User talk:Ozhistory - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nbound (talk | contribs) at 22:42, 8 May 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:42, 8 May 2013 by Nbound (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Ozhistory! I am Bidgee and have been editing Misplaced Pages for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Bidgee (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Skiing in Australia has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Misplaced Pages. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \babout\.com\b (links: http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm, http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Skiing in Australia do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Misplaced Pages. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \babout\.com\b (links: http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm, http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Culture of Australia - under construction

I've put an "under construction" template on Culture of Australia, because we've already had a couple of edit conflicts with three people editing it today. I'll wait until you finish until I do any more. Please remove the "under construction" template, when you're done. (My intended edits are copy-edits, not restructures.) Thanks, Mitch Ames (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - will do. Almost done really. For time being I am only planning to add a Theatre in Australia section.Ozhistory (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please do review.Ozhistory (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those many sensible corrections and additions. Ozhistory (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Aust Hist

Hi. Nice section on Australian democracy you just added to History of Australia. Just a thought - should it be headed "Development of Australian Democracy" or similar? CheersNickm57 (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah, sounds good. Done.Ozhistory (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Great work on the page - terrific to have another set of eyes across the topic, I was beginning to dispair! (Pls note - A couple of citations seem to be errors) Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Pacific War

I noticed you've been working on Pacific War and I don't want to mess with it. but I made a mistake when I change the lede to add It is generally considered that the Pacific War began on 7/8 December 1941 with the Japanese invasion of Thailand for the invasion of British Malaya.... It actually began about an hour earlier. See comments I added to Talk:Citations needed badly. The present Note linking to Churchill's broadcast should be deleted; or if considered of import, moved somewhere else. --Pawyilee (talk)

Nice to know you

How about letting us have more detail about yourself? Greenmaven (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How to make redirects

Hi Ozhistory, I noticed you made a page at Catholic church and medicine with a note saying "see Catholic Church and health care". I have turned it into an actual redirect page so visitors will be automatically taken to Catholic Church and health care. I hope that's okay. If you want to make redirects yourself you can take a look at Help:Redirect. Have a nice day! —Noiratsi (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I coudn't remember how! Ozhistory (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

Hello Ozhistory. Good to meet you. Recently you "undid" an edit I created. You make a valid point and caution that we're not to "cut and paste" copyrighted publications. This I too am aware of, which is why I did not; the wording is slightly different for that reason. Perhaps, it is too close to the actual wording so there is the possibility to paraphrase with genuine intent and providing a citation for detail.

One of the problems with this Article and any involving religion and the Nazi Era is that it lends itself to emotion, controversy and sometimes, unfortunately, selective and "creative" editing of legitimate sources. This introduction allows a tone to take hold early on that promotes a NPOV to assist and encourage the Article away from becoming a battle ground of "edit wars" between those who go to extremes from all camps. This is the heart of this particular edit and should be our goal overall objective, which I'm certain you share. This Third Party reference helps in that way.

As for Pius XII - well, it is rather challenging - if not impossible - to discuss the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany without his pontificate becoming the central focus with regard to the Catholic response to Nazism and Nazi Germany. Yes? And, ultimately, it leads us there regardless of our best efforts because this is how the history unfolds naturally. Therefore, why not "cut to the chase" early on and diffuse a topic that is bound to be contentious? Not much one can do about that. So, I ask you to collaborate. I invite you to edit my input rather than simply "undo" to reach a working compromise. So, I will revert my edit for you and I look forward to your future input. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look - but it seemed to follow the Britannica text awfully closely. As for Pius XII being the crux of an article on Catholicism and Nazi Germany, I'd say he is mightily important, but there's far more to it - his predecessor Pius XI was on the spot for the rise of Nazism for a start. Ozhistory (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a difficult job, but I've tried a rewrite, keeping shorter than original but longer than yours. It now encompasses Pius number 11 as well as 12, and discusses some of the complexities of the Catholic response to Nazism and the Nazi response to Catholicism. On the material taken from Britannica, I see no reason to give focus to The Deputy or Hitler's Pope in the opening of this article as they are plainly among the least credible accounts of Pius' pontificate. I think it is enough to refer to and wikilink to existing wikipedia discussion of debate and controversy where that stuff can be found. Ozhistory (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hitler

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to say Hitler was an atheist? Stop trying to spread lies :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 07:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly many biographers and historians have reached the conclusion Hitler was atheist. Certainly he didn't believe in the capital "G" Judeo-Christian God. On the other hand he spoke about "Providence" and that sort of thing quite a bit. We can only cautiously look to public pronouncements Hitler made to make a case for what he really thought and intended - just ask Neville Chamberlain. Better to look to his actions and the testimony of his closer confidantes. On that score:

a) in power, Hitler repressed and sought to keep the Christian churches in Germany on a leash; and tried to exterminate the Jewish and Jehovah's Witness religion and people altogether.

b) Hitler's Table Talk contains an awful lot of classically atheistic comments, and repeated and explicit rejections of the Catholic beliefs his mother might have had.

There is room for caution in making a definite call here, but my sense of the history is, that whatever bloated sense of "destiny" he might have had, I doubt very much that he held any sincere religious convictions. Ozhistory (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hitler said he was a catholic and made allegiances with catholic churches. There are pictures of him attending catholic churches. His hatred for jews was deeply rooted in catholic religion. Please see the united states holocaust museum website on hitler and nazi christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 02:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is "unencyclopedic" as you put it to cite Bullocks opinion as a fact, and hypocritical to refute my citation on the basis of not being supported by multiple texts, when bullock is cited as an OPINION and not ALSO not supported by multiple texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Bullock's opinion is cited as Bullock's opinion, just as the Encyclopedia Britannica's assessment is cited as the Encyclopedia Britannica's assessment and Blainey's assessment is cited as Blainey's assessment. Toland's assessment can also be cited as Toland's assessment. That's how we keep it "encyclopedic". You are deleting all sorts of cited material, but you don't have to. Instead just draft a well written, well cited summation of your understanding of Toland's opinion and place it in the correct places in the article as another scholarly view, which can be assessed by wikipedia readers and editors. Ozhistory (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove the reference to SS men for Christ, stating that it was not what the source says, when previously you had erased a similar reference citing copy right infringement? The source obviously says that the ss where men for Christ. Furthermore if you want to have bullocks opinion in redundancy at the top of the article, then there should also be some redundancy allowed from the other side of the argument. It seems like you only allow it when it suits your views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 06:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The principle regarding copyright goes something like this. If a text says "Some fat men in blue t-shirts went up the hill", we can either place it in quotation marks and name its original author; or we can take the information and use other English words to describe the same thing: eg "a few large men walked up the hill in coloured t-shirts". We can change words, but not meaning. We could not, for examples change it to say "all fat men like to walk up mountains", which is equivalent to what you did by changing " The pro-Nazi German Christians, who were part of the Lutheran church in Germany, held that Christ had been a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan, and male members called themselves “SS men for Christ.” to "the Nazis called themselves "SS Men for Christ" as you want to do! The "German Christians" referred to, by the way, are not all the Christians of Germany, but one sect of Protestantism that adopted elements of Nazi ideology and abandoned certain elements of Traditional Christianity and called themselves "German Christians". The other principle which seems to confuse you is "redundancy". We don't mean by this that you have repeated stuff from the main article (that's fine), we mean you have repeated stuff from the introduction. The introduction should be a summary in brief of the whole article. Your edits keep re-adding material already coveredOzhistory (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between most GERMANS were Christians and most NAZIS were Christians. So take the part about the germans out. Also You seem concerned that the Nazis called themselves ss soldiers for Christ, when it actually says MALE Nazis called themselves ss soldiers for Christ. So change that, rather than taking it out. AGREED? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 08:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can I ask again that you take discussions of edits to that article to its own talk page here. As for your question, to be precise, the text you are citing says "the vast majority of Nazis considered themselves to be religious " - it does not say that most were "Christian". Also, it does NOT say "the Nazis called themselves SS for Christ". Read it again. It says one sect of Nazi-aligned Protestants called themselves that. You have to be very precise in your language when starting out editing in this complex area. Coming up with an "Aryan Jesus", for example, basically rejects the Old and New Testament of the Bible - and doing that is called apostacy or heresy by Christian churches. That's probably why the Ency. Brit. uses the word "religious" instead of "Christian" when talking about most Nazis. Our text already makes it clear that "the great majority of Germans did profess to be Christian" and that Hitler "had promoted Positive Christianity" and "gave support to the Nazi aligned Deutsche Christen church". So the issue of "Christian Nazis" and Hitler's views of them is already made perfectly clear. Ozhistory (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. 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, Misplaced Pages'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. Deadbeef (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Deadbeef. Yes, I have repeatedly asked the disruptive editor to address his concerns to the talk page, and he has not done so. He/she looks to be either a new editor, or an old editor who has come back from a ban. I had already asked a senior editor for advice on how to deal with the edits. At any rate, awareness of wikipedia etiquette, copyright infringement, reliable sourcing and deletion of cited material without explanation need to be somehow addressed to the editor. Ozhistory (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have submitted a draft edit of the introduction for Religious views of Adolf Hitler in a new section on its talk page. I have invited you and Greengrounds there so that a consensus may be made on the actual copy. Thanks, Deadbeef (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have once again submitted a draft lede paragraph for Religious views of Adolf Hitler at the bottom of the same section as before. I invite you and Greengrounds to comment on it. Dea db eef 02:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)