopedia better. Haber 22:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Racist moron"
Don't make personal attacks on other people. Be carefull because you might be blocked. About "Incident at Tarlis", it was created by a user who is using WP for propanda. He has created many articles like that, and were all deleted. Mitsos 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Buzz off. Haber 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Tarlis incident
The original versioh of the (now deleted) article Tarlis incident relies on a single source. The source is a book, and the page(s) where the incident is described is/are not mentioned. In the book, the original sources of the report should be mentioned (it is not thinkable that Ms Τούντα-Φεργάδη was present when the incident happened).

I am convinced that there are many other articles on human rights violations that are not based on reliable sources. Inclusion of reliable sources is especially important for human-rights violation incidents because of the sensitivity of the subject. Andreas (T) 16:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I share your concern that this encyclopedia not become a catalogue for poorly-sourced human-rights violation incidents. At first it seemed to me from the zealousness of the response to this allegation that maybe it is something that is talked about in Greece and Bulgaria, and that if so there is probably a reliable source out there somewhere.  I would not be opposed to having the Greek version of events in this article as long as you can find a source, but I can also see why no article may be preferable to a poorly sourced article.  I've been unable to find a really good source myself, so I won't try to recreate the article unless something changes. Haber 18:06, 3 December 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 ← 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Commanders of World War II(references)
You have shown interest some about "Commanders of World War II". We have had some discussion about referenceing it with Oshah, but im not sure what's best solution.--Staberinde 12:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess we knew we were getting into this when we started the article. I'll check it out tonight. Haber 17:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bombing of Guernica
Please don't forget to unprotect. The turmoil seems to have settled down and the tag craps up the page. Haber 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the move protection. --  tariq abjotu  05:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Info!
Thanks for the heads-up on the changes made to the Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg! I have replaced the old debated Nuremberg pic with a new one, and uploaded a new version of the montage. My Regards, --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WWII Battlebox
You are right, I am going to stay out of the battlebox debate as its pointless. There is much more to be done to improve this article as there are major chunks missing. I am planning to do a major update on Eastern Front June 1941 - February 1943 and Western Front September 1940 - June 1944 as there are major chunks missing.

I don't have much knowledge about the Battle of the Atlantic and so far its really choppy, I was wondering if you could try to improve that. I am going to finish up with the Eastern Front soon and then do the Western Front. The biggest help is needed in the China and South East Asia. Major info missing from there. That I will tackle last but I do appreciate your help. Mercenary2k 21:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I had another go at the Atlantic.  I'll give China and Southeast Asia a look.  Unlike the European and Pacific theaters I don't have as good of a feel for the relative significance of things, but I will give it a try.  Good luck with your sections. Haber 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article World War II
Hello, User:. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Second World War
I don't consider myself involved in any dispute, to be honest. Move my comment to wherever you feel is most appropriate, if you wish. Badgerpatrol 18:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. I went ahead and moved it. Haber 18:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Godefroy's talk page
I sound angry you say? You're joking right? Regardless...

Also, I fail to see how asking someone to "please" refrain from editing the infobox until the RfC is concluded overreacting. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at his contributions, Godefroy has been a somewhat casual contributor here for only about a month and a half. Your point had already been communicated by Parsecboy and Demerphq, yet you couldn't resist becoming the third person to pile on.  See WP:BITE. Haber 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Couldn't resist", now don't get carried away.


 * But for the record, I was replying to the comment he left on the talk page after Parsecboy and Demerphq communicated their points; reiterating that we shouldn't make any changes while the RfC status remained.


 * And, considering that I started my sentence with, "With utmost respect...", used "please" and "thank you", encouraged him to continue to contribute to the debate, and avoided using intensifiers, Caps, or exclamation marks, I seriously don't see how I was "Biting the newcomer". — Dorvaq (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WWII
the battle of midway has been cited in many books on cryptography as being decisively influenced by the ability of the US forces to read the japanese messages. Wandalstouring 20:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. In the WWII article, I'm trying to add some global perspective while cutting down on factoids which are in the subarticles.  If you feel strongly that the sentence on cryptography needs to be included, we can put it back in.  I was on the fence myself.  Haber 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just see that the cryptography aspect of this war is mentioned somewhere. Breaking the Japanese code was very important for Midway and the Pacific theatre + informing the allies about all new developments (Hitler invited the Japanese ambassador to all presentations and this guy sent detailed coded reports home. The allies were able to break the codes and could produce some interesting literature for their commanders.)
 * The big Polish/British coup is the enigma, while the German/Italian/Japanese codebreakers seem to have been a bit clueless. Wandalstouring 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Incivility
Comments like this: and this:  (edit summary) are not helpful. Please avoid racism (yes, describing the French as 'frogs' is racist) and incivility. You clearly know what you're talking about, but please remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be a pleasant editing environment for all who wish to contribute, and rudenss and racist comments are not helpful. Continue to make such edits and you may lose your editing privileges. Proto  ►  23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interested in my side of the story? I guess not because you decided to censure me based on a few diffs, without even telling me that a complaint was made. Haber 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Reference?
I'm not following you around (I think I have edited the same page as you, what, twice?), although I do reserve the right to modify incorrect assertions, whether by you or anyone else. If you take a look at Help:Minor edit you will see that it is appropriate to mark an edit as "minor" when reverting "Obvious factual errors". I think many (myself included) would suggest that implying that a source supports one's assertion when it actually does not is an example of such an error (assuming good faith), although note that I do not have password access to the Encyclopaedia Britanica (it is not generally appropriate to use subscription only sources when providing in-text citations, by the way). If you can find a more widely available source supporting your assertion that Britain or Great Britain is a term widely used to refer to the historical British Empire, then please include it. The onus is on you to find a reliable source, as the editor contributing the text- but, as I made clear in my edit summary, I certainly do not preclude the inclusion of the statement, but I feel it is only fair that all editors should be able to see the source rather than accepting it as blind faith. From what I can see of that reference, it does not support the statement- but if your statement is supported by the source, please demonstrate it to all interested editors, by posting the relevent text on the talk page, since you have a subscription. Assuming good faith, I'm sure the consensus would be too include the statement and reference- which would teach us all something; I've never heard the term "Great Britain" (which is nearly always thought of as a simple geographical descriptor) conflated with "British Empire". That is, after all, what an encyclopaedia is for. Thanks for your opinion, Badgerpatrol 15:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This was not a minor edit, or an obvious factual error. An example of such would be if I wrote that Napoleon was defeated in 1915, and you changed it to 1815.  A problem with a source is major.  I would appreciate it if you would admit something as clear-cut as this.  Otherwise it's going to be very hard to work together in the future.
 * You are correct in that the source was misused. I apologize for that.  If I might offer an explanation, that version of the text is one that I worked out with someone else, a person who like you prefers the geographic definition but unlike you will acknowledge that there is also an informal political definition out there.  The point where the reference was inserted should have been half a sentence sooner.  Still, it's my fault for not more meticulously checking the sentence before cutting and pasting it.
 * If you are happy with the text as it stands now, then I will leave it that way. Haber 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * err...have you got me mixed up with someone else? I have no argument with the idea that "Britain" is sometimes used as an interchangeable synonym with "United Kingdom", and I've never stated anywhere that I have. Please provide diffs to back up this assertion. I stupidly assumed good faith that you had made a factual error, rather than falsifying a reference to suit an incorrect assumption (I do not ever recall seeing "Britain" or "Great Britain" used as a synonym for the historical British Empire (at least not in the English language)- if you can actually provide a ref to support this, then I'll eat my hat, but I'm afraid I suspect that you are just plain wrong.) As you say, this is your fault, and I think inserting false statements and using references to mislead readers probably trumps an ambiguous minor/major edit summary- however, next time there is any element of ambiguity, I will err on the side of caution and mark the edit as major. There was certainly no intent to deceive- on my part, anyway. As for working together- to be honest, I'm not keen to work with an editor who chcuks racist insults around without even thinking and provides edits like these . Providing you learn to behave in a civil manner, I don't see any reason to have any dealings with one another at all in the future. All the best, Badgerpatrol 20:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's keep in mind that you did choose to preserve some of my work, which means that we both think that the British Isles (terminology) article is better than it was before. If an apology, explanation, and an offer to leave the article exactly the way you last edited it isn't enough for you, then I stand by my above comment . Haber 21:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's better now- after I removed your wrong statement to leave only that which you could support with citations, not your own POV. Your apology, explanation, and offer to leave the article alone is fine by me- your consistently obnoxious behaviour isn't, however. All the best, Badgerpatrol 22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I finally got the time to go looking for citations.   These aren't of the finest quality but they should show that other people besides myself have heard the British Empire (at least Canada) called "Great Britain".  My edit was not "just plain wrong", with "intent to deceive", as you say.  Don't worry.  I still acknowledge the right of the British and Canadian people to self-apply whatever name they choose and I don't expect you to eat your hat based on these flimsy references.  I have no intention of going anywhere near the terminology article in the near future.  They're only here to show good faith. Haber 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to continue the discussion any further, but in the interests of education- those references do not support your substantive point. Pre-dominion Canada (for example) can indeed be said to part of "Great Britain" (as used in the incorrect, political sense of the term)- that is not to say that Canada was referred to as "Great Britain" (indeed, it is not so labelled in any of your references, from a quick scan). It may indeed have been politically part of the UK- but it was not referred to as the UK or "Great Britain". Texas is part of the United States- but no-one refers to it as the United States, however. Bavaria is part of Germany- but a map of Bavaria alone would never be lableed "Map of Germany". I think you're a little bit mixed up- hope this helps. Nonetheless, if you can find a decent ref that actually refers to the wider British Empire as the noun "Great Britain", I will still happily munch down my headwear. In the interests of closing this debate, I accept that you were presumably acting in good faith. All the best, Badgerpatrol 09:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bananas are fruit. Fruit is fruit too.  A map of Bavaria might very well have "Germany" printed on it.  A traveller to Texas goes to the United States.  It's perfectly acceptable to drop the "part of" if that's assumed.  If you're going to go through life comparing everything you say with legal government-approved definitions, calling everything else "incorrect", then you're going to have a very narrow vocabulary. Haber 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a reference that supports your assertion that the British Empire (or even Canada specifically) was ever referred to as "Great Britain". To employ your analogy, would an American travelling to Canada have told friends they were "travelling to (Great) Britain?". Of course not. I assure you, I've never seen nor heard of this, you haven't been able to find a supportive reference, and I have no reason therefore to believe that it's true. Whether you think it's true or not is not relevent, as hopefully you are [WP:V|aware]]. In this case however, I very much doubt if this particular fact is either verifiable or "true"- with respect, you are just plain wrong about this. I say it's incorrect not because it jars with any "government-approved definition", but because it simply isn't true. No-one, to my knowledge, ever referred to the wider British Empire as "Great Britain". Once again, if you can find a reliable source supporting your counter-assertion, then put it back in. Badgerpatrol 13:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Facts relating to 'Delhi chalo' call
Hello Haber, I find that you have reverted my edit on the WW II page on the surmise that the info provided by me is "unsourced, potentially controversial claim". Plz refer to articles Subhas Chandra Bose and Indian National Army and do elaborate on reasons for revert. Legaleagle86 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the note.  As you might have noticed on the talk page, we're making an effort to get more sources into the text.  I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about this period of Indian history, but I can think of two points of contention right away:
 * Who led the invasion? I happened to be reading about it a couple of days ago in Keegan's book, The Second World War.  He has it as Mutaguchi's idea.
 * Were the Japanese-aligned Indians really fighting for "freedom"? I think the British-aligned Indians fighting against them might have disagreed.
 * I haven't completely read the two articles you referred me to but at any rate it's still insufficient to use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Our sources should be from published works with a reputation for fact-checking whenever possible.  WP:V gives more info. Haber 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the quick reply.
 * As to the point who led the contingent or whoose plan it was to invade NE India, it will defenitely be Bose and INA, according to Collins the Jap wanted to attack the Arakans and proceed through the present day Bangladesh however Bose persuaded Sato to move into the Imphal theatre, one can also refer books like Jungle Alliance: Japan and the Indian National Army by Joyce Lebra, or Peter Ward Fay's The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence 1941-45 to support the assertion.
 * As to the second point raised on the sentiments of the British-aligned Indians towards the so called Japanese-aligned Indians I would strongly recommend that, notwithstanding the fact that it is insufficient to use other Wikipedia articles as sources, you read the article on Bombay Mutiny, which deals with the sentiments expressed by the soldiers in British Army at the news that INA soldiers are going to be tried at Delhi for treason. For further ref one can read Modern India by Sumit Sarkar (Macmillan) pp 418-423, Bipan Chandra and others, ‘Indian Struggle for Independence’ (New Delhi, Penguin, 1988).
 * Plz do let me know your viewsLegaleagle86 03:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok with me as long as you put a citation in. Including the page numbers is best.
 * It's a little unclear from the way you wrote it whether they were attaining freedom from POV status or "freedom" from being part of the British Empire. If the latter I would suggest something more neutral like "independence".  Any of those references will work.  I can't guarantee I'll get to look at any of your books in the near future, but I trust you.  Sounds like an interesting subject. Haber 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So do you reckon that I should chip in with the lines, "This 'March to Delhi' was initiated by Subhas Chandra Bose,the commander of Indian National Army (a force comprised of POWs from the British Indian Army who had been captured by the Japanese and had decided to join the war in an attempt to rid India of their colonial rulers, and thereby attain independance)", along with the ref Legaleagle86 12:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds ok. I think the sentence before it still mentions the Japanese. Haber 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ww2
Hi Haber, I just felt that adding "The" makes it sound better. But thats just my opinion. Feel free to change it. Mercenary2k 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

World War II Mediation Case
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/World War II, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Krellis (Talk) 21:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Long Gone
Apologies for the comment; you're right and I should have checked the page. I was actually just looking for somewhere to make a quick comment (that was irrelevent) on a Talk Page because for some reason my Internet Explorer kept crashing every time I tried to edit the Michael Bloomberg page to reinsert a section (deleted by a first time user) previously marked "Harrassment Controversies". I wanted to see if it only happened when I made edits to Bloomberg's page. It did... which was odd. Coricus 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. Thanks for fleshing out the European Civil War section. Haber 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you have time, I'd appreciate a second opinion on the European Civil War page. I've pretty much put it together single-handedly so far and after a major rewrite today, the text seems a little dense to me. I'm not an expert in the field by any means and some fresh eyes would certainly help. Coricus 11:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'm not an expert either but I'll take a look.  I might not get to it for a few days. Haber 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

mediation
Hi Haber, are you going to participate in WWII mediation case? It looks like we are the only ones opting for individual combatants. I'm still thinking but I imagine mediation is very involved and takes a lot of time. Is participating in mediation worth the time or is it another glorified straw poll? Thanks man. Blueshirts 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still thinking about this. So many people have been invited that whether we join or not, I think the request will fail because someone won't respond.  There's also no guarantee that if we accept this our mediator won't be yet another blowhard who prefers process and compromise over writing the encyclopedia.  I've only been involved in one mediation (informal) before, and it was a total waste of time, as is just about everything that the self-appointed ruling class thinks up.  As you seem to understand, many Wikipedians just want to be in an online club and make the occasional editorial decision, basically just getting in the way of real contributors.  I guess that's why I have so little respect for the opinions of this particular group, if truth be told.  I haven't ruled out the mediation altogether.  We still have a few more days to think about it.   Haber 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to stick my nose into the conversation between the two of you, but I'd like to point out that, as mentioned here, parties can withdraw from the mediation at any time, so if you agree to it and then later decide that it is not making any progress, you can certainly do so. By at least initially agreeing, though, you allow us to attempt to take further steps to resolve the issue.  If the mediation fails before it even gets off the ground, the only step left in dispute resolution is to go to binding arbitration with ArbCom, which could well be even more time consuming and difficult than mediation.  I hope we can all at least agree that something needs to be done - we can't be edit warring and discussing this issue indefinitely, that helps no one. —Krellis (Talk) 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Krellis. The above wasn't really meant to apply to you specifically.  I have to tell you I have about zero faith left in your little mob after the RfC turned into a non-binding straw poll turned into a vote to be enforced.  Your silence during the recent personal attacks and obvious distortion of the polling process doesn't reflect well on you, whichever side of the debate you want to be on.  Haber 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand where you're going here. First you say the above wasn't directed at me, then you say things that seem to mirror what you said above, but most certainly directed at me.  I "voted" in the straw poll simply because I thought it might get some meaningful consensus built.  I don't really have a strong opinion in the debate on either side.  My only goal, stated, implied, or actual, has always been to get consensus on this issue so that the improvement of the article can move on, free of this ongoing debate.  I strongly object to any characterization of "my little mob" - in fact, I don't even really understand what you're talking about.  If you have evidence that I have been attempting to steer this discussion to one side or the other, I would love to see it - as far as I can tell, all I have done is attempted to take a neutral position and foster discussion.  Perhaps I should not have "voted" in the poll at all, and almost did not, but figured it was a safe enough way to express my (slight) preference.  If you consider my attempt to move further in the dispute resolution process to be "silence", I'm not sure what you would consider appropriate.


 * This really shouldn't be about "us" vs. "them". The whole point of mediation is to have a neutral third party helping to frame the discussion and come to some agreement.  Mediation, as a general concept, is almost never successful when the parties do not go into it with an open mind, prepared to at least listen to the opinions of the other participants, even if they may not agree with them.  If you cannot go into the mediation with an open mind, then, by all means, please indicate that you do not agree to mediation, and save everyone the time.


 * A closing comment - you say to me that my silence during recent personal attacks does not speak well of me. I question the force of that statement from someone who is himself making a personal attack on this very page - "There's also no guarantee that if we accept this our mediator won't be yet another blowhard who prefers process and compromise over writing the encyclopedia."  That statement is a personal attack on any number of contributors to World War II, and could well be interpreted as an attack on me, as I have been trying to pursue dispute resolution on this issue.  Despite what you may think, I believe we both have the same goal in mind - the improvement of this article, and of Wikipedia in general.  If you have constructive suggestions for how this dispute should be resolved, I would absolutely love to hear them, but this type of comment really helps nobody. —Krellis (Talk) 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Criticism noted. Haber 05:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Haber, please do not revert to nationalities until the mediation is settled. Oberiko 01:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say why not? I mean we an always quit the mediation if it goes nowhere, so yeah I signed. Blueshirts 18:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegas?
I never get invited to the cool conferences...153.2.246.31 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously if you are a historian, please give editing the articles a try. You wouldn't want history to be written by dopes like me, would you? (On the other hand, you could end up as frustrated as User:White Guard.) Haber 04:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the frustration factor would be a bit high, though I agree that it's similar to not voting while complaining about who wins. I really just wish people would take the time to read actual books on these topics.  I mean, in theory, I could go edit an article on molecular biology while having absolutely no knowledge on the subject (which, make no mistake, I don't).  Some biologist changes it back because it's clear I have no idea what I'm talking about, at which point I change it right back again.  I just don't want to be the frustrated biologist.  It is, however, nice to see people getting their blood pressure up over history.153.2.246.33 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sue me
You don't call me a Nazi, neither you nor Wikipedia have anything to worry about. Learn to read. Trekphiler 12:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * was deleted. Haber 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)