Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:03, 15 October 2006

Welcome!

Hello, White Guard, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 00:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Axis Powers

Hi! I have reveted his edits. He is in violation of the 3-revert-rule and I will report him if he keeps this up. For now I have protected the page. Furthermore I have tried to respond to his claims but much of what he says about the motives of the government in 1940 has already been discussed in my earlier replies on the page. His revisionist view of the war is a) not supported by Danish scholars and b) motivated by his own political views. I will try to find more sources but most of the quality sources on the web is in Danish and hence of little use for people outside of Denmark. Anyways, if he keeps this up I will have him blocked. By the way... is it just me or does he seem like a sock puppet of the weirdo who made long statements on the talk page before? It seems unusual that he comes along right after the earlier one stopped making comments. MartinDK 17:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting him and getting him blocked. I was able to get the page fully protected and your block stopped him from making further edits to the page before that. If he should decide to cause further prolems, especially by creating more sockpuppets, we can always get him as well as his sockpuppets blocked for another 24 hours based on that. I think the protection should stay in place for at least a week to discourage him from coming back. I agree that he may very well be Croatian. At least he has some very unusual and far out views on why Croatia wasn't at least a puppet. To support this claim he tries to label others as puppets and hence distort the very definition of a puppet and what happened in general. I am very open to evidence that will prove my views on Denmark wrong but they need to be of academic standard. Simply reffering to private web sites like he does do not convince me since none of the two sites he found can be considered authorative sources on the matter. I have looked long and hard and all the sources I find do indeed recognize that Denmark was considered an ally be the British and Americans at least.

Furthermore it is widely recognized here in Denmark that Frikorps Danmark was indeed a German invention, that the people who volunteered were supportive of the Nazis ideology and/or war against the Soviet Union and that the goverment only sanctioned it to please the Germans.

His comments about the Danish police are downright lies. The police was arrested by the Germans in 1943 because the Germans realized that although it officially should have helped the Gestapo it in fact was not doing so at all. Much of the resistance here was based on the policy of collaboration. By appearing to be co-operating civil servants, politicans and others were able to disrupt German efforts and this together with very skilled bombings of German infrastructure and suppliers played a major role in the final months of the war because the only German soldiers who weren't either killed, injured or just plain worn out were not able to leave Denmark and Norway. While the Germans were de facto defeated after the faliure and total collapse on the Eastern front the war on the Western front could have been significantly prolonged had the Germans been succesfull in getting its troops from Denmark and Norway. His comparison with Holland is absurd. Had the Danes fought back in the way he wanted them to Denmark would have been a new Holland and how helpful would that have been? Holland was basically destroyed and the people suffered terribly without being able to offer any powerful resistance because their country had been completely taken over by the Germans. I am sure the British were happy that the Germans would never have been able to fire their rockets from Denmark instead, simply because they knew that any such plans would be too risky with a resistance movement as well-organized and armed as the Danish. From the very beginning of the war the resistance was co-operatng with the Bristish intelligence services and the cover provided by the collaboration policy gave them the time and peace to build up a powerful resistance movement that the Britsh described as "second to none" after the war.

There has been a debate for years here in Denmark among leading scholars within this field and none of the people with access to the core archives support his views at all. Cheers, have a nice weekend and once again thank you for your very helpful efforts. MartinDK 11:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

Hello, there. Please take the time to vote for the various candidates over at Core_biographies#Voting_booth. If you can, try to read a bit about the candidates you don't know about so you can get a better idea of how to vote. Thanks! ♠ SG →Talk 10:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, only vote where you yourself have a definite idea for a decision. ♠ SG →Talk 00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Third Reich

Thanks for your comments on Goebbels. I am thinking of launching a new Misplaced Pages project to rewrite all the major Third Reich articles, which suffer from sensationalism and lack of scholarly standards. I did a draft of a new Holocaust article a while ago, but it needs to be redone with proper referencing. I recently rewrote Horst Wessel, for example, but there are many many articles in need of rewriting and referencing. Let me know if this project interests you. Adam 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism

Hello! The Herero and Namaqua Genocide page has been unblocked. Since you seem to be familiar with the subject, improving it (with sources) would certainly be a good a thing, and block any further revisionist editing (I'm thinking, for ex, on the part about the Herero skulls bring brought back to Germany to compare to German skulls in a scientific racism attempt — I wasn't the one to add this info, and have no source for it, thus I haven't included it again as others users apart of Maria Stella have expressed doubt about it. However, I don't find this surprising - see Saartje Bartman etc. - and it would nice to source it...) You might also be interested in the debate taking place at the talk place of Colonialism, which also involves two Articles for Deletion nomination. Thanks, Lapaz 15:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! This reminds me of the expression "anti-White racism" or "reverse racism" (see racism for discussions on the subject; actually, the poor state of racism-issues is what made me click on the "Herero genocide" and try to improve colonialism issues). Making an Afd (article for deletion) is actually quite simple, although the explanations might seem to make it more difficult. See Afd#How to list pages for deletion. Maria Stella surely has this page on her watch list, so she will probably vote against soon enough. Deleting pages may be tricky in some situations, as on the whole, one administrator can always decide that those who want to support the page have provided good arguments even if such is not the case (see arguments for deletion at economic totalitarianism, for ex.). However, if the page provides no source and is clearly biased, deletion usually follows. Cheers! Lapaz

Xanon

Dear White Guard, the term is correct (though I don't know who he then really is - he genuinely seems unaware of various Wiki customs like signatures etc.) and your observation seems correct as well. I tried to reason with him for a while, according to WP:AGF, but after what we wrote yesterday there is no longer any basis for that. Cheers, Str1977 06:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Anti-Germanism

Hi White Guard. I have started a deletion discussion at the new page Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion/Anti-Germanism 2, using your comments from the talk page, and listed it on today's Articles for Deletion log. This is how we normally deal with repeat nominations, although in this case the first nomination was a mistake and didn't refer to this article. Feel free to comment more in the discussion, or ask for any more help! JPD (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stalin

It doesn't matter if he in fact was a dictator a if every article in wikipedia about leaders might state they are dictators. That doesn't mean that they are. Many people don't believe stalin to be a dictator, it is a POV statement that should be reverted. He wasn't the de facto leader, de facto means "in practice" and not by the law, Stalin was leader by law! Kiske 03:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe you are right about the statement regarding him as a de facto leader. But you must know that Stalin was not objectively called a dictator. I know that the articles on Franco and Hitler also state them as dictator, but if you really want to be objective, the man shouldn't be called a dictator. Second...never label me as a political activist! This was a personal offense, I never attacked you, and I have no political prejudice, as you say! What would make you say that? Many people do not believe Stalin to be a dictator, at least in Eastern Europe, perhaps your own views might represent an American or western view, but I was born and raised in the German Democratic Republic, and not because I lived there does it mean that I have certain political prejudices like yourself. All you needed to say was call me a communist! That's all you needed! Please refrain from anymore attacks sir, I have no problems with you, but please consider respecting other people. Oh and another thing, if Stalin's real name is not stalin, why do you keep changing what I write? The article is not yours sir, and I believe it can be bettered if we state his real name and then state "better known as Joseph Stalin", just as it is stated in the Lenin article. Second, the fact he was General Secretary of the party can stay in the first paragraph, but the statement explaining what that job means is something else entirely and doesn't really belong in that portion of the article. Kiske 09:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time that I have ever heard of the term 'political activist'-which, incidentally, I did not use-being thought of as a 'personal offense'! Many people in Eastern Europe do not believe Stalin to have been a dicatator? Well, that's news to me and, I suspect, many people in Eastern Europe. White Guard 22:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do realise your assumptions and your personal judgments. You are right, Stalin has been repeatedly considered a dictator throughout the world, and perhaps the article should stay like that, even though I am still unconvinced. I personally do believe Stalin to be a dictator, and he truly was, but it seems to me that saying he was a dictator eliminated the objectivity of the article because we are qualifying his regime as being a dictatorship, and objective reasoning should not qualify anything, but merely inform, and informatively speaking, Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union, whether he was in fact a dictator or not is an entirely different matter. I hope you come to understand this. Oh and as a second point, you didn’t call me a political activist, but you did call me a political revisionist, which was just as offensive, not because I have views which are different from yours does it mean they are wrong or negative, not because I revised the article according to an objective ideal does it mean that I am a political revisionist with prejudices, I don't let my prejudices get in the way of my writing sir. Yes for your information, I do have a left wing perspective and I do have communist ideals, but that doesn't mean I have a communist prejudice on everything I write. I know what communism is like, I have lived in a communist country, I know what it is, and even though many people do not like Stalin and the old communist regimes, there are many who do. Stalin's personal guard, for example, respects the man and venerates him to this day as a man of vision and power, and doesn't believe him to be evil. I know that there are many people that hate him, but this is only because of the influence of western and right wing media and the de-Stalinization that came after his death, but at his time, Stalin was always considered a hero, and to this date, he still is to many people. In regards to the DDR, not because you lived there for a while does it mean you might get a true grasp of what living in a communist system really means. I hate the capitalist societies, I would much rather prefer living in a socialist nation than in a capitalist one, and not because you felt there was an air of "oppression" does it mean that people where not happy. There is oppression everywhere, your so-called "free world" is now turning into a police state, and every day more and more people are oppressed. People were happy in the DDR, I was, and so was my family. If you don't believe me, please investigate further on the Ostalgie movement, a movement of nostalgia of life in the DDR. Believe or not, now that people in the East have experimented your way of life they are now starting to turn back to the old ways, and East Germany is once again beginning to rise, at least in the way life was, not so much in the real political system. I hope you understand what I am trying to get through, and I do apologise for offending you as well If I ever did. But understand that everyone is entitled to his own views, and also understand that I am not trying to "win" the Stalin article, but rather collaborate in showing the truth to the world. I am not like that neo-nazi you are talking about, I would never be, but understand that the world is so entirely biased against Stalin and the communist regime that it is very hard to give them justice in an objective way, because everything objective in these points (same case with Hitler) is regarded as subjective or political by people like you.

Even the “bad guys” like Stalin and Hitler deserve objective articles. Kiske 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Allied War Crimes

I can't locate where you have made your point about the tag in the talk page. I 've started a new section about that. Until you state in the new section why the tag shoul stay, it will be removed. Mitsos 11:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Subversive element is much more open-minded than you. You are too politically correct to engage in any way with a "Greek Nazi". Mitsos 08:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No discourse, no discussion, no debate with Nazis. It is not a question of 'political correctness'-I seek to preseve myself from all forms of moral corruption and decay. Nazism is an abomination, an affront to both man and God. White Guard 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

LTV

From Labour theory of value's discussion page.

The questions arise from the article, and will remain here for those with the wit to understand and the insight to respond. And for your information Socratic questions are a technique in Greek dialectics, intended to probe for the truth. I thought all Olympians understood that; apparently not-(specifrically (sic)-what was that about remedial?). White Guard 06:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

White Guard - Cplot is right, the article discussion page is not the place to argue the toss. I'll try and answer your point here. The article is clear, when we discuss exchange value we are discussing something that follows on from the premise that someone has decided to buy something - they want/need it, and so we are looking at the process by which a price is arrived at. Nothing has exchange value without a use value and a decision to purchase - but the purchaser does not exist on their own. I often put it this way - what price would you offer as the ideal opening bid for any particular commodity? If you were rational, your opening bid would be nothing - you'd pay nothing if you could (ideally, you'd want to be paid to take the good of them, but that might entail some trouble of collecting payment, so nothing is as good a starting point as any). The supplier will then put in a counter bid of something - they want you to pay - the question of value is to decide what decides that something's magnitude.--Red Deathy 07:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages should be used to clarify points with regards to improving the article (so discussion expressed in terms of that end is fine, or on points of information that may assist in editing - but the LTV page is prone to being turned into a debating forum (it takes an act of will not to be drawn in) - but if you do have further questions on the topic, please, do ask, either at my discussion page or at LTV, but in such as way as you're clear that you're wanting to improve the article. Misplaced Pages seeks to instil productive behaviour - see the talk header at the LTV page...--Red Deathy 08:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WWII

OK, no problem. In fact, the formatting of your edits did make it appear as if you were responding to me. For future reference, a better way of formatting is to use indents to make it clear to whom you are speaking. For example:

1 First line by editor#1

2 Response to first line by editor#2

3 Response to second line by e.g. editor#1

4 Additional response directly to second line by editor#3

Hope that helps. All the best, Badgerpatrol 02:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Our friend Ion-weapon

Your probably noticed I got tired of playing with Ion-weapon. I noticed his new vandalism of Communism, and now he's moved on to personal attacks. I suspect he's minutes from getting himself blocked for trolling and vandalism, but it seemed fair to give him some warning. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 00:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do try to assume good faith. It looks like this time it was misplaced. But he's on final warning now. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not open-minded at all

You are either antisocial or too politically correct and influenced by the media. I won't loose more time trying to explain you about the whole thing. I feel sorry for you. That's all. Mitsos 09:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)