User talk:Bdell555/Archive 2005-2007

Welcome!

Hello, Bdell555/Archive 2005-2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Potsdam Declaration

Here some quotation from the "Official Gazette of the control council for Germany" (Documents relating to the establishment of the Allied Control Authority) - published by the "Allied Secretariat" in Berlin, Elssholzstrase 32.

Under item VI (Statement by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and the Provisional Government of the French Republic on the zones of occupation in Germany) they write:

"1. Germany, within her frontiers as they were on 31st December, 1937, will, for purposes of occupation, be divided into four zones, one to be alloted to each Power as follows ..."

Under item VIII (Report on the Tripartite Conference of Berlin) and there Article IX concerning the western frontier of Poland they write:

"The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement."

Until this peace conference the disputed territories "shall be under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet Zone of occupation in Germany."

So keeping in mind this facts sincerely it´s obvious that the (West-) Allies didn´t order any transfer of Germans out of their ancestral homelands because by doing this they would have created a fait accompli.

Actually Russia and Poland created such accomplished facts by expelling most of that Germans - even quite long before the Potsdam Declaration.

(Comment: Any forced transfer of population is a crime against humanity; and this it was already at times of 1945 - Nazi-Germany was trialed exactly for such crimes, too.)

-- Wikiferdi 13:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much point in examining this much further as long as Witkacy is still out there reversing both our edits automatically.Bdell555 02:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bdell555,

how does it work "reverting automatically"? I think it´s against the rules of Wikipedia, isn´t it?

--Wikiferdi 09:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ihr reversion

In reading the discussion at Talk:Holocaust denial#Description of reversion policy needed, regarding the reversion of ihr material, the discussion you may have been referring to probably took place here, User talk:Willmcw/archive6#Harry Dexter White, and not on the White page. nobs 19:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Bdell555.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bdell555.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Longhair 13:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should think it would be obvious that I created the image. Would I post the image of someone else to this page, after writing BDELL555 right on the image? If I can't be trusted to not pass off the image of someone else as my own, how can you be satisfied with my claims to copyright? I suppose I could just create it again, at which time the rules may just change again without regard for common sense...Bdell555 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks

Hi there! A redlink, where the subject of the redlink is significantly related to and helps understand the context of the article it's in, and where the subject of the redlink also merits an article of its own, is not only allowable but encouraged on Wikipedia - where the great majority of useful articles started out as redlinks, and many endured as redlinks for a long time before a volunteer took on writing them up.

Telling another editor to go create an article, on the other hand, is generally discouraged; we're all volunteers here, and subject to not doing anything to lower the quality of Wikipedia, railroad reasonable consensus, add fuel to fires, etc., we should all try to trust each other to contribute on the noteworthy subjects that interest us, in the ways that interest us, at the times and paces of our choosing. As it happens, I'll start something up on Mary Jo Leddy right now; it's just something to keep in mind going forward.

Anyway, all small issues. I appreciate your work to help make Gerard Kennedy and other articles accurate, referenced and well-written. Thank you! And cheers. Samaritan 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well someone actually said “It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one” in the Wiki guidelines, so I would suggest you also correct that person for attempting to tell other Wiki editors what to do, just to stay consistent. Not that I find the Wiki guidelines necessarily infallible, since the guideline that linking policy should be governed by a consideration for what helps “readers to understand the current article more fully” (a policy I fully appreciate) is directly contradicted by the notion that links to nowhere help reader understanding. In my own case, the request for an article was conditional, with the condition being that somebody somewhere actually wants an article, as opposed to just a link. The fact an article has now been created is satisfactory proof that somebody somewhere wants more than just a link.Bdell555 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for photos!

Thanks for photos of various places in North China that you've uploaded recently to en.wikipedia.org! Would you however consider uploading your photos in the future not to en.wikipedia.org, but to Wikipedia Commons (commons.wikipedia.org)? This way they will be immediately usable not only in English Wikipedia, but also in all other Wikipedia projects, with the same syntax. Vmenkov 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3-revert-rule violation

You have violated the three-revert rule on Alger Hiss. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.

I have chosen not to report you at this point, because you did not receive a warning during your spree of unsupported reverts against the clear consensus of involved editors. But understand, you inarguably violated the very clear and straightforward three-revert rule with the following four reverts in the span of less than eleven hours: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. I will note that in violating the three-revert rule, you reverted not one, not two, but three other Wikipedia editors. If you violate the rule again, you will be reported and you will be blocked.—DCGeist 07:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) re the above exhortation to "made an effort to discuss [my] changes further", I have literally written THOUSANDS of words with respect to my changes. And that's just today. Words that you have greated with silence.

2) A common sense definition of a reversion is an edit which makes no changes other than back to the previous version. I have NOT done that 4 times within 24 hours. For example, I accomodated the Redspruce's request to drop "in any case" in one of those edits, which makes for a rather bizarre "edit war", does it not? Seriously, I think you have quite confused who is contributing and who is reverting here.

3) My remarks in the section above concerning "Reversion policy" would apply here. I advance some proposals there for minimizing edit warring and working collaboratively to build up an article that have received no response from you.

4) Why don't you report yourself for violating the Wiki policy that calls for a "common reference text" cite for summary conclusions about an issue while you are it. That's the very same policy you called up and demanded I adhere to earlier. Or do the rules only apply to me and not you?Bdell555 09:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Alger Hiss article

Bdell555, thanks for making a better edit. Well done. Call on me for back up on other articlce. Jtpaladin 12:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they've more or less given up contesting the issue on the Talk page, so it will probably just go to an edit war. I think fair-minded people will support our edit so we just need to get more people involved.Bdell555 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobs was blocked for a time, but then something else happened, so I am not sure. Sorry. --Cberlet 18:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You may be aware that a report has been made about you at WP:3RR. While the report is not yet complete, I have looked at some of your editing and would like to politely remind you that threatening to start an edit war by numbers is really not a good idea at all, and may see you blocked. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I wasn't actually accusing you of anything - I was merely suggesting that such an edit-war would be completely counter-productive. You will notice that I closed RedSpruce's 3RR notification as closed without any sanctions. Please do not feel that this means you cannot edit the article in question, only that edit-warring over it is not a good idea. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies if it seemed like that. I usually copy one previous quote into the new page so that new users can see where the discussion starts, and yours was a bit long :) However, as you say it is a bit unfair, and so I'll start afresh with a blank page. It genuinely wasn't an attempt to show you in a bad light. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 21:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are clearly quite reasonable and fair. My only reservation is your advice to Redspruce to "don't hesitate to take it to 3RR (if applicable), or WP:RFPP," when just in the past few days Redspruce ran to WP:RFPP to block a user, now registered as Reargunner, for removing the word "apparently" from the article and today Redspruce is in an extensive argument with not just Reargunner but with others as well over the word. The matter should have been left to the Talk pages from square one, IMO, with everyone retaining equal rights to edit.Bdell555 21:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nobs

Nobs is perma banned by order of the Committee (Nobs03 and others) Dagomar 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what the infraction was, but given the fact there are other users, such as Amalekite, who was banned not because of anything he ever did on or to Wikipedia, but because of political associations outside of Wikipedia, I can't help but wonder if politics had anything to do with it. I remember Nobs' editing of and Talk commentary on articles like Harry Dexter White and thought that, subject to some reservations, he was a generally a calm, reasonable, and, most importantly, well informed editor.Bdell555 21:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of McCarthy discussion from Flanders page

Dear Bdell,

I offered to bring the discussion across from Talk:Ralph Flanders to Talk:Joseph McCarthy on the summary statement that you felt needed improvement, but I see a presence there from you, already. Unless you expect more from me, I'll hope that you and those interested in the Joseph McCarthy page can find a mutually satisfactory solution to the issues that you raise. You're welcome to alert me, when you feel that has happened.

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bdell,

I noted your last post on the Talk:McCarthy page. I tried to send you an e-mail about it. My suggestion is that we "assume good faith," but call the editor to account if we see a violation of that good faith. I recognize that you feel that there's been a violation before. When the violation is made is when to address it. There are plenty of people watching to note any such a violation in this case. My concern is that your post continues to whack the hornet's nest of an acrimonious discussion after the hornets have gone to bed. My feeling is that it would be more politic to delete your post and be watchful.

Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of Redspruce's comments about reverting a "consensus" is that he wouldn't view it as a "violation" of anything; it would simply be making the article better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RedSpruce#Alger_Hiss_summary arguably supports this as well). I think we should "assume good faith" accordingly. In other words, I think you are begging the question to assume it would be a violation of good faith. Indeed, I simply asked whether he would revert in the future, regardless of whether he, or anyone else, would see that as some sort of violation. In any case, I had made the mistake of assuming that "the hornets had gone to bed" before and see little point in others repeating that mistake. How bout if I decline to ever post again to that McCarthy Talk page thread? Redspruce or DCGeist could then get the last word and it would be impossible to continue any debate there, whether "acrimonious" or otherwise, no? I also think our primary responsibility is to ensure that Wiki articles are not inaccurate, as opposed to ensuring that any related discussion is not "acrimonious". All of your observations about being welcoming, being polite, not engaging in personal attacks, etc. all continue to apply, of course. My primary concern is that bad edits persist in Wikipedia when editors are intimidated into not challenging them because the discussion would quickly turn "acrimonious". I think we need to speak clearly, logically, and as politely as possible without detracting from "clearly" and "logically". When the other side engages in personal attacks, we should try to be magnanimous and ignore them, as opposed to getting away from the text of the article by making an issue out of them. I totally recognize your point about how distateful it all is and I am no fan of confrontation. I made the comment I did in the hope that we could avoid repeating the whole acrimonious process again in the future. In any case, if you want to delete my comment, I have no objections, since it would simply be too much for me to start an argument with YOU.Bdell555 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bdell,

For my part, I feel that your participation in the discussion of the McCarthy and Flanders pages resulted in an improvement of both articles. So, I would hope that you would stay in the game. It appears to me that the topic "neighborhood," pertaining to the whole Red Scare era, is a rough one where civility seems to be an exception, rather than the rule.

So, it seems that the approach that you suggest above is appropriate. You might want to look over the page that I was looking for the other day at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I found the advice to be very useful for when one is operating in a tough neighborhood.

As to deleting the comment that I alluded to above, that seems moot to me now, given the FYI posting below.

Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

WP:STALK If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter. RedSpruce 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one difference between your vandalism (to one article in particular) and that of most other vandals is that I think you would stop if you were ever compelled to apply the principles you demand of others to yourself, Redspruce. Hence the value of noting those occasions. And there seems to be no interest in resolving the issue where it is occuring, hence the necessity of noting those occasions. Trying to bring a resolution to an edit war (for the second time, I might add) is not "disruptive". I am interested not in some sort of childish one-up-manship but in what you believe since consistency across your beliefs would resolve our biggest disputes.Bdell555 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy FAQ

Thank you for your edit, Bdell. I feel that you're right to defuse the language there, even if it was probably technically correct. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 14:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review?

Dear Bdell: Would you consider performing a GA review of Ralph Flanders? You have commented on the article with respect to his relationship to Joseph McCarthy. He was also notable as an industrialist and an advisor on economic policy. The article has received a peer review.

You appear to be committed to Wikipedia standards and have the judgment to assess articles therein. I should note that I did reinstate "sensational," after it was restored at Joseph McCarthy, following my policy to let that article hold precedence on terminology. I did, however, post my proposed change in Talk:Ralph Flanders and waited for comments, so that it would not appear that I "sneaked" it back in.

For my part, I try to do at least one GA Review for every one that I request. So, I've agreed to do one on Dick Cheney. If you would consider doing the review, please check out the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page and see what's entailed. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 14:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Bdell. It was critical in the best sense of the word. N-J Seigel expressed similar concerns. Perhaps I'll try paring down the article to a minimalist version and looking at what's essential. it would be most helpful if another editor with a fresh eye had the expertise and interest to get involved. However, there doesn't seem to be such out there.

I've found the Time article and will look for the Vermont Encyclopedia. It's ironical that you appear to be off yonder "across the pond" and have access to the VE and I'm in Vermont and didn't know that it existed! My assessment of Flanders is that, apart from the McCarthy episode, he was undistinguished in politics; so, the less "fluff," the better. I'll post specific replies to your review after I've had a chance to look over the sources. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my replies to your review here. I've also made some changes to the article, including three new citations (two at your suggestion), plus a new link (reflecting your suggestion).

Having just done a GA review of Dick Cheney, I know that it's a daunting task. However, if you would consider doing it for Ralph Flanders, I believe that it would strengthen the article further. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]