User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2010/March

Re your comment
Hey, just wanted to clarify something re your " So having reiterated that let me note that my comments were/are meant to apply to Soledad22 and Soledad22 only and not to any other editor"

I think rereading my comment you may notice that I recognized you were talking about Soledad22. I was simply 1) agreeing with you by saying that digging through Sole's history did reveal some dubious edits, and 2) that the same could be said of other editors currently involved in this debate. I was not trying to suggest that you were accussing me of POV pushing. Anyway, thanks for your opinion! NickCT (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case I strongly disagree that "same can be said of other editors currently involved in this debate". Having SOME kind of POV is normal - everyone's got one. Having the kind of POV that Soledad22 appears to represent is not.radek (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you say so. But still, I think allot of this is POV driven.  Mdz pointed to Soledad's removal of the description of Nazi's as a "murderous and racist regime", as being obvious/clear evidence of anti-Semetic POV pushing.  While I'd agree that "murderous and racist regime" would be an accurate description, I'd question whether it's encylopedic.  Frankly, I think that most of the edits pointed to as evidence of Soledad's alleged POV-pushing, if looked upon while assuming good faith, might not be so bad.  I have yet to see something really cut and dry.  Some edit where Soledad put in something like - the theory that "international jewery" is trying to take over the world, is in fact correct.
 * On another note. Being the thoughtful editor you clearly are, might I convince to answer a Rfc at Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident. NickCT (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That isn't the only case of Soledad making questionable edits and whitewashing unsavory figures/movements. Look through the diffs I provided at AE.
 * As to the RfC - I would feel very uncomfortable commenting on a topic/article that I am not familiar with without spending some serious time learning enough about it to arrive at an informed opinion. Normally, if asked, I would do just that and make a comment. At the moment however, I am extremely busy in real life and I don't think I have the time. Thanks for asking though.radek (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nick, aren't you yourself questioned that edit by Soledad22, when it changed "the majority of them were killed in gas chambers " -> " many of them were killed or died as musulmen" in The Holocaust? This edit cannot be explained. It is either vandalism or Holocaust denial and antisemitism in its worst. The user should have been blocked for that edit alone.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Soledad's edit appears to be an thinly veiled attempt at denying the existence of gas chambers. It is also factually incorrect.radek (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Gembloux gap
Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Andreas Birch
I have problem with understanding Danish. I have deleted the problematic sentence. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom Mix
Fine about the Talk/user. I explained WHY the footnote on Mix in the Ciudad Juarez article doesn't justify the claim in the article. It only 'associates' him w/ the battle. No solid claim of participation. According to IMDB, he made 14 movies in 1911, 4 in 1912. Unless you can give stronger positive evidence and/or refute the IMDB:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0594291/, I intend to remove the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs) 09:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Monte de las Cruces
Go for it! Thelmadatter (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems high to me too, but Im no military person. Your source seems more reliable (though I have my doubts about the crucification of theives), Ill make the adjustments.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point
Re:. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahaha. Hahahahaha. How come I didn't think of drawing that parallel? Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At least, knock on wood, it's not 'Elegy of Fortinbras'.radek (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ZH as always rocks.
 * wierzyłeś w kryształowe pojęcia a nie glinę ludzką
 * Ha. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. WalterBot is operational, meaning that unref BLP listings have been updated for WikiProjects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Namibian war
Look, if you're surmising I am taking this discussion because I would want to exonerate the German army you're completely in the wrong lane. My concern is the value and reliability of the site, not to push some agenda. When I'm making points about fallacious editing leading to flimsy and false statements, edit wars and agenda writing, please recall that this is a place where anyone can edit more or less anything and people like to push in strongly worded, even sweeping statements on things they feel powerfully about, or think they "know". They don't risk anything by doing that because everyone is anonymous here, and no one has a reputation or a known job to protect, but that also makes things a bit harder than when you're discussing a subject in a circle of people where everyone knows everyone and one can count on that people are circumspect about things. Strausszek (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not inferring anything about your intentions. But you do seem to be arguing that the term found in many reliable sources and encountered throughout the academic literature should not be used. And that's what I am disagreeing with.radek (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, genocide is a heavy word and that's why people like to use it. And once a story has landed in the news media, in political circles or "in the buzz" it tends to multiply, so you might get hundreds of "citations" and pieces that all seem to imply it was genocide but very few of which are based on any real scrutiny of what happened, of documents and testimonials on the event (in this case, too, much of the surviving evidence is most likely oral). The "recognition" by the German government doesn't look too grounded on any deep investigations of what happened, it should be seen as a political act to get a budding issue out of the way and to build good relations with Namibia and neighbouring South Africa. Strausszek (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the link I provided on talk page is to academic sources which DO in fact engage in real scrutiny of what happened. Also, the point with the German government was rather that they've been reluctant to recognize it as genocide (partly because the Herero are themselves still persecuted in Namibia and hence unable to organize effective international pressure).radek (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)