User talk:Spitfire3000

Prague Declaration

The section that you are proposing for the Prague Declaration is inappropriate, because most of the section (such as the exhibitions of the Museum of Genocide Victims in Vilnius, annual parades in Vilnius, what people wear in Vilnius, the war crime investigation that is mentioned), has nothing to do with this declaration. For example the letter to a certain Margolis that you used as a source does not mention or concern the Prague Declaration in any way, in addition to being a primary source and thus not acceptable as a source (WP:PRIMARY). The rest of the section concerns the opinion of mostly one individual who writes a lot of letters to the editor. This is a fringe view (WP:FRINGE) that has not been supported by any notable (such as official government) sources to my knowledge. The Prague Declaration is a centrist uncontroversial declaration on human rights that is supported by about all political factions (social democrats, liberals, conservatives, greens and so on) from all countries of Europe, with the exception of Russia. The only "opposition" that I'm aware of that would also be notable would be Russia's objections to condemnations of Stalin/communism/the Soviet Union (I've not yet seen any official Russian reaction to the Prague Declaration, but it's possible they've said something). The proposed material cannot be included because it represents a fringe view, is given undue weight (it's just one person's opinion, mostly), it concerns things that has got nothing to do with the declaration and because many of the sources are not reliable sources. Tataral (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your Discussion page. Spitfire3000 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

equivalence:

The Prague Declaration is little more than a pro-Nazi conspiracy to falsify history. The reason it remained unopposed for so long was that it was so little known. The more it is exposed to scrutiny the stronger it is rejected. In fact, the debate is just starting. In the end the "Declaration" and other forms of Holocaust obfuscation may go down the same drain as Holocaust denial. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 03:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism

You should create a new discussion thread at the bottom of the talk page and move your comments there, since the old discussion has long been ended. TFD (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for the help, I have done so.Spitfire3000 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my comments

You are changing my comments on that talk page. Instead of reverting, you should readd your own comments only, not restoring a revision which changes my comments. Tataral (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this accident which you could have been much more helpful with instead of just deleting my comments.Spitfire3000 (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Obfuscation

You may be interested in the new article stub Holocaust Obfuscation. I am not sure if this is the right article to discuss the topic or whether it should be presented in a larger context. Possible articles are

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the notification. I have considered such a stub myself, and also one for the Seventy Years Declaration, although the ongoing battle with Tataral over the Prague Declaration page has taken priority (and perhaps it shouldn't?). There is also the problem that the term "Holocaust distortion" is also in use, presumably because "obfuscation" is less immediately understandable (even though it is more precise and accurate). And Tataral will no doubt again argue that Katz is a fringe blogger whose terms are not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Anyway, about the Prague Declaration page, my final suggestion to Tataral is to flag the page in the hope of attracting a wider range of editors. I hope you will consider assisting in this. I will certainly consider spending time on new pages. Spitfire3000 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy would in fact dictate that Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, Holocaust Obfuscation, "Double genocide", "Red equals Brown", Holocaust trivialization debate, Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism, and Seventy Years Declaration be covered in the SAME article, as they are nothing but different points-of-view on the same topic. In practice it is easier to let "equalizers" state their POV in one article and create a separate article for the opposing point-of-view. The declarations are notable, so they might serve as the basis for the articles on the two POVs. Both articles should have criticism sections or other presentation of the opposite POV. We might also have a top article, maybe called Double Genocide debate or something.

You may have noted the latest comment on the topic:

Roger Cohen (January 30, 2012). "'The Suffering Olympics'". New York Times.

Also see the video of Dovid Katz speaking I uploaded to YouTube yesterday. (Cannot link directly because of blacklist, I wonder if linking to Facebook is allowed?)

February 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 10:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you step away from Prague Crap for a few days and start working on the counterargument. You should create an article on the Seventy Years Declaration and work on Holocaust obfuscation. It is difficult to argue that a criticism is notable and merits inclusion if it cannot stand on its own, i.e. does not have its own independent article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and that is how battles are won on wikipedia, someone gets tired and steps away. thereby proving that wikipedia sucks for controversial issues and i should never read it.Spitfire3000 (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia you win by getting your opponents blocked or banned. During my time on Wikipedia I have seen almost 50 users from one side of an argument being permabanned, while almost everyone from the other side is still here. The asymmetry is difficult to explain – without resorting to some form of conspiracy theory. It is possible that one side consists of native English speakers, while more people on the other side use English as a second language. This may give one side a slight advantage, which in the long run turns into more blocks for bad language, and eventually to bans.

And yes, being a Putinist will get you banned right away. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Spitfire3000. You have new messages at Zzarch's talk page.
Message added 10:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ZZArch ^{talk to me} 10:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked your account for 12 hours. Please stay civil and step away from PC if you can't keep yourself. Materialscientist (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I see that civility is more important to "patrollers" than actual logical discussion and debate of controversial issues, which I attempted to engage in for months, finally becoming exasperated when I received no help from other editors against a wall of Nazi sympathisers. "Patrollers" apparently outnumber those prepared to engage in difficult debates. Having been convinced that Wikipedia isn't worth editing and the "freedom" of the encyclopedia depends only on how many hours a day someone can devote to fighting with Nazis... you can consider my flameout final and my disillusionment complete. You and the Nazis have "patrolled" a good faith editor out of the system, and I am fully aware that the main tactic is to grind down good faith newcomers until they flameout. Well, fuck this. Spitfire3000 (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I go do some sport in such situation, and it helps. Materialscientist (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, Wikipedia will remain a honeypot for Nazis with superior powers of hypocrisy and tedium, however much "sport" i "go and do". As a law student I was interested in how Wikipedia policies work in principle and in practice - I found out what I needed to know. They don't work. Returning to edit that page after some "sport" would just be pissing in the wind. I patiently discussed and collaborated with Nazis (irony) on editing Wikipedia and it didn't improve Wikipedia at all.

I hear from your grammar you are quite likely to be Eastern European or Very Eastern European, and if you are, I suggest you patrol illogical antisemitic arguments over your homeland instead of rattling the swearbox in support of Nazis. I assumed good faith with Tataral (as i do with you) and it got Wikipedia nowhere. Spitfire3000 (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resorted to reductio ad Hitlerum, have we? If you think you are being discriminated against, go start a noticeboard discussion and stop edit warring. Alternatively, you may consider following the footsteps of Andrew Schlafly and create a "Communipedia"? Just food for thought. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 21:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have abused talk page access during your block to attack other editors, your talk page access has been removed for the duration of the block, which has been extended to 48 hours. When your block expires please edit collaboratively, and be civil to other editors, no matter bow much you disagree with them. If we all went round calling all the other editors with whom we disagree "cunts" and "nazis", it would do nothing at all to improve the encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Double Genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]