User talk:PeterBln

Churches in Dresden

Could you please try to transfer your contribution to the article Culture in Dresden. The article on Dresden should only contain general information due to the Article size guideline. Please use the the preview function to check whether imaging, link setting etc are proper. Geo-Loge (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wackerbarth-Palais

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wackerbarth-Palais, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Wackerbarth-Palais. Kannie | talk 02:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Churches in Dresden

Hello and Welcome aboard to Wikipedia PeterBln. I have noticed you have been contributing to the Dresden article and starting several new pieces concerning some of the buildings that were destroyed during the Allied bombings of WW II. Thank you for your contributions. However, it appeared you were rushing to enter information and not too concerned about the wording or formatting of the article. Sorry to say, this may cause the pieces to be tagged for deletion. I have gone ahead and modified two of the articles Japanisches Palais and Wackerbarth-Palais to fit more into the Neutral point of view • No original research * Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources* Manual of Style *Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy* External links • Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability. In addition, I am currently reworking the Sophienkirche piece, which I believe could be a real gem. What I would ask from you is that when posting the articles, to Wikipedia, just take a little more time and structure your pieces into a more encylopedy type of format, as the links above will help you with, before posting. It will prevent the article from being tagged for deletion and it will prevent you from being frustrated from have to defend the articles from the editors chopping block. Any help I can give, please just drop me a line either here or on the Wikipedia German site under the same user name. Once again, Welcome Aboard. Shoessss | Chat 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how can i reply to that,please? The email-function doesn't seem to work. Regards, Peter

Hello Peter - Sorry it took so long to respond! I actually took your talk page off my watchlist after a couple of weeks and, to be honest, just forgot to check back. Regarding the email function if you go to either Shoessss , my User page, or Shoessss page and hit Email this User on the left hand side of the page, I should receive your email. Hope this helps. Regards, Shoessss | Chat 11:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to East Prussia has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive.

---> Hi, i know that Allies historians would regard anything as "inconstructive" that reveals their crimes. Everything i write is proven to be true, if you think history is about making you feel good about your country, rather than dealing with facts, then keep on hiding these facts., I might change the article back anytime, at the moment i have no time for it.

Use the sandbox for testing

>

Thank you, i shall not. A sandbox is for testing, i do not need to test, i am capable of writing and i would consider my command of the English language as sufficient.

Greetings ,

Peter

Dresden Image

Hi, the image is not misleading since it clearly says "Coventry Cathedral" in the caption. There is no ambiguity.

--->

I have not said the words were misleading. I have said the picture was.

So why is the picture there in the first place? It seems like one of these popular attempts to "excuse" or legitimize the Dresden massacre. I am not going not accept that.

Secondly, it is worthy of inclusion because it has interesting historical value in the context of highly notable WW2 bombing campaigns.

>

The "interesting historical value" is, that Coventry was centre of the British Ammunition industry, and therefore a military target of high value. Dresden was everything but that. The few factories that still were producing anything at all, were at the edge of the City. In Dresden during the massacre, they were never targeted. So if you include this crucial difference, saying that coventry was a defended city and military target, and Dresden was neither of that, then we might be able to discuss about leaving this image. But even if you included this main difference (which until now you haven't), it seems as if you are trying to hide facts and legitimize the Dresden attack. Remember, in Coventry there were no 500 000 refugees at the time of bombing, and nobody in Germany had ordered that the target in England were civilians. A british legal norm issued on February 14th 1942 had ordered exactly that: that the targets were civilians, rather than military objects. At the same time, the Allies powers knew that the large majority of people in the city were mothers and children, and the elderly, whilst men were fightingt at the front. In other words: The official target in Dresden and any other German city was not the Nazis, but Mothers and Children.

Stop trying to legitimize Allies crimes and atrocities, William. We're not living in the cold war era any more.

greetings,

Peter

Regards, WilliamH (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please confine comments like these to talk pages. If you disagree with an unreferenced sentence, remove it, and consider discussing it on the talk page. Inserting comments like "NONSENSE STATEMENT" into the article in unencyclopedic, and kind of embarassing. Thanks, TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these comments are embarassing for the ones who write them. Assertions such as "Germany kept a "big chunk" of polish-populated Land in 1918 are not only unscientific by language (how many square miles are a "big chunk"?), but also complete NONSENSE. Perhaps it is YOUR task to prevent such nonsense claims in the first place. But if you say, i can just delete them - fair enough.

PeterBln (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is very large, and I have other things to do. I can hardly be expected to single handedly keep out all nonsense. I agree the article was very poorly written, and I have removed an enormous amount of unverified material.II hope you like it better now. You can help by not adding anything which cannot be referenced with a reliable source. Please note, as per WP:SELFPUBLISHED, that "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." Thank you. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PeterBln, please also be aware that Synthesis is also not allowed. Just because you can find an article that says France had seized control of parts of Germany several times doesn't mean you can include it in the article. If the book/article isn't written about the Treaty of Versailles, then the idea of combining the two kinds of information is original research, and not allowed. I have merged and/or removed a great deal of your writing again, but this time, each of my edits has given a precise reason for the change. Please view the article history carefully to understand what I have done.

The Bundesarchiv (Federal Archives) is a perfectly legitimate source, as is the Berlin Museum, if you can make a specific reference to a specific document. Simply referencing "www.dhm.de" is not good enough. Again, the New York times is a credible source, though your use of it was sometimes awkward. I have left the reference in the text, but removed the awkward headline. I don't at all disagree that the Berlin Blockade was an important (likely the most important) factor in forcing Germany to sign the Treaty, so that should definitely be included. the "historysite" is self-published document and therefore not acceptable.

Quotes by people forced to sign the treaty are legitimate, but not always necessary. We have made it very clear in the article that the Germans did not want to sign. We have already mentioned the quote that Scheidemann gave before resigning. We have mentioned that the eventual signees did so under intense pressure from the Berlin Blockade. Adding yet another quote is unnecessary and disrupts the flow of the article.

I hope you aren't suggesting that I am "trying to prevent the truth from leaking out." I agree that German agreement to the Versailles Treaty was not signed happily, but coerced. It was a treaty drawn up by the victors who forced the loser of the war to sign through threat of violence. That's usually how wars end, but that doesn't make it okay.

Your frequent assertions that it was "Human rights-violating" seems strange to me. From what I understand, the Declaration of Human Rights was made in 1948, in response to the Second World War. How could they be violated twenty years earlier? To my knowledge, Imperial Germany had no Charter of Rights whatsoever.

Yes, using the threat of force to extort something is illegal for people, but it's the basis for most international relations throughout history. The United Nations can legally threaten the use of force if they don't receive compliance from a state. Not to mention your government, which can legally threaten you with force if you don't do what they say. So over-using the term "extortion" here seems a little strange to me. TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. You wrote

"Just because you can find an article that says France had seized control of parts of Germany several times doesn't mean you can include it in the article"

Listen please: It is not "just finding an article" as you say, i had not found any article but wrote it all myself, as the French invasion is a very known issue.

The renewal of hostilities by the French Invasion in 1923 is not an irrelevant issue as you try to make believe, but it was aimed to annex German territory and thus worsen the relations, rather than improving them. I have pointed that out and proven with refering to several attemps of France to seize the Rhine/Ruhr Area, and it is provenb that France wanted natural borders.

Furthermore, you are trying to hide the fact, what "seizing" actually means. It means oppressing people, it means killing people, it was undoubtly an armed conflict. A peace treaty that leads to an armed conflict with tanks and 100 000 soldiers, shooting people in the streets who were demonstrating and striking non-violently is no peace treaty. The French invasion is a very important aspect of why this Peace treaty never created peace, but war. This is one of the most important aspects and one of the most clear and descriptive ones, in orer to demonstrate the reader how this treaty was a complete failure in creating peace. I don't know what your motivations are to try to hide history, but you are not the only one who does. You must be from a country from one of the former "Allies", who try to filter history from a "Winner's" point of view, rather than by dry facts.

If you read the whole article very thorougly (even without any of my parts), you will notice that the whole contract was considered more than controversial from the beginning, and the USA refused to sign it.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had responded here.

I don't deny that France seized parts of Germany numerous times throughout history. What I'm saying is that including this information, without a reference that related it to Versailles is synthesis, and not allowed.

The Versailles Treaty came at the end of the First World War. In that respect it is a peace treaty. I agree it contributed to the outbreak of World War Two, but keep in mind, that began twenty years later. Yes, there was conflict and violence in the intervening period, but not war.

The United States refused to sign because of the League of Nations covenant was included in the Treaty, and the US senate refused to allow the United States to join.

Please refrain from WP:Personal attacks. I am not trying to hide history. Your inclusion of words like "legitimate" shows your point of view. I'm quite willing to include the POVs of legitimate critical historians alongside the POV of other historians, regardless of nationality. Your recent edits include your own personal criticisms of the opinion of a specific historian, which is hardly fair. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Simply referencing "www.dhm.de" is not good enough. "

I had indicated the very direct link before! More precise than other people on this website. You, or somebody else, has delete it, and i had no time, neither the will, to search for it again, as i was in a hurry. It is not my fault when somebody deletes reliable sources.

Please see my explanation of the wikipedia history tab. It should never be difficult to find your past edits. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. "That's usually how wars end, but that doesn't make it okay."

There is a bit more to it. First, i agree that doesnt make it OK. A judge could not tell a murderer "well, you have murdered somebody but i'll set you free, because people murder people every day". A judge would never argue like you "this is the way it is", but he would argue "you should not have done, and here are your consequences".

If this is "how wars end" (which is actually wrong, and i can prove it), then it is our task in this topic A, to describe exactly HOW it ended, what actually happened, what actually were the consequences, and this is what i am doing.

If war B or C are ended under different conditions, that's not our task so please do not compare. We deal with war A, so we describe war A. What the authors of B and C do, covering up or falsifying war B or C, has little to do with our topic, as long was we are not dealing with them. What you say seems to me like the typical attempts to belittle Allied responsibility for both Word Wars, and i believe you must be from one of these countries. Maybe its not your fault believing this filtered version of history,after all, its what you have been taught (and i have been taught the same. Only, when you search thorougly, you will find things that you were never taught - but which are, unfortunately, true, and proven, and undisputed. Only: They have never been made public to a broader range of people.) Second, if you say this is "how wars end" this is actually wrong, and i can prove it. One of the main problems that caused outrage in Germany at the time and created the NSDAP, was the humiliation by a war guilt. You said, thats how wars end. Well this is not true. This war guilt was a complete novum in history, no wars ever had asked the question who was "guilty", at least not in an official contract. What is true, is: Wars were fought, wars were ended, but then life went on, and nobody ever was forced to sign a "war guilt". This is one of the major causes that made this dubious contract absolutely unique, as it tries to morally put a nation in "chains", quote Philip Scheidemann (wo chose to end his career as president, rather than tying his country's hands). So please do not tell me again this was "how wars ended", no war ever has ended with a moral defamation like this, and i know, that you know better.

I didn't say it was exactly the same as the ending of all other wars, but like most other wars, the terms of the treaty are dictated by the victor, under threat of continued violence. You can't prove me wrong by putting words in my mouth. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. "Your frequent assertions that it was "Human rights-violating" seems strange to me. From what I understand, the Declaration of Human Rights was made in 1948".

As far as i know , France (of all countries) had proclaimed human rights already over 100 years earlier. If this does not count, no problem but then help me find a better way of expressing it. I want to point out that it was foolish to deprive millions of people of their rights, well the right of self-termination actually was proclaimed at the time, and it was violated. This treaty was a desaster, you might agree with that, it caused mass poverty, repeated collapse of economy, death, child murder, revolutions, uproar, gross injustice, and finally the worst War of all mankind. The article, before i contributed, did point that out a little, but not enough. You must admit, that it is very misleading for the reader when you write Gustav Bauer signed. In our understanding, a Signature is a declaration of consent, and that is the way that is understood by everybody all over the world today. So everybody who read this expression favoured by you, thinks "oh well the Germans weren't happy, but so what", because they assume it was agreed upon. The declaration of consent however that a Signature usually means in the civilized world, was not given, neither at the time of Signature, neither before, nor after. This is why i added some quotes of the people who were concerned, and in context with the threat of being starved by the Sea Blockade and thread of the renewal of armed conflict, makes the extreme dramatic character of the situation clearer. The way it was written before, was completely lacking of pointing out what a tragedy this Treaty meant for millions of people. Shifting territories back and forth looks harmless on a map, but it has effects and consequences and dramatic changes for the people in these territories. All this was not pointed out in the article. "Sudetenland was given to the CSR", full stop, next issue. The CSR and Poland was a hostile and anti-german environment at the time, due to Habsburg and Prussian rule, which was oppressing, too. There were lots of anti-German sentiment, and all of the sudden millions of people found them in a hostile environment including boycott of shops, harrassment, beatings, humiliation, injustice and even murder. In case you speak German, read the Groppe-Article. I researched about the Author, his father was in the German Resistance and he himself was "invited" by the GESTAPO (Nazi secret police) several times when being a kid. I am always very careful with texts about politic issues, because often they are very one-sided, but stemming from a Nazi-resistant background, and having been in trouble with the GESTAPO himself, Lothar Groppe is certainly no right-wing author.

I'm well aware of what you want to say. But what you want to say is irrelevant, unless you can find a reference to someone else saying it. Yes there was hostility toward Germans in Czechoslovakia, but without the requirement of references, what is to stop some Czech from coming along and saying that the treaty liberated Czechs from centuries of oppression under Hapsburg rule? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also careful with texts that do not come from non-governmental sources (and even with some governmental sources one should be careful), but this article seems absolutely balanced to me. My main point is, that the Treaty was coerced, second main point that a "sole guilt" does not exist (it was an arms race between Germany and the two largest colonial empires at the time) but was forced on Germany (with desastrous consequences until today). Third and very vital point is, that especially the changes in the east, 5 Million Germans being forced to become Czechs resp. Polish, sharpened ethnic conflicts rather than soothing them. All these three points are proven, but they are either mentioned only very briefly on the side in history books, or they are not even mentioned. But these three points are among the main points, why the treaty failed.

All these points seem reasonable and I don't disagree with them, but your exaggerated language like "murder" "hypocritical" "totally unreasonable" etc, is POV. Whether or not Germany was solely responsible is a matter of opinion. I don't believe they were, but it's still a matter of opinion, not something black and white which can be demonstrated with fact. TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

greetings

Peter

Treaty of Versailles

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.Mr. Yooper (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibid

Please be aware that using "ibid" in references doesn't work very well with wikipedia. It works excellently in normal academic writing with a single author; however, with wikipedia, later editors may wish to insert text with new references into the middle of the article, which messes up the continuity. Please see this style guide to clarify, and consider using named references to make life easier on yourself. Thanks. TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK

PeterBln (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted information

Just to be sure, are you aware of the "history" function on wikipedia. There's a tab at the top of the page which shows all edits. You can review them one by one. For the Treaty of Versailles, the edit history is here.

As for your additions:

"The Nazi Party was founded on 5th January 1919, under the name DAP (Deutsche Arbeiter Partei). It changed its name one year later into NSDAP. Before 1919, the Nazi Party was nonexistent. All this is a proven historic fact, and easily verifiable to anyone."

Yes, this is a known fact, however, there was no reference for its relation to the treaty of Versailles. It's also known fact that Dick Adams didn't exist before the Versailles Treaty, but unless I have a reference demonstrating that these two things are related, it shouldn't be included. I have no doubt that the Versailles Treaty influenced the growth of Nazism, but your addition could suggest that the Treaty gave birth to the Nazi party, and is therefore wholly responsible for everything done by Hitler. This may be someone's opinion, and if referenced, it should be included under historical assessments. But modern reactions to the treaty are separate from reactions in Germany at the time.

And: "The claims of the Treaty would codify the basis for public support for the emerging Nazi Party which never existed before 1919, I had put a reliable source from an American University College."

I don't believe I've seen this before, so I don't think I removed it.

- TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please avoid adding unreferenced material to the article, particularly when it contains POV terms like "immoral." - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden

I have no interest in 'playing' Coventry off against Dresden. The point of contention is Churchill's desire to disassociate himself from bombing of Dresden, in the context of WW2 campaigns. As far as I see, this is presented neutrally and reliably. This is not a soapbox for purporting your personal views on Dresden, and your previous edits that were reverted here are problematic to say the least. Please ask yourself how you think labelling other editors as war criminals will in any way lead to a better article. Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While agreeing that PeterBln's edits there (and probably elsewhere as well) "are problematic to say the least", if photos of any British personages belong on the Dresden page at all (a page about a city in GERMANY), it would be the person most responsible for the mission and/or making the decision to bomb. That's more likely Bomber Harris than Churchill. Even if a wartime photo of Churchill is what is desired, it's just total coincidence that the only one you could find has bombed out Coventry in the background? Please. Even if you didn't have a general editing pattern which suggests an interest in the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and the view that Nazi Germany deserved whatever sufferings may have been visited upon it, that'd still be extremely hard to believe. Churchill has nothing to do with the bombing of Coventry, the people of that city were the passive victims, and whatever Churchill had to do with the rebuilding of Coventry, that's totally irrelevant to Dresden. Do you seriously believe that a photo of bombed out Dresden would be appropriate on the Coventry Blitz page? Anyway, I see you are evident part of Wikiproject Munich and speak German, Will; I understand enough myself that any messages I receive in German I can read, although I'd probably reply in English.Bdell555 (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to German exodus from Eastern Europe and Treaty of Versailles

These edits have been reverted due to their failing to comply with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Please consult these guidelines.

Thank you.

--Richard (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denazification

Your edits at Denazification have been reverted due to their violation of WP:NPOV. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page. Pleasant day. AP1787 (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Winston Churchill, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British-India Holocaust

I would like to inform you that the article British-India Holocaust, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. Its use of the word "holocaust" and references to conditions under the Nazis and Stalin make it obvious that you have an anti-British agenda, and are not approaching the topic from an objective point of view. Please see WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for further explanations of why what you are doing is impermissible. The subject which this article refers to is in any case already covered in a longer, more thorough, more objective article at Great Famine of 1876-78, making your article a duplicate, which is another thing we cannot have on Wikipedia. If there were anything objective or relevant in your article, I would have recommended a merge, however, I see nothing salvageable in your distinctively non-objective, biased attempts to accuse the British of pure evil akin to the actions of the Nazis. LordAmeth (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your Highness "Lord" Ameth.

It is interesting to see, how you British people will not grow tired of slandering others, while at the same time hiding your own heinous crimes.

The expression "Holocaust" has not been created by me, but by British and American Scientists. Are you a Holocaust-denier? It seems so.

The article about a "famine" in India is well known to me, however you insult the victims of this large-scale genocide and you try to belittle your country's responsibility, by calling it a simple "famine". It was an intentional mass-murder, and it is not the only one of the "good" British Empire. So i rather accuse YOU of not being neutral, as you refer to a Genocide of 29 Millions as a simple "famine", when in fact it was carried out by British State policy. I have read the "famine"-article, and it tries to whitewash and belittle what your forefathers have actually done.

And let me comment one of your quotes, please: "I see nothing salvageable in your distinctively non-objective, biased attempts to accuse the British of pure evil akin to the actions of the Nazis".

I agree with you, the actions of the British Empire were not akin to those of the Nazis. They were fare worse, only thanks to people like you, they remain hidden. You are one of the deniers of British Atrocities, who attempt to whitewash, belittle and deny the evil deeds of your colonial forefathers. I have the impression, it is you who is everything but neutral.

By the way, i dont accuse people like you not as anti-german either, only for revealing the facts about the Nazi-period. But i think its time to question, whether the Genocide of 6 Million Jews really was the biggest crime in mankind's history, as people like you try to make believe.

Dear "Lord": History is not about making you feel good about yourself and your country. It is about revealing facts the way they were.

Try to become a little honest.

kind regards

Peter

Dear PeterBln, if an account has the word "Lord" in its name, that does not mean that the person using that account is definetly British. My username is JEdgarFreeman, but that does not mean I am J. Edgar Hoover, or Morgan Freeman. Even if Lord Ameth is British, that is not a reason to be uncivil by accusing him of "hiding your own heinous crimes" and being a "Holocaust-denier". Being uncivil does not help your cause, and you can get punished for being uncivil. You might be thinking "But he is doing those things". What Lord Ameth is doing is following Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point-of-view, and a title like "British-India Holocaust" does not meet that goal, since Holocaust is a very emotional word. You might now be thinking "Why then do we call what the Germans did during WW2 "the Holocaust"? Why is British-India Holocaust any different?" What is different is that "the Holocaust" with regards to WW2 is an established expression, which means that the term is used by many reliable sources, and established expressions are allowed to be used by Wikipedia. However, "British-India Holocaust" is an expression, from what I have determined through my own research, that is used by no reliable sources at all. This makes it a neologism, and an article about a neologism is not generally allowed.

I believe that the British Empire committed a lot of terrible deeds. However, a critique of the British Empire must follow Wikipedia guidelines. The proposed deletion of British-India Holocaust is not an attempt to 'hide the truth', but merely an act of following the guidelines of Wikipedia. If it makes you feel better, many articles that praise the British Empire have been deleted, for not having a neutral point-of-view either, and/or using a term that is not established. You might now be thinking "But the truth is still not being told". If you follow Wikipedia guidlines, especially regarding WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, you will find that you will be able to criticize the British Empire, and you will be supported by the Wikipedia community as a whole. You can get the truth out, as long as it is presented in a neutral way, and is supported by multiple reliable sources. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not much to comment on this. Only so much: History is written by the winner (quote Winston Churchill). Means, history is written by the British and the Americans. The existing article about Lytton, to which you referred me, i have thorougly read. It is just what i expected: There is just one single sentence about the Holocaust, a term which not i, but the Indians use for this event (the people concerned), and this sentence reads something like "a famine broke out". So this is the whole information about a man and his deed that killed five time more people in a genocide than Adolph Hitler? You must agree that it is very strange, when someone wants to delete my article just because i publish verifiable facts, while another article that should have mentioned these facts, does not and even tries to belittle it ("famine broke out", as if it was natural-caused desaster, it was not: it was 100 percent man-made, by Lytton).

It is the Indians, who accuse the British of trying to hide this historic event, not only me. But it is the same problematic like in the Dresden Issue: only a certain official version of history is accepted and published, a version of a country that writes history, in her prime minister's own words: And that is Britain. So you will please forgive me, when i suggest that on an issue like India not only the (well-known) British view is the only legitimate one but the Indian view probably even more important, as they were the affected ones, not the British. And as for Dresden, just the same; maybe its interesting to hear what the Dresdeners say about Dresden - not only the British. It is obvious that they dont like certain things to be revealed. Not my problem.

As for the Lytton-Famine issue, it is absolutely absurd, to praise an article which leaves out the most important thing about Lytton, namely a genocide of over 29 Million innocent people, while at the same time critizing mine for telling the truth.

But i am very well aware that the truth is not always welcomed. I have no problem with you blocking me for telling the truth about Lytton and this terrible event that Britain silences abhout, because i know the truth will come out sooner or later anyway - with or without Wikipedia.

regards

PeterBln (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Peter[reply]

I think you have me confused with another editor. I have never referred you to the Lytton article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Late Victorian Holocaust

I have nominated Late Victorian Holocaust, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late Victorian Holocaust. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with British-India Holocaust. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice regarding some of your recent edits in the Dresden article.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Dresden, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

PeterBln, I am very concerned with some of your recent edits. The ones I am concerned with are those that do not meet Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point-of-view in an article (please see WP:NPOV for more information). For example, "Dresden was attacked seven times between 1944 and 1945, but the city practically got wiped out during the infamous assault on 13th february 1945." "Infamous", and "practically wiped out", although you may think they are accurate, are not neutral. I am not trying to 'hide the truth', as you may be thinking, but I am trying to get you to follow Wikipedia guidelines. "Dresden was attacked seven times between 1944 and 1945, but the city practically got wiped out during the infamous assault on 13th february 1945" would be a neutral statement if it was worded like "was attacked seven times between 1944 and 1945, and the city was heavily damaged during a bombing attack on February 13 1945 which has since been criticized by some", and if reliable sources were cited for this new sentence (please also see WP:V and WP:RS). The new sentence I have proposed is neutral, if reliable sources are found to support it, and it conveys the same basic message as the original sentence, imo. Please do not take this post as a complete handbook on how to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, and on how to stay out of trouble with the Wikipedia community. Please do read WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR, as they will give you the more information about doing well on Wikipedia. If you would like me to help you get adjusted to how things should be done on Wikipedia, I will be glad to do so.

I'm going to be frank; if you continue violating WP:NPOV, you will be blocked. You have been told enough times what it is you are doing wrong. I hope that you will now follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for reading, and feel free to communicate with me on my talk page if you would like to. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i think what you are doing is trying to falsify history. If blocking inconveniant voices (which equals censoring like in Dictatorships) is your way to deal with history, then go ahead. I have nothing to reproach myself for, but i accuse YOU of trying to falsify history. By the way, in case you are from the USA, i am not surprised, your Government is still teaching kids in our schools that German victims of war "received what they deserved". Only i wonder, how children that get targeted in a war, can bear any blame?

In any case, please stop pursuing a strategy of suppressing facts. You don't seem to know anything about Dresden, i do know a whole lot. You wrote

"For example, "Dresden was attacked seven times between 1944 and 1945, but the city practically got wiped out during the infamous assault on 13th february 1945." "Infamous", and "practically wiped out", although you may think they are accurate, are not neutral".

Well, the attack is considered as infamous, like it or not. I have no problem when you cancel this word. But "wiping out", is not arguable. The city got wiped out, and i can prove this by not only aerial views from the 1950ies, which you probably have never seen. Frankly, i am shocked about the whole lot of people on Wikipedia, who consider themselves to work according to scientific standars, but do not amount to much more than praising a "hurray-we won" filtered view of history. History is not about making you feel good about your country, but about dealing with facts. The city of Dresden is the only city of that size i have ever seen in Europe, that was left a BLANK space for years, except a few solitary ruins. Believe it or not: There were no streets any more in a city center of a city as big as maybe San Francisco (depends on whether you include the suburbs or not).

You deleted a whole lot of information that is VERIFIABLE, as for the industry in which you depicted Dresden as a City of major military industry, which is UTTER NONSENSE, and you even were not able to produce a scientific source for that, and now you talk about a word like "infamous". Then delete this word, it is not important, but please restore the information given immediatele, please! What you are doing, suppressing facts and trying to sweep truth under the carpet, is not the way to deal with history.

Thank you.

PeterBln (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I am not trying to 'cover up the truth'. I am merely trying to ensure that your edits meet Wikipedia guidelines.

You have inserted a lot of verifiable text into many articles, including Dresden. However, much of that text has been removed because it was not neutral, as a result of the fact that you used very biased words in it like "infamous" and "practically wiped out". Verifiability and neutrality must go together. I understand your argument that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime. However, Wikipedia guidelines must be adhered to.

You have been very uncivil to people. You have accused people of insulting the memories of the dead, and you have also accused people of spitting on people's graves, by the fact that a lot of the text you have added to Wikipedia articles has been removed. This is unacceptable.

I urge you, for the last time, to follow Wikipedia guidelines immediately.

Here are your last warnings regarding WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPOV. I don't mean to be harsh, but they are your last.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Dresden, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are doing here, is not a personal attack or what?

You attack me personally, when i wrote a whole lot of information. Why do you avoid to refer to all this information i had given? Sorry i have no time to search for the Aerial view of Dresden, but i am actually quite appalled about the way you attack me personally, while at the same time you avoid referring to the content of what i said. What is your opinion on it? Why do you avoid referring to what i have said? You force me to accept a version of history which is simply not true, i am an expert on Dresden, and you attack me for that? Are you realizing you are trying to suppress free speech, by threatening to block me, just because i make use of the right of free speech on a talk page? Show me any "personal attack" i made in this comment. I am sorry, i will not be silent to such an important issue like Dresden, as long as i see information in this article which is simply not true. Dresden was not a "military centre", you can block me now if you like to, but it is a fact that it was not, and it is verifiable. There is a lot of things written in this article, and in many others in Wikipedia, which reflect a selective view. I do have the right to give facts and add these facts to an article, as long as they are TRUE and verifiable.

By the way, i still dont know if you are from an Allied country, which i suppose the way you talk. If you had lost family in certain events which are belittled, denied and mocked at, you might see the whole thing a bit different, too. Have you heard of the biggest desaster in Mankind's maritime history? No, its not the Titanic, its the Gustloff, 6 times more people died in the Gustloff than in the Titanic. And yet allied historians try to depict it as the biggest desaster. The desaster of the Gustloff is just one of countless Allied atroticies, which have been kept under wraps for at least 50 years, nobody knew about it. This refugee ship was packed with 10 000 people, half of which children, the rest mainly their mothers, and 9000 of them died a gruesome death in the icy baltic sea. Nobody in Germany, and nobody elsewhere knew about it, until a few years ago. When finally a film was made, 50 years after the event, the leading German newsmagazin "Der SPIEGEL" mocked about the dead and SPAT on their graves. They LAUGHED about it. So do you think this is OK? German victims are mocked about and they are denied recognition to this very day, due to the Allied policy in Germany that claims, all Germans are guilty of the war and therefore are not "victims". This is a view which i describe as fraudulent, dishonest and dishonouring the memory of Millions of people, because, please tell me: What do the Children and Mothers on the Gustloff, in Dresden or any other place have to do with it? However, the official view that many of you seem to share, is simly, "they all deserve it". This is something i dont accept, and if you don't understand it, then i am sorry, but thank god i have understood that history should be dealt with in an honest way. And not just highlighting the facts that ones likes, by suppressing the ones that are less convenient. And if you think you have to block me for speaking my mind, then i cannot change that. However i will not adapt to any views that try to suppress facts, i am sorry.

PeterBln (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PeterBln, I am not aware of any personal attack I have made against you. If I have offended you personally, I am sorry. I am simply trying to ensure you follow Wikipedia guidelines. You are perfectly entitled to voice your opinion regarding Dresden on a talk page. However, uncivil comments, like accusing people of covering up history, accusing people of insulting the memories of people who have died, and accusing people of spitting on people's graves, goes against WP:CIVIL, regardless of where they were made.

You have inserted verifiable information. I have always said that. What you are doing, though, is not adding neutral information. Many of your edits appear biased, and use emotional phrases like "responsible for the deaths of women and children" in regards to Winston Churchill.

Excuse me? Winston Churchill is not responsible for the death of millions of women and children? Have you read "operation keelhaul"? By the way this is an article that i had never touched. I am sorry but i think its not me who is biased. Churchill is one of the leading figures in WW II,

and the Poles for example, accuse him today of "betrayel", look at another article called "western betrayal", by the way i have not touched this one, either. And as for Dresden: About 600 000 German Civilians were killed, due to Churchill's orders. I am sorry, but Churchill IS responsible for that, and its not me who is saying that, its FACTS.

If "killing" is too emotional, what other words can you use?

PeterBln (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have violated WP:NPOV by added more non-neutral info on the British-India Holocaust article, I have reported you to the admins. I gave you plenty of warnings, and I offered all the advice I could.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this [1] shows you have made multiple edits to the Winston Churchill article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello, PeterBln. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The discussion can be found here: [2]. You may contribute, if you wish.

notice

I have searched the whole page, i am sorry i did not find anything regarding my articles. I think this whole system is quite awkward and unsurveyable.

In any case, i want to report some users because of abuse and violation. Please tell me where i can do that. Thank you.

PeterBln (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not replying earlier. I was on holiday from August 22 to August 30. I also find that some areas of Wikipedia are awkward and unsurveyable, and I hope that they will become much more navigable. The discussion can be found be found here: [3]

If someone is abusing you/going against Wikipedia guidelines, please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This will explain how to deal with the person. If you provide me with links to where you believe abuse and violation has occured, I should be able to give you more specific advice on how to act, and I will act as well against the offender(s) if abuse and violation has occured. You may be thinking about posting a statement against this person in the admin intervention area in which I started the discussion about you. The admin intervention area is a last resort for using to have action taken against a person, and the admins tend not to intervene if the guidelines of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution have not been followed first. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

N.B All of the warnings which are listed under the titles "June 2008" and "August 2008" are copies of warnings issued further up this talk page. They are not new warnings, but copies, just to emphasize. The warning under "November 2008" is new. Terrakyte (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.Mr. Yooper (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Your edits at Denazification have been reverted due to their violation of WP:NPOV. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page. Pleasant day. AP1787 (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Winston Churchill, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with British-India Holocaust. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Dresden, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Dresden, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you, Mr. Freeman, were the one who made personal remarks about me, and quite negative ones. You even referred yourself to being "harsh", you clearly made personal attacks towards me. I have not done any such remarks to you, so i ask you politely to remain polite, too. Also, instead of giving people orders like "Comment on content, not on other contributors or people", i would like to ask you to use the word "please".

By the way, i find your personal attack on me very offensive. Everybody can clearly see, that you called my comments "disruptive", which is a very negative personal remark, and i am politely asking you, to refrain from such remarks. Thank you very much.

As for the scientific value of my very good contributions to Wikipedia: Everything i have written in my articles is veryfiable. Please feel free, to check everything.

By the way, you have called for deletion of an article of mine about the British Genocide in India, which is scientifically well-documented. You had even stated that one Guardian-Article would not exist, even though i included the link. At the same time the link mysteriously kept on disappearing. I don't really know what to conclude from this, but if somebody tries to cover up facts, i would call such procedere biased or scientifically unreliable.

As for my aim in Wikipedia: I am interested in finding out facts about history, i research a lot in reliable sourcees (Governments, Universities, high-reputated Newspapers such as The TIMES and The GUARDIAN), and sadly i found that a lot of people on Wikipedia seem to be very afraid of some facts to appear.

I hope for your understanding, that i will not accept when i have scientifically relianble and veryfiably facts that are being deleted. I have also informed some friends from India about the incident in which you helped deleting a whole article about the Genocide in India, and we will gladly continue observing Wikipedia's activities in this field with great interest.

kind regards,

Peter

PS

You reproached me for "adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Dresden", and quite impolitely threatened to block me. May i please ask you to note: I am sorry i cannot remember when i had written any "personal analysis", as all i write is based on reliable scientific sources. I do not know how well you know the city, i happen to know the city (or what is left of it) rather well. I am a member of the Dresden-based GHND-association that works with the European Union, the UNESCO, the German Government, the Government of the state of Saxony, the city of Dresden for the reconstruction of the UNESCO World Heritage Historic Centre. I am intenensely involved in working with experts of the National Board for Preservation of Historic monuments on the Dresden Reconstruction, we are very pleased to have the Nobel Prize Winner Prof. Dr. G. Blobel among our ranks, as well as many other reputed scientists from all over the world, thus i may consider myself to be quite informed about the subject. So may i ask you please to note that i do not carry out any "personal analysis" as you accused me of, but please note that i just happen a to have a lot of information which is unknown in your country. Everything i have written in the Dresden Article is veryfiable. --PeterBln (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918–1938), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The reason why I have issued this high-level warning, as opposed to a 'newbie' or 'no-faith' level warning, is because I can see on this talk page that numerous POV warnings have been issued, so I believe it is appropriate to post this high-level warning as a result. Terrakyte (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terrakyte:

Every thing i have written about Czechoslovakia and related topics (like e.g. Sudetenland) i have based on Scientific resp. Government sources, such as the "Lord-Runciman Report" that was issued by the British Government in 1938. Some people tried to delete it several times, i am glad it seems to be permanently inside the article now. After all, this report to the British Prime Minister is crucial for the understanding of developments during the interwar-period.

Please note, that i do not accept "warnings" for posting reliable scientifically proven facts. I consider this abuse. --PeterBln (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Thank you.[reply]

When I read the above post, I thought that I should write a statement explaining well why this edit ([4]) to the Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918–1938) article did not comply with WP:NPOV. However, after reading several statements made by other editors on this talk page stating why many of your edits do not comply with WP:NPOV, I decided that there was no point in re-iterating something that you have been told many times. Remember, cite any material that is likely to be challenged with an inline citation, instead of just saying that it is "based on Scientific resp". Also, do not remove material that is cited to a reliable source, as you did here: [5]. I was surprised by the fact that, after being reported to the admins for breaking NPOV several times, you were not blocked. However, having discovered the discussion in which that particular period of NPOV violations was discussed by the admins, I can see that you were not blocked not because the admins thought you didn't deserve it, but because the discussion went inactive, though all recommendations posted stated that you should be blocked, one even suggesting indefinetly. Follow the rules from now on. I'm sorry that you feel like the warnings are abuse, but the warnings are justified. Terrakyte (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "friends"

As you may known from this edit by User:Piotrus at User talk:Terrakyte, Piotrus seems to consider a "German tag team" as friends of yours. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Tag_team_3:_German. BTW: Nice to meet you, my friend.-- Matthead Discuß 14:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peter, it is my hope that you prove me wrong and stay away from certain "bad influence" users :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your accusations

You can see the admin discussion in which a period of your anti-NPOV edits was discussed here: [6]. As you can see, the discussion went inactive, and several recommendations for a ban were posted.

"Follow the rules" is an order. I would appreciate very much, if you add the word "please"

Many editors on your talk page have asked you to please follow the rules, yet your anti-NPOV edits continued.

If you had received no/few NPOV warnings, I agree that I should have been more diplomatic with you regarding your non-NPOV edits. However, once an editor receives several high-level warnings, it is time to employ firm statements imo, in the same way that the formal highest-level warnings employ a firm statement.

We all should strive for the best quality, dont you agree?

Agreed. However, in order for Wikipedia to improve in quality, you must follow z

"I was surprised by the fact that, after being reported to the admins for breaking NPOV several times, you were not blocked. However, having discovered the discussion in which that particular period of NPOV violations was discussed by the admins, I can see that you were not blocked not because the admins thought you didn't deserve it, but because the discussion went inactive, though all recommendations posted stated that you should be blocked, some even suggesting indefinetly."
Please stop making offensive personal remarks against me, and again: Please try to remain polite. Speaking of me, "deserving" anything, seems very offensive and abusive to me, and i ask you politely to stop making personal offensive remarks towards me. If this continues, i will have to report you to the Admins. Please try to remain polite and balanced, thank you.

I do not mean to personally offend you, and I apologise if I have. However, I fail to see where in my statement within the quoted text just above I have said anything that can be considered by a general audience as personally offensive. Again, I apologise if I have said anything that has offended you on a personal level, that was not my intention. Terrakyte (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden

I think we need to have some more "balance" in this article. Wallie (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edits on the Dresden article. It'd be great if you could add some references from a reputable and verifiable source (WP:V and WP:NPOV). Otherwise any user can undo your edits. Thank you. --Karljoos (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Gomorrah

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasimodogeniti (talk • contribs) 16:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please

do not delete sourced information. Both Ingo Haar and Martin Broszat are respectable German historians (in fact Broszat was probably one of the most well known internationally German historians). The fact you disagree with what they said is immaterial. Also please avoid edit warring. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your comments on Talk:Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Use_in_Holocaust_Denial_arguments

Having now looked at your talk page, I see that you have something of a history of advocacy and POV-pushing and have been warned about it multiple times. Had I known this earlier I wouldn't have assumed as much good faith as I did in my response. I'm involved on the article so I won't take admin action myself, but because I now believe you are not here to contribute constructively I will be bringing this to the attention of other admins. EyeSerene^talk 10:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned repeatedly above for attempting to push your opinion in articles over the last few years and engaging in uncivil behavior when challenged. I note in particular this ANI discussion from August 2008. Despite this, you are still continuing this unacceptable behavior, as demonstrated by POV-pushing edits such as [7] and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground such as this, this and this to give just a few recent examples; most of your other edits during 2010 and 2009 I checked were of a similar nature. These are clear violations of Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. As your editing appears to me to be linked to advancing your personal views and your conduct towards other editors in talk page posts is consistently unacceptable I have set the block duration as indefinite. Please note that is is not a permanent block and you may be unblocked by a reviewing administrator if you can demonstrate that you understand the above policies and intend to abide by them in future. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to tell you that it is you who violate Wikipedia rules. The passage of text you doggedly try to defend insinuates the author Heinz Nawratil was a "neonazi" and is clear slander. You are not here for expressing your private views or for slander, but in an an encyclopedia, and i regard your attempts to slander as inappropriate. If you believe the author was a "Nazi", you have to provide evidence but you failed to to do. The private opinions of Ingo Haar and Martin Broszat which you use as source are their personal views and therefore not sufficient.

Claiming Heinz Nawratil "right-wing" is not only untrue, but clear slander. Likewise, on your page i saw a whole lot of insults and slander of the same kind against my person. I hereby advise you that slander expressed on your page against my person exceeds the legal right of free speech, because it violates the human rights of others. I therefore ask you to remove those insults against my person from your page.

Furthermore, you accuse me of "advancing my personal views". This is another untrue statement, because it is rather you aims to adavance his person view on others by insisting on claims that Heinz Nawratil was "right-wing" even though you have no evidence for this. This is an untrue claim and an insulting remark and i ask you to speedily delete it from the article.

I regard your unjustified blocking me for opposing your slander as an attempt to silence me. Please note that by imposing your private opinion and your attempts to slander Heinz Nawratil it is not me who advances personal views, but it is you. If you claim Heinz Nawratil was a nazi or right-wing, you would have to produce evicence which you have not. I therefore ask you again: Please delete the slanderous passage about the author Heinz Nawratil, as it is inappropriate. You are in an Encyclopedia, and not in a forum for expressing your or someone else's private views. PeterBln (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Peter - if you make yourself a pain in the butt to people, you can expect to get blocked.

I am sorry you have been blocked, since I think you have something to offer. But it is your own fault.

When you come back, please could you provide citations for all statements you put in articles. Make sure you stick to what the source says; don't add your own elaboration on it. Please do not delete things from talk pages you disagree with; it is better to explain why they are mistaken.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using offensive language, you violate Wikipedia rules. "Butt" is not a scientific expression but a vulgar word. Please refrain from this sort of language as it is inappropriate. Thank youPeterBln (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another proof how Administrators abuse by blocking users when some facts do not fit their agenda: In this case, their aim of slandering the author Heinz Nawratil

The Administrators claim that Martin Broszat's slanderous remark of Heinz Nawratil was a "reliable source" and use this claim to slander Heinz Nawratil as "rightwing". I deleted this offensive claim as i considered the source shady and politically motivated, which the Administrators now use as justification for my blocking. To have a look at what sources they use, let's listen to what an expert on the issue (seemingly the author himself) says about Broszat's slander and about the authority of Broszat's own institute:

The historian Martin Broszat (Munich Institute of Contemporary History) has described my works as “polemics … from a rightist point of view”. But the superviser of this Institute, the Bavarian Prime Minister, did not share this opinion. In his letter of April 3rd, 1985, he described the move of Mr. Broszat as polemic and not scientific, and he provided an official rebuke in the same year (Schreiben des Bayerischen Ministerpräsidenten vom 03.04.1985).

(quote from the discussion about Heinz Nawratil)

This is just one of countless proves that Aministrators use shady and dubious "sources" to back up their attempt to blacken and foul the author Heinz Nawratil. Note that the Administrators blocked ME for having deleted the slanderous remark, while at the same time they protect the person (Volunteer Marek) who posted the offensive text and who called me "extremist" which is another insult. Apparantly, if you fit the Administrators biased agenda, you can insult anyone you like and you will not be blocked, but if you write facts that do not fit the Admin's agenda, then you do get blocked.

I am more and more getting a dubious image of Wikipedia, which seems to function more like a propaganda tool for polical lobbyists, rather than for what it was meant for: Scientific purposes. PeterBln (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of the blocking function under false claims and by using slander

Dear Toddy1 and dear Nick-D,

I am sorry to see you violate Wikipedia rules and you use the function of blocking people you disagree with by using false claims.

A simple look into the discussion is proof for your untruthful claims against me:

You accuse me of having "deleted without explanation" . This is a false claim which proves that you have not even looked into the discussion. Please look into the discussion and you will see that i copied the whole inappropriate passage in it, and i also explained why it is inappropriate and therefore why it should be deleted. The passage you insist on clearly slanders the author Heinz Nawratil as right-wing which is offensive and untruthful. If you insist on claims that this author was right-wing, where are your sources please? You failed to produce any sources and you have no evidence for your claims. The sources you insist on are unproven claims made by Ingo Haar and Martin Broszat who expressed their private views and who do not have any evidence for Nawratil's alleged "right-wing" ideology. So where is the proof, please? Rather than producing proof for your claims, you block those who prove you wrong. This is unscientific behaviour and i ask you kindly to refrain from continuing this inappropriate behaviour.

FACT: Heinz Nawratil is neither "right-wing" nor member of any right-wing or neonazi political party. Calling people names like "nazi" or "right-wing" is a popular defamation method and i am sad to see it is also very often used in Wikpedia in order to defame those of a different opinion and to make biased views and slander appear "scientific". If the two authors Ingo Haar and Martin Broszat you quoted had substential evidence against Nawratil, they would do so, and they would not need to use slander and defamation.

Heinz Nawratil is a scientist and an expert on law, he wrote many books for law students and he is member of human-rights groups. This has nothing to do with right-wing. He also wrote books about a hidden Genocide of 2.0 Million German children, mothers and elderly, and after years of experience as a Wikipedia-author i can clearly say that some lobbyists apparantly try to belittle genocides for political objectives. This is not what an encyclopedia is for. I am sad to see that Wikipedia takes part in trying to cover up genocides for political reasons, rather than treeating the issue non-emotional and in a sober, scientific way. Reputed authors like Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zayas (former secretary-member of the UN-commission for human rights) and Prof. Dr. Felix Ermacora, both scientists and professor for international law share the same viewpoint as Heinz Nawratil. If he was right-wing, they would hardly agree with him.

Texts containing slander and insults should not appear in a neutral written article. If you do not agree with me, please use scientific methods to prove me wrong rather than trying to silence me and to censore me. You violate Wikipedia rules because you try to make me silent by blocking me under false claims;the passage i deleted is a violation , too because it violates the principle of neutrality as it contains slander. Please remember that slander and defamation are legal offenses. If you make people silent, rather than using your own arguments, it seems you apparantly you have no argument. I do not see your sources for your claims, and i see nothing in the discussion that could prove your claims. Please look into the discussion, which you have failed to do.

I just had a look on the page you recommended, Nick-D. It is full of slander and non-scientific methods: Just like you had tried with the author Heinz Nawratil, all those anonymous people on your page tried the same with me and also insulted ME as "right-wing". I am sorry, this is getting boring and it is unscientific to slander everyone as "nazi" just because they happen to be from Germany; some scientics might consider this "racist". May i remind you please that the article of Kurt Baschwitz has almost entirely been written by me, because i am a relative of him. Kurt Baschwitz and I stem from a German Jewish family and please be assured that i would never resort to slander anyone as anti-semite just because i oppose his views. But you people think you have the right to slander anyone as "right-wing" and insinuating they were "Nazis", just because you have no counter-argument when they produce scientific evidence which you would rather see covered-up? I hope you all know that if anyone violates Wikipedia rules, it is you.

In any case, you may insult me as "right-wing" all you want, you will only bore me because your slander and your false claims are preposterous and i know where it comes from anyway. But if you could please see that you stop slandering and insulting reputed authors like Heinz Nawratil as "nazi" or "right-wing", because if you continue doing so, i shall have to accuse you of non-scientific beaviour and of violating the principle of Neutrality. Your insulting slander-tactics of calling me "right-wing" etc. however to not harm me, it only proves that you violate your own rules and that you have no scientific basis for your false claims, e.g. as proven in the case of Heinz Nawratil whom you insinuated being "nazi", too.

Also, please do not talk to me using vulgar language like "butt" which is a non-scientific expression. I think your language is highly offensive. This is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for vulgar language.

I therefore kindly ask you to stop using such inappropriate language towards me and may i please ask you stop using false claims against me. Thank you.

Please be assured that I will not tolerate your offensive behaviour and neither will the scientific community. I demand this unjustified block, which is based on false claims as proven above, immediately to be lifted, and i expect an apology for your offensive remarks, too. You are violating every basis of scientific work and i will not tolerate such behaviour.

PeterBln (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PeterBln (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here: Please see statement above

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but blaming others and accusing them of slander will not get your block lifted. Your unblock request must discuss your behavior and demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked and that you will avoid the situations that got you here in the first place. TN X Man 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You simply repeat your false claims, without even having read my statement. Please read and prove me wrong.

You said you do not want others to talk about your own behaviour. I am sorry to disappoint you, but yes i do critizise your behaviour as it is highly inappropriate. You abuse this block for unjustified reasons, as i have proven in the above statement. You and your friends use insults, false claims and offensive remarks to silence those who oppose your views, because you failed to prove them wrong in a civilized debate. Some of you even use vulgar inappropriate language as can be seen on this page.

The article you defend contains an unproven claim which slanders the author Heinz Nawratil. I kindly asked you to produce a source for your claim that Nawratil was "neo-nazi", but you were unable to provide a source.

As for my behaviour, i have nothing myself to reproach for. You accuse me of having "deleted without explanation". This is a false claim which proves that you have not even looked into the discussion. Please look into the discussion and you will see that i copied the whole inappropriate passage in it, and i also explained why it is inappropriate and therefore why it should be deleted. The passage you insist on clearly slanders the author Heinz Nawratil as right-wing which is offensive and untruthful. If you insist on claims that this author was right-wing, where are your sources please?

Your whole behaviour proves, that you use blocks not as they are meant for, but to silence those who produce inconvenient scientific facts and who oppose your personal views. In my opinion, you and your friends abuse Wikipedia, because this is a not a forum for your private views and certaibnly not for the slander you clearly use in the above mentioned article. PeterBln (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)PeterBln (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I do not understand why you devote your request to be unblocked to a discussion of the merits of an author called Nawratil. Why is it relevant to your unblock request? Are you and he connected?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slander, insults and defamation of the biography of a living person by Wikipedia-users

You do not understand "my" devotion? It is you people, dear toddy, who keep me blocking. I have answered all your questions, and you still abuse for over a year now. .

Actually i was not interested any longer in wasting my precious time and my great scientific capacity for a group of people who abuse an encyclopedia by using slander and defamation. But look, i changed my mind - i believe a public encyclopedia should not be abused by people like you. You, dear Toddy and Nick and Marek, not only abuse this encyclopedia as a platform for your political purpose. You also violate the law.

Especially Nick and "volunteer Marek" and you are responsible for the slander of Biography of a living person by using slander and defamation. What you are doing is illegal.

To answer your question: No, the author is not connected with me. But thanks for giving me a great idea - i shall contact him.

kind regards PeterBln (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Martin Broszat, who is one of the two dubious authors you quote to slander and insult Heinz Nawratil as a "Nazi", has officially been reprimanded by the Government of the state of Bavaria; the Government has forbidden Broszat to make these untrue claims which you use in your article.

It is clear to see that you people deliberately abuse this encyclopedia to slander and defame a living person, because you made sure that the original document of the Government of Bavaria, which proves Broszat's insults to be illegal, is NOT in the article. One more proof for your attempts to insult the author and attempt to ruin his reputation. Time to start an investigation who is behind these illegal libellous activities.

The Willy-Nicky Correspondence

I ask for your expertise on a proper use of the term. Please see Talk:The Willy-Nicky Correspondence#why just 1914? --eugrus (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

I've turned off your ability to edit this talk page as you've continued to use it as a forum to abuse people, and have posted legal threats above. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]