User talk:Mosedschurte/Archive 38

Mol-Rib Pact
What's your opinion on matters discussed on talk? Deletions re Poland and other suggestions I made? Do you find them helpful? Do you think you could work this article to FA status? If so, I am willing to help (of course, if you will accept the offer). Renata (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually haven't looked at the deletions yet, though based on the reasons in the edit summary lines, I think we need to keep in the very summary version of events in the areas of Pact governance, Eastern Europe, during the Pact's operation.


 * In terms of the edits that stuck, your edits did a great job of cleaning up some sloppy language -- much of which admittedly (and embarrassingly) was my own (but a lot from others' too).


 * I'm grabbing some cites and clarifications for some of the cite and clarification tags you added, which also seemed pretty on the money. I completely agree that many of these were flat out unclear and/or badly needing of a cite (if true), and almost all of them had been there for a long time (before I started some cleanup on the article).  There was quite a bit of this in the article a month back or so and I've been slowly going through it.  I have a feeling that, on some Eastern Europe topics, much of the text contains translated versions from other language versions of Wikipedia articles on some topics (most without citations) which may be accurate in substance, but perhaps changes in meaning through the editors' translation.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just looked at the deletions. I think summary versions of the actions inside the Pact area during the Pact's operation need to remain, albeit in a very summary form.  This is basically what the article does now (e.g., just one line about Auschwitz, which was started a year into the Pact, summary discussions of deportations).  There are main and see tags for some of the larger Wikipedia articles covering what occurred, but I don't think, for example, the establishment of Auschwitz, Katyn massacre, deportations, Germanization, sovietization, etc. that occurred during the Pact's operation can be go completely without mention.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am off to sleep, have fun editing ;) But did you notice that you always say "Soviet" (never Russian) and "German" (never Nazi)? A bit uneven, don't you think? ;) Renata (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, I never thought of that. Obviously "Nazi" refers to the National Socialist Party, so I don't use that unless referring to the party or party members in particular, like "Communist" with reference to Soviet or Russian citizens.  Nazi Germany refers to the government from '33-'45, but that's longer than "Germany" and not needed, much like ""Communist Russia" refers to Russia during the era of communist rule, but it's longer and not necessary.


 * I sometimes use the term "the Soviets" to refer to Soviet citizens, like I would say "the Germans" to refer to German citizens. I've tried to use the shorter "Germany", rather than "the Germans", where applicable, also because "Germans" refers to an ethnic group of people as well (e.g., not all German officials and troops were ethnic Germans).  In terms of use of the word "the Soviets", it's shorter than "Soviet Union."


 * I try to steer clear of "Russians" in terms of foreign policy at the time, because that just refers to one province of the Soviet Union (obviously, the most important), the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The Soviet Union was the actual governing body for foreign policy and military issues.  People who refer to the Soviet Union as "the Russians" were often lampooned by U.S. media (TV, movies), usually as an undercurrent of a joke implying that they were uneducated rednecks and the like.  Something like portraying them yelling "Them Russians is gonna get us!"Mosedschurte (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That was just a note that did not require an elaborate answer :) I personally like to insert "Russia" once in a while as it is a shortcut and in essence synonymous to "Soviet Union". It gets very repetitive if you use "Soviet" all the time. Anyway, that was just a FYI note. Renata (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1939)

 * Great!Mosedschurte (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Material from Other Losses
If you could find a home for the material you removed in this edit, I'd be grateful. I removed a ton of links to that page (under its previous name) and a lot of them probably ought to be restored; I just couldn't work out a good place/name to put that material at the time. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union
I've undone your edit to this article, I checked the source, and your text is not supported by the cite you provided. --Stor stark7 Speak 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You can find my responce on my talk page
You can find my response on my talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My response is on my talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and WP:OR accusations
Let me explain you something. Although we Wikipedians cannot make a WP:synthesis of published materials, or do other WP:OR, we may, can and have to make a decisions about relevance or irrelevance of certain primary, secondary and tertiary sources to an article or its concrete part. Therefore, all my speculations and considerations regarding the relevance of some sources cannot be considered WP:OR until they are being presented on the talk pages only. By contrast, arbitrary and inaccurate citations that may give undue weight to one opinion do constitute a WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR if this text appears in the article itself. You must see the difference. In addition, in no case the opinions of reputable scholars published in peer-reviewed journals many times can be considered a fringe theory, therefore my adherence to these opinions do not fit WP:FRINGE criteria. Any accusatons in WP:FRINGE do not work in this case. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hook
Perhaps you've a better idea? See Template_talk:Did_you_know.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know
You create a lot of good content on regular basis. Please consider nominating it at Template talk:Did you know, I concentrate on nominating articles by new editors who may not be aware of T:TDYK, and by now you should be aware of this project. Remember that a content nominated at T:TDYK appears on Wikipedia's front page and is regularly seen by millions of people, so it is a great way to make sure your work is seen. PS. You may also want to link your talk archives from your userpage, as it is your talk page gives a confusing impression that you are a new editor. PSS. You may also consider nominating your articles at WP:MILCON.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for German–Soviet Axis talks
--Dravecky (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving File:EasternBloc.png to Commons
Would you mind if I move this image to Wikimedia Commons as the same name? I'd like to use it in other wikis but I see that you're correcting it very much. Could you use WP:SUL to make edit on Commons or I will wait until you finish it? Regards. Vinhtantran (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind as long as I can continue to upload new versions if problems are pointed out with it. I have a commons account, but I've never tried re-uploading new versions of images with it.  If it's easy, then I have no problem with it.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I did it. I can assure you that re-uploading on Commons is even user-friendlier than en.wiki. It is a dedicated project for media, anyway :). Vinhtantran (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Image Tagging for File:HungarianRevolution BudapestAfter.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:HungarianRevolution BudapestAfter.jpg. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "List of image copyright tags" sections of Image copyright tags.

For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Time CultOfDeath Cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Time CultOfDeath Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Jonestown-Newsweek1978 CutOfDeath 2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Jonestown-Newsweek1978 CutOfDeath 2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please consider
Creating proper archives of your talk page (WP:ARCHIVE) and adding WP:BABEL language templates to your userpage. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Eastern bloc category
Mosedschurte, many of the articles you are placing in the category are already on a level of that category - while some could belong on several levels, there is absolutely no requirement for all the articles to be present on every level once they are present on one. Please consider this rationale and revisit your edits. Thanks, Dahn (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Couple notes
Hi there, wow you are productive ;)

1. When you create templates, there should be no spaces before · as there is one already inside the template. The result is that there is double space between the link and the dot.

2. I would ask some native speaker to comment of the recent article titles. I think grammar is not the best. You write "Easter Bloc xyz" without indication of genitive case or some preposition. I think most of these article should be "xyz in the Eastern Bloc."

Renata (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Eastern Bloc defection
Template:Eastern Bloc defection has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoa now: I followed all the steps required, including tagging the template (how did you miss that?) and leaving a note on your talk page (how did you miss that?). The nomination page is specially designed for centralized discussions. May I also note that I see no reason for discussing improvements to the template, since I simply can't see any reason for keeping the template, under any form - it now has moved from ginoromously unmanageable to utterly irrelevant, and these are really the only two forms a flawed template could ever assume. Dahn (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And btw: I'm not gonna get into the many problems presented by your avalanche of new articles (from tone to how they fit into the information structure to spelling errors), though I have to say the overall effort is of impressive quality. But pray tell: what criterion does the defectors table use? It's not chronological or alphabetical, so what is it? Dahn (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And since we're on the subject
Mosedschurte, please stop referring to Romania between 1965 and 1989 (i.e. under Ceauşescu's rule) as "the People's Republic of Romania" - it was "the Socialist Republic of Romania" by then. Also, it would be nice if, before you were to start a separate article, you would consider if it can be linked into others inside the text, not inside a "see also" section (if it can only be included in the latter, it may turn out to be a content fork - meaning you are writing about the same thing, only from a certain perspective).Dahn (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:
Why? What the hell kind of purpose do they begin to serve other than cluttering and adding a layer of subjectivity? People can read the general domain of activity, just how specific need the template be? And what am I supposed to "alter" them into, considering you yourself were unable to figure it out to begin with? How is removing that superfluous description of what you find more relevant than the articles themselves vandalism, and just what precedent do you plan to cite for calling it such? And, btw, you may want to take a peek at WP:OWN.

Moreover, and regardless of your repeated allegations about my actions and motivations, I think there is no better proof of good faith than trying to bring some sense and literacy into a template I would rather want to go away for good (for reasons I explained and you ignored). So, let's see you support the notion that it isn't. Dahn (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Time out
Mosedschurte and Dahn - stop responding to each other. Whatever the original incident, you're just arguing back and forth here and being disruptive. Stop responding and let some uninvolved administrators review and get back to you with more feedback.

If you continue pushing each others' buttons, a short block to prevent further disruption and rude behavior may be required. Please don't do that - let us review, ask you some questions on your talk pages, let things calm down now.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Eastern Bloc economies
Shubinator (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Images
Please consider uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons, not En Wikipedia, and categorizing them there. There will be much more useful that way. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you move them? File:EasternBlocAfter.png and other images really belong on Commons, when they can be properly categorized and care for by the image editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust page
Hi. What is your real underlying concern? What would you like to see emphasised in the article? Wallie (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. So your main underlying concern is the confusion. I would love to see a way to solve that with some way of coming up with a statement that everyone (almost) is happy with. Lets see how this all unravels. Wallie (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Russian Military during World War 2
This looks right up your alley, and being largely original research or duplicate content, can probably be sent to AfD or redirected to, say, Eastern Front (World War II). - Biruitorul Talk 01:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Baltic articles
For what it's worth, there may not have been a need for the article to be split, but, if you had ever edited it, you would have seen that 110kB there was a template appearing to anyone who did try to edit it that the article may be too long and could possibly benefit being split into separate articles. Considering that was showing up before any new material was added, I think that there could be seen as being if not need reasonable cause for splitting the article, particularly considering that there was a clear intention to expand it. Anyway, shutting up now. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jim Jones
Eeps! I didn't realize that when I reverted the other vandalism, I returned that one. Sorry 'bout that! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's been a lot of vandalism on a few articles I watch. Anything related to Columbine has been targeted, though some of it is now semi-protected. Maybe it's related to school ending for so many and more time in the library. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Categorization
Yes, please learn why we place articles within large categories into their proper subcategories. Try the Wikipedia categorization article. Besides other useful advice, it contains: "Not all subcategories serve this systematic 'breaking down' function; some are simply subsets which have some characteristic of interest, such as Best Actor Academy Award winners as a subcategory of Film actors, Toll bridges in New York City as a subcategory of Bridges in New York City, and Musical films as a subcategory of Musicals. These are called distinguished subcategories. The identification of distinguished and non-distinguished subcategories is important for the application of the duplicate categorization rule stated below. It is useful to state in category descriptions (see below) whether or not a given category is a distinguished subcategory of a parent category. If no such information is present, determine the status of a subcategory by common sense and observation of the way existing articles are categorized."

This is besides all of the factual inaccuracies (such as the date of the creation of the Eastern Bloc) which you have perpetrated. You are reported for vandalism. 166.217.180.246 (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a way to create subcategories. You haven't bothered to examine it.  If not, overlapping categories that are subsets can exist, as explained in the very article from which you quoted.  Please examine Wikipedia's rules, guidelines and practices before engaging in mass edits across articles.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I love deliberate vagueness. What system of categorization conflicts with the common sense violates the common knowledge that all East German defectors were defectors from the Eastern Bloc? What, besides that, about your other vandalism - such as your ahistorical revision of the Eastern Bloc timeline per List of Eastern Bloc defectors? Did the Eastern Bloc start to exist in 1945 or in 1917? 166.217.180.246 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Stalin
Could you please add years to your talk regarding Stalin for this date you made a post on the Discussion page: Mosedschurte (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meishern (talk • contribs)

Of possible interest
See Template talk:Communist era sources and Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights
Can I just put a link to your previous comment? I don't think repeating it verbatim is necessary. Soxwon (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be debated at article talk page, and it is debated right now. Biophys (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would, but I can't until tomorrow (and some probably ANI complaints are coming for another editor). But your stance is clearly correct from any rational point of view given the article's scope.  First, the article would have to be changed from the obvious title text "in the United States."  Second, as explained up the Talk page (read up for my explanations), the topic would dwarf everything in the page right now with just 2 years alone -- the Nuremberg Trials, the Hiroshima Bomb, the Fire Bombing of Dresden in World War II, the controverial Rheinwiesenlager camps holding German prisoners the Fire Bombing of Tokyo, the Bombing of Kobe in World War II, Nagasaki_bomb, etc.  All of these are from 10 to 100,000 times the magnitude of issues as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.  And that's from just two years, setting aside the leadership in the Rwanda genocide trials, the Bosnian genocide trials, leading efforst to oppose the two of the three most ghastly  human rights abusers of this century (Hitler and Stalin), leading the efforts to attempt to contain the largest current police state/abuser (Kim Jong-Il's North Korea), and Pol Pot's Cambodia Killing Fields, etc.


 * Keep in mind that that article is already RIGHT NOW sitting on the precipice of the WP:Article Size 6 to 10KB prose text guidelines. Part of that are some of the obvious (actually, pretty humorous -- like a bad college protest pamphlet) sections, many of which have obvious (as a long list of editors have pointed out) WP:POV and WP:Undue Weight concerns.


 * A small number of editors clearly have serious POV issues. But keep in mind that others just may not be aware of the huge U.S. international human rights issues that would therafter have to be addressed following an article scope expansion, utterly dwarfing (thousands of times over in magnitude) issues regarding the two prisons currently discussed.  They honestly haven't thought throoug how large the change would have to be if the scope of the article were changed and that incidents such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay would then barely merit a sentence in any such articles given their magnitude.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is now move protected for a month (which was right thing to do). Yes, I agree with you. The human rights efforts and alleged human rights violations by the US at the international arena (this part) deserves a separate article you might be well prepared to create and improve.Biophys (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure we should do anything in this article in light of the obvious ownership problem. If you want to describe international aspects, this could be done in a separate article, although I am not sure about the title of such article. I am hardly qualified and do not have time for such work. Thank you for your contributions.Biophys (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)