User talk:Stor stark7/Archive 4

Hungarian forced labor
The ref you mentioned is a very good starting point. Why didn't you do it yourself? - Altenmann >t 17:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this ref may give rise to several new wikipedia pages. - Altenmann >t 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

He-he, same here. One doesn't know where to start and when to finish (a hint to a Russian joke - "digging a trench from the fence until lunch"): Never heard about anything of the above, but wrote since our last talk. - Altenmann >t 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) List of World War II POW camps administered by France
 * 2) Gold train
 * 3) Latvian Central Council
 * 4) Jaunlatvija
 * 5) Jaunā Latvija
 * 6) Young Latvia
 * 7) Orlovskoye Polesye

Rape during the occupation of Japan
Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan I restored the deleted sections from page history. Can we discuss WP:NPOV issue about Australian troops and WP:RS issue about a reference. Kasaalan (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21 blocked indef
Just thought you might want to know that has been blocked as a suspected sock and sockmaster  now indefinitely blocked. I would suggest that you keep a close eye for any future sanction evasion since you seem to know some of his predilections. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust
Stor stark7, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Operation Paperclip
I'm not sure what to do about the "Operation Paperclip" article. Mhazard9 arrived a couple of days ago, first engaging in a full, poorly-written rewrite of the lede, then moving through the article spraying "Nazi" everywhere and touting German superiority at regular intervals--a sensitive German perhaps?

I tried an initial revert of the lede, but he wouldn't have it so I tried simply to edit the English and punctuation for proper usage. I left intact the useful added information and concentrated on egregious errors in style and content. In general, I believe the article ended up better, though Mhazard9 insists on returning and reverting to very poor English--it may just be me, but I don't think so.

Anyway, as you can see, I tried to stay ahead of things to keep the article from getting ruined. At first I tried just respecting Mhazard9's contributions, asking him to engage on "Talk" re: major changes. No dialogue ensued; sorry to say, we have warred a bit.

I'm glad you reduced the Nazi overload. In the one section you revised, I do think some valuable information introduced by Mhazard9 was inadvertently eliminated, perhaps reducing the clarity of the section. Provided Mhazard9 is done for now, the other editors should be able to catch up. It would be nice to have the article read well once again. Apostle12 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for help with Mhazard9
Today Mhazard9 literally hijacked the "Operation Paperclip" article. I reverted his edits, which made the article incomprehesible. What he added was extraordinarily in into poor grammar, and he obviously has some sort of axe to grind, touting Nazi superiority and the U.S. "theft of war spoils" from post-WWII Germany. During his first few edits I attempted to work with him, yet he will not engage on talk and his edits are truly disruptive.

Do you know a way to get him blocked so the article does not suffer more? And could you please help me keep an eye on it?

Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Taken by Force
Hello. Just a friendly reminder letting you know that you should add categories related to the newly article you created, entitled Taken by Force (book). Many thanks and warm regards. Tinton5 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR
nominated Marshall Plan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Surrendering Japanese at Guadalcanal
Hi, why did you add a claim that Bergerud wrote that the marines killed Japanese soldiers trying to surrender as a result of the stories they'd heard about Wake Island in this edit? The book makes no such claim. Page 407 states that the marines believed that they would be tortured and killed if they were taken prisoner. It also states that they'd been told before the Guadalcanal Campaign (which was the first major marine operation of the Pacific War - the defence of the Phillipines and Wake Island only involved small numbers of marines) that trapped Japanese units didn't surrender, and this proved to be the case during the fighting on the first day of the Guadalcanal operation - it isn't stated anywhere in these pages that they killed surrendering Japanese and when Bergerud subsequently writes about the reluctance of USMC units to take prisoners he states that it was due to real and perceived atrocities committed against marines on Guadalcanal and several well-publicised incidents where Japanese troops pretended to surrender before attacking marines. Nick-D (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Collective guilt
Hei sann, Stor_stark7. I think this is one of those cases where a word-for-word translation doesn't work very well. The problem is that the word "Schuld" in German can be used in more ways than "guilt" in English. Which construction you use depends greatly on the context. To my changes: it seems clear to me from the context that the intended meaning here is "your fault!" -- it's an accusation. "Your guilt!" is not a common construction in English. You can achieve the same effect using the word "guilt" if you add more words, for example, "You are guilty!" In German, you can use "Schuld" or the verb form in a variety of ways. For example, you might say, "Sie sind Schuld!", "Sie sind schuldig!", or "Das ist deine/ihre Schuld", all essentially variations of "you're at fault!" (Note how strange the first would sound in English if translated directly: "You are guilt!") The phrase, "er wurde für schuldig erklärt" is what you would say in German for "he was found guilty." If you want to use the word guilt to assign blame, you should say "you are guilty!" If you want to keep the translation similarly compact, then "your fault!" conveys exactly the same sentiment as the German original and requires only two words. I remain more comfortable with "your fault!" It has the same level of vulgarity that the German original does, and seems consistent with the intentions as described in the article.

In general, I would recommend caution when using dict.leo.org for translation. While it's a great resource and I applaud the people who make it possible, it depends on public submissions; as the dictionary has become larger the number of inaccurate translations has also increased, perhaps disproportionately. As a way of checking the validity of a given interpretation, I recommend doing a Google search using the translated words as a complete construction. You'll quickly find out if it's correct or not. --Rhombus (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sondergerichte
Hi. Thank you for your note. I replied at Talk:Sondergerichte. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Strategic bombing during World War II. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. --ja_62 21:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Famine in Germany
Thank you so much for taking the time to relate that informantion to me. For WW2 Casualties we need reliable figures that can be verified on the deaths, not general statements.Your knowledge of the famine seems to be extensive, I only found out about it when I first went to Germany in 1969. People in the English speaking world just are not aware of the huge losses in Germany in 1945-46. I need to read the Food Policy article Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Allied food policy article was interesting. BTW I have done OR on this topic, it can never be put on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Germany and the Second World War
Horst Boog, "Germany and the Second World War: The global war", p 507, 508 is part of a multi-volume series. Please could you provide the volume number, the ISBN and the year of publication in the citation. -- PBS (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done.--Stor stark7 Speak 15:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Taken by Force (book)
Please have a look at the rewritten article. This is how I would deal with the topic, as well as the publication delay. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it's reasonable and integrates the difficult points you were trying to make. Often rewording and attribution will help as much as a new source.

Also, you might want to look into citation templates and how to use footnotes with a bit more sophistication. The tags could help neaten up your edits and referencing a bit; I also had a crack at the section you added to Forced labour of Germans after World War II. Please let me know what you think. The latter edit in particular is a bit iffy - the book is a good source, but more alludes to the forced labour than explains it explicitly, and it looks like Nairmark didn't spend a lot of time distinguishing between forced labour versus volunteers in a way that helps the article. I found it hard to tell where the line was between an article on forced labour and the mines in general - though it looks like the difference between a prisoner and an employee was relatively nominal anyway. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant to mention - if you end up using a lot of books in your edits, you may find diberri's template generator useful. All you need is an ISBN.  If you have some sort of google account (gmail, etc.) you can also integrate google books previews into the citation.  I like to put them in the page number argument.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And while we're on this subject, just a reminder that if you bring up an issue that involves other editors at a venue other than the article's talk page, generally it is considered appropriate, not to mention polite, to inform the other editors of this fact. Please keep that in mind for the future. Thanks.radek (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. There's even a template: AN-notice.  May I suggest as well - the issue isn't so much one of the actual information or sources, but the presentation and approach.  You (SS7) may find adoption to be helpful in this regard.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * May I ask what prompted this comment? Normally abbreviating editor names is fairly uncontroversial - in fact I've never seen it objected to before.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavan Daws
Hello, What page number of Gavan Daws' book is referenced in the book World War 2 in literature for youth? He appears to have been somewhat misquoted - I own Prisoners of the Japanese: POWs of World War II in the Pacific, and the figure of "more than 1 in 4 Allied POWs was killed by friendly fire" doesn't appear in either of the two pages referenced in the index under 'friendly fire' - instead he states that one in three of those who were killed died from friendly fire while at sea (p. 297). Also, why in this edit did you say that the deaths mean that "Figures for Japan may be misleading" - is this statement in the book? Daws explains how the POWs were transported through hostile waters in terrible conditions in the holds of unmarked ships (and also that the Allied authorities didn't act on intelligence reports of POWs being killed at sea in large numbers which they received in 1944) so the death rate figure seems perfectly accurate rather than 'misleading' - it seems appropriate to add a note explaining that a large proportion of the deaths (roughly 10% of all the Allied POWs) were killed by friendly fire while aboard hell ships though. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied at your talk page.--Stor stark7 Speak 11:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry a little new to this I was greatly impressed by your replies on the Blomberg slaughter on the pages on the Racak incident. I don't yet have a page but will get one soon. G'Star

Thanks
Thank you for your contributions to the article Rape during the occupation of Germany. On sensitive historical topics like that one editors are often overwhelmed by their emotions. Thanks for sticking to the facts and expanding the article with neutral language. - Schrandit (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive/preventive
Hej, jag såg att du pysslat en del med artikeln om preemptive war. Jag håller med dig om att ämnet inte ska tolkas så snävt som gjordes av Scottperry (dvs. det bör även innefatta strike/campaign etc.) Dessutom är artikeln väldigt USA-centrerad. Jag håller för närvarande på med den närliggande artikeln Operation Opera. Både preemptive war och preventive war är i stort behov av översyn; om du är intresserad skulle vi kunna göra en gemensam ansträngning för att fixa dem. Shoplifter (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Re 'Sorry'
I have the same problem myself sometimes. We all just need a gentle elbow in the ribs occasionally, especially when dealing with controversial subjects. Feel free to do the same to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

POV-bias, WW2
Thanks for your interest and very interesting comments. Communicat (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Guernica
Very well done in the WWII article. --Habap (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Stor, I agree with Habap's comment above. However, I've started a discussion at Talk:World War II to suggest a better source for the material on Guernica and to raise concerns about a couple of the other changes. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Commission for Polish Relief
Orlady (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification
Good day, A request for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you participated or might be affected by. Communikat (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sondergerichte
I have opened a discussion at Talk:Sondergerichte, one of your articles. As you are perhaps more interested and knowledgeable in the article than most, your input would be invaluable. Int21h (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of German collective guilt for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article German collective guilt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/German collective guilt(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pam D  22:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Natzweiler-Struthof urns 02016.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Natzweiler-Struthof urns 02016.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)