User talk:Illythr/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris Novikov

Hey, maybe you can add something here: [1] -YMB29 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bloody Gebnya

Wow! that was "Bloody KGB henchmen". Not a good joke.Biophys (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're taking this way too seriously. Seriously. Check out the same-named article at lurkmore.ru. Besides, Rouge admins are exactly that for all champions of WP:TRUTH out here. --Illythr (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If User:Future Perfect at Sunrise does not know Russian, he will not be offended. But I can only imagine what would happen if I said such thing to any Russian-speaking administrator. Whatever. This is all subjective. You tell something to a Russian, and he laughs. You tell the same to a Caucasian highlander, and he will kill you. According to US harassment manuals (there are such), this all depends on perception. If you make sexual advances to a girl and she likes it, that's fine. But if she does not, that's harassment.Biophys (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

He will not be offended, because he's a rouge admin - an utterly evil, unscrupulous, evil, paid member of KGB, CIA and, of course, ZOG (did I mention evil?) out to silence the bold voices of the Truth™ here on Wikipedia in the most horrid manner imaginable. No, really, just read the page. I certainly hope he does understand the KGB reference.

In any case, perhaps a look at the context will clear your confusion: Fut. Perf. has recently blocked a sockpuppet of an extremely persistent banned user who had been disrupting the Continuation War page for several months. The user is pretty much the epitome of a Defender of the Truth™ and has accused me of supporting KGB propaganda before, so, clearly, anyone who blocks him must be a bloody henchman of the KGB. Oh yeah, and note the emoticon. If anything, that is an insult to Fut. Perf.'s intelligence. I hope he'll forgive me... --Illythr (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You should not use Russian words in messages addressed to people who do not know Russian. Imagine that someone posted me a message: "thank you very much, fucking idiot!", but wrote words "fucking idiot" in Mandarin Chinese. I think: "what a nice man...", but he thinks: "what an idiot, I curse him but he does not even know" (that's a real life situation). And calling someone "krovavavaya gebnya" is not really funny, because this is a very common derogatory expression meaning only one thing: "you, tortures and sadists from the Russian secret police" (modern day FSB, OMON, KGB, etc). And that was said in response to indefinite ban. Hence my reaction. But whatever, I do not really care.19:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps if you read the articles WP:TRUTH and WP:ROUGE (more carefully?) you'll understand why that was quite the opposite of an insult. Also, the term "Кровавая Гэбня" has long since passed into humorous usage (at least, online), much more so than ZOG has. --Illythr (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not here. Biophys (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"...в фашистской России чекисты-сатанисты постоянно похищают и убивают мусульманских и/или христианских детей на еврейский праздник пейсах..." ("...in Fascist Russia Chekists-Satanists constantly kidnap and kill Muslim and Christian children on the Jewish holiday of Pesach...") - can anyone actually read this and keep a straight face? Bias and propaganda is one thing, but this is just funny. Kavkazcenter must be a secret Kremlin project aiming to show the world how crazy some of its opposition is. :-) --Illythr (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I indicated this link only to show that debates of "Bloody Gebnya" (they use such expression) are not necessarily funny.Biophys (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of usage that both helps make it funny and discredit opposition to the Kremlin. Not even Soviet propaganda was that bad (maybe in the early '30s or so). I can't help but think that the authors wrote it for fun, just to troll some thick-headed Russian nationalists. --Illythr (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

However you might perceive it, authors are deadly serious. And so their usage of the expression, which does not mean I agree with their claims. This is all not funny, because people are getting regularly bloody killed, even among their own ranks (like Surikov or two coworkers of Gen. Bulbov), not mentioning Litvinenko and many others.Biophys (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If they're make these silly claims in all seriousness, well, what can I say? When real NKVD/KGB/FSB crimes are being drowned out in this nonsense, no wonder people stop taking it all seriously. --Illythr (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you are intelligent enough to decide what was real and what was not in their post. But one should also be informed about things like this. There are serious cover-ups from all sides. As about the Kavkaz Center, it is certainly used by the FSB for promoting disinformation. It is already a good tradition that an unknown person from the previously unknown organization calls to kavkaz.org after every terrorism act to declare that they are responsibility. That was one of the reasons for Akhmed Zakayev to claim that Udugov is a double FSB agent. In response, Udugov issued him a death warrant. Also not a funny stuff.Biophys (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is now a matter of fun... No, Zionist Occupation Government is not a good analogy. Imagine a generation of contemporary Jews who believe that "Bloody Holocaust" was a very funny joke. That would be it. First of all, I would strongly recommend you to read this famous novel if you did not read it. Did you read stories by Varlam Shalamov? You may also look this, this,this, this. That's Bloody Gebnya. Biophys (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ZOG is used to make fun of people who see the Long Jewish Hand whenever they step into a heap of fertilizer or eat a foul sandwich. Conversely, Bloody Gebnya is used to make fun of the people who take the first link above seriously (and believe it, that is). A natural reaction to attempts at demonizing something and Doing It Wrong. This should be an important lesson to any would-be propagandist - if the propaganda is too inept and pathetic, there's a good chance its recipients will begin to sympathise with the target instead. --Illythr (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course this is very different right now: [2]. But when such things became a matter of fun, I can only think about this (please listen). Sorry, but I came from a different generation. Biophys (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. --Illythr (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Igor Smirnov

Cease and desist your vandalism of the Igor Smirnov page, euobserver is a legitimate news outlet and verifies the claim regarding his nickname. It seems as though as a Moldovan, you disagree with this from an ideological standpoint perhaps, but it is a well sourced claim, and therefore must stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.36.206 (talk • contribs)

It's still unencyclopedic and the text in the sources does not correspond to the one you're inserting. Feel free to make your case and build consensus on the article talk page first. --Illythr (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Illythr. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk page]] if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Tim Song (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! --Illythr (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivial question ;)

Hey,
You come from Moldova and you don't know Moldovan (Cyrillic Romanian) language? ;) Kubek15 ^write/sign 12:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm an evil neo-colonialist. In fapt, eu pot să citi articole rezonabil de scurt în limba aceasta, dar nu pot să contribui, chiar la un nivel de bază. By the way, the Cyrillic version was phased out long ago, so technically, no one "knows" it outside of Transnistria, where it is still taught. Оф корс, олл ит тэйкс ту ноу зис "вёршн" оф зе лэнгуэдж из Ромэниан, модэн Сайриллик алфабет энд а фью мо лэттез. --Illythr (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

South Ossetia War title

Seeing as you have commented on the section, I was wondering if you had an opinion on whether the proposed title is an acceptable compromise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's... me!

Here's looking at you, kid! ;) Dahn (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

I must admit that actually missed one very popular title which seems to outperform all others I have tried, so I actually rewrote move request now.--Staberinde (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, maybe add "2008" and restart? Both oppose votes (currently) seem to take issue only with that. --Illythr (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, the problem of compromise solutions is that *both* sides won't accept it instead of just one. --Illythr (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

REvert and your edits

Hi

You may not have noticed but I put Unexplained deletion of "see also and section headers"

The Swedes section was for main articles which relate to Swedish-Rus relations as well as the synopsis which was to follow.

Fine, someone put the wrong main article in but the fact is that the whole section was deleted as well as the "main" link instead of just the article to which the "main" linked

Please see Grand Prince of Kiev and Varangians

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The subsection consisted solely of a false "see also" template. Appropriate action in such a case is to either fix or delete it, not restore false information. So your first and second reverts were wrong, but then you corrected yourself by adding the right links (well, it could be argued that neither of those two articles have anything to do with foreign relations of the Rus' state, but rather with its founding, but I'm not picky). Problem solved. --Illythr (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats like saying that the Saxons came to Britain, founded a few churches and then had nothing to do with us after that - they were here for quite a few years and in that time we had relations with them

I really think that you are being picky with your comment about not being picky lol and the 31 words you typed to explain how "not picky" you were being.

We had a group of three working on the article and it was stable around two weeks ago..[3]

Then an IP editor 5 edits before the current IP editors edit makes the stupid addition of something unrelated.

There is no need for the current IP editor to delete the whole section. If either of you looked at the history you will see it was there waiting for the expansion as a blank section header

My first and second reverts were not wrong and I did not correct myself by adding the right links. Either of you could have done that but you made me leave important work to do it for you both.

Next time maybe don't put remarks lke "actually he was right " when he wasn't - he gave no summary

88.119.230.19 (talk) (46,314 bytes) (→Swedes) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)

he deleted the section instead of just the link, or the link and the see also, and now you try to lecture me on whether I was right or not...

You too could have restored the article back to a good state but you too chose to remove the section header, see also and the link.

I was in the middle of edits totalling 20,000 words so I do not see why EITHER of you couldnt just go "Oh that links wrong, oh it was that IP editor that messed the article up for them, tell you what I'll just look up the right articles and put them in instead of deleting everything"

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You reverted to the version with the "stupid addition of something unrelated", instead of "restoring the article back to a good state" twice. That's a bad thing.

If you want to prevent the deletion of empty sections, use the {{Expand section}} template.

Next time maybe don't put remarks lke "actually he was right " when he wasn't - he gave no summary - this makes no sense. Leaving no edit summary has nothing to do with an edit being right or wrong.

Not sure what you mean by 20,000 words edits - those two edits of yours were semi-automated reverts via Twinkle. --Illythr (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

something weird's going on

Uh, hi. After your message on my talk page, I clicked on your contributions today to see if you posted to WP:Poland. Then I saw your reverts: [4] and [5]. Then saw that you had posted to "Pashko 3"'s talk page (which he then removed): [6].

Then I clicked around and it appears that there's also a "Pashko 2" [7], [8]. I checked for "Pashko 4" but there does not appear to be such a person, though there is just plain ol' "Pashko", [9], which has no contributions, apparently because they got speedy deleted. It's also pretty obvious that the 188 IP is also the same person. So... I don't think this person is trying to sock or anything, unless s/he's not just not very creative with his sockpuppet names. S/he's also marking all his edits, including some major moves, as minor. Which would suggest that it's just someone completely unaware of standard Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Except... Pashko 3's... wait, no, Pashko 2's, first ever edit on Wikipedia was the creation of a perfectly formatted, very aesthetic template [10]. S/he's also very comfortable with infoboxes [11] (and removes copyright templates). I've been on Wikipedia for 6 years and formatting tempaltes and infoboxes still gives me trouble. Any idea what's going on with all of this?radek (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is my favorite of all their moves.radek (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty obvious sockpuppeteer to me. It's also possible that this person doesn't know about WP:SOCK and creates new accounts whenever the fancy strikes him (hence the otherwise suicidal account "indexing" and things like this.) Have you seen his contribs before? I only noticed him today when he renamed one of the WW2 battles that are still on my watch list. If he's disruptive (his deletion of my post implies this), we should probably report him to ANI. Otherwise, not sure, post him a reminder about the unacceptable use of "parallel" accounts? --Illythr (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly being disruptive since he's making mass moves and marking them as minor, deleting copyright notifications (a big no-no), using multiple accounts etc. He hasn't popped up on my radar before, but then again I haven't been paying much attention to lots of Eastern European articles for the past six months. Um... it's either somebody who is completely ignorant of Wikipedia rules, or knows them but chooses not follow them since he hasn't (AFAICT) been sanctioned before. Either ask at AN/I or let some administrator know.radek (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This, for once, is a clear breach of WP:SOCK. Okay, I'll post another summary notice on his talk page. If he continues, we can go to ANI. --Illythr (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you start to move back Pashko's changes don't forget about Vopli Vidopliasova. VV themselves do spell the band name with two s[12], maybe because it's a quotation from a Russian book. Anyway spelling with one s is incorrect. Närking (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I only reverted the moves I was sure were incorrect (i.e., new name could not be looked up on Google Books). The VV move seemed correct (I admit, I didn't bother checking their site)... Odd that it is spelled with the double "s." It's only one "s" in Russian and Ukrainian. It makes sense only for German, where one "s" would spell it "Vidoplyazova." Anyhow, reverted. --Illythr (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know why but they are indeed known as Vopli Vidopliassova in English. Their website tells so as well as the CDs I have. Maybe it's French spelling then. They or at least the singer has spent some time there. I haven't seen them live but I guess it would be interesting. Meanwhile I hope to see Splean in Moscow later this month! Anyway, thanks for the move back! Närking (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the user is paying attention [13] and they continue to delete the messages [14] this time calling them "vandalism". I'm starting to think to that this isn't just someone acting in ignorance of Wikipedia policy but rather someone who thinks that they don't need to hide their socks because they figure they can always create more of them.radek (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My main computer gave up the ghost recently, so I'm in a bit of a forced wikibreak now. As I see it, he's a prime target for a block due to total disregard of Wikipedia rules and procedures. If he's still at it, you can now go straignt to ANI, as he's been given ample warning that he has chosen to ignore. --Illythr (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Roachies

Hi Illythr. Sorry for the late reply, I've been away. Thanks for showing me that link, that was really hilarious to see. Guess I can have my own article on Wikipedia now without violating WP:NOTABLE. :-D Best regards, Húsönd 21:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Those roaches have feet that attach to any surface, like most insects. They'd never fall down, the forces of gravity mean nothing to them. They could eventually crawl up my sleeve, but in fact these roaches walk so slowly that I could easily prevent any of them from doing that. Most people look at that picture and compare them with common roaches, which are fast and just plain disgusting. These, on the other hand, are very placid and interesting creatures. :-) Regards, Húsönd 09:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Viena expedition

Yeah, i know that not all of them rebelled. Some even took arms with Bolsheviks. But what i meant to say there was that of the Karelians who had joined the British organized units due to misleading promises of free Karelian state and fought against Finns in 1918 most took arms with Finns in 1920-22 againt Soviets to gain just that free Karelian state as both situation and Finnish rhetorics (annexation -> new state) had changed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it was just a reference to the later uprising. If you can source this (i.e., that the uprising consisted of the very same Karelians who formed the British-organized units), the statement can be amended to mean what you originally intended. --Illythr (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... got to see if i can find a direct quote in some source for that. Though it probably ain't worth the trouble. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Illythr. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 22:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Voodoo

Umm, OK, I'm confused. Why would anyone think it's OK to resolve a missing citation by shoving in an empty ref??? The infobox "citation missing" tags are no different from the "citation missing" tags elsewhere—the only proper way to get rid of them is by supplying a citation! Or am I missing the point of the question somehow? Can you clarify?

The only thing which is different with the infobox refs is that they are supposed to go into a separate "_ref" field (i.e., the "established_date" field's ref would go into "established_date_ref"), not next to the bit of data being referenced. This is because our parser does not have a good way to parse a parameter to check whether <ref> tags are present, so the ref needs to go into a separate parameter. But that quirk is pointed out in the template documentation.

For examples of the properly populated template, see Novosibirsk and Nizhny Novgorod. There are no "citation missing" tags there. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 30, 2010; 17:43 (UTC)

I know, I know. But, a claim like that is something that "is likely to be challenged", hence the citation is required. Plus, a "city" is not always a city; I've seen urban-type settlements and even rural localities labeled as "cities" in the infobox as well. Having a ref in such cases is more than appropriate. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 30, 2010; 21:22 (UTC)

Fixing dead links

I found few more you can improve: http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/33490_1.htm is live as http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo.php?id=3919678; [15] is dead but seems to have been based on an offline archive ([16]), [17] is archived at [18]. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

1. The link to the Polish encyclopedia is probably unnecessary, as both events, the Phony War and Western betrayal are blue links with adequate sourcing of their own. 2. I think I saw a Russian secondary source somewhere to support that. Replaced. 3. Restored, thanks.

Hey, can you find anything regarding the two remaining citation requests? I think that the one about Churchill's views is fairly important and the other one, about the allegations that Germany knew about Katyn beforehand lies at the root of the para and its removal will break up the text flow. --Illythr (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, may I suggest you copy your question here, and when (if) I find something, I will reply there and notify you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done. --Illythr (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Transnistria Governorate

Can you have a look at Talk:Transnistria_(World_War_II)#Requested_move? It think the more precise title would be Transnistria Governorate, since the other could imply an article about the smaller region (PMR or Transnistria region of Moldova) during WWII. Transnistriei (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow up at: Talk:Transnistria_(World_War_II)#Requested_move. And yes, some admins do blocking like others do sports. Or like others work on content. Was nice to see you edits and those of User:ITSENJOYABLE on the Transnistria Governorate page. Trans-Dniestr (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless you resolve the socking issues somehow, your contributions are going to be reverted constantly, you know. --illythr (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How can I solve it? And see: User_talk:Dr._Blofeld#November_2010, some really do it like sports. Reverting, do you support that? Is that to the benefit of WP? What is actually wrong with socking, if one got blocked OUT-OF-POLICY in the first place? Trans-Dniestr (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed the reasons for you original blocks, but it's obvious that unless you settle the issue (perhaps, with ArbCom) you won't be able to contribute normally. Creating throwaway socks like that, which is a blockable offense by itself, will only assure everyone that you have indeed broken the rules the first time around. --illythr (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ALSO

The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist. - Well, that's concise and unambiguous. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Some people may get annoyed when you revert them like that, so be careful. :-) --illythr (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. On the one hand, I agree. On the other, if they can't express themselves clearly, then that's their problem, not mine. Hmmmmm. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) (Somebody wise once said: "The world would be a much simpler place if there weren't any people in it.")

The drawing is real, and the photography is fake...

Dear Illythr,

Can it be true, that this drawing is not fake: a Nazi propaganda poster from WWII Source And the documentary photography from 1941 from Poland is fake? Execution from Waffen SS Why that civillians are dressed in military greatcoat? In Nurenberg the date of Katyn Massacre is fixed on the last months of 1941. Do Wikipedia trust with Nurenberg trial or with Josef Goebbels theory? This is your text: At the London conference that drew up the indictments of German war crimes before the Nuremberg trials, the Soviet negotiators put forward the allegation, "In September 1941, 925 Polish officers who were prisoners of war were killed in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk." ? I please you to say your name and I will bring the question to the higer level in wiki site. You express the private opinion, dear friend and it is obviously!

Best regards,

Santimento (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the photo is very real. It has nothing to do with the Katyn massacre, however.

Please consult the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources.

The phrases the Soviets used during the Nuremberg Trials were "last quarter of 1941" and "autumn 1941". The s:ru:Сообщение Специальной Комиссии (Бурденко)#Общие выводы:Burdenko report also used the phrase "autumn 1941" with the more exact date being "August-September 1941".

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand the last part of your message. --illythr (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that you trust that the photo is very real. This place is Poland and the year is 1941. The victims are dressed in greatcoat. You must accept, that this is not the fake. The word "Katyn" is byword. All the murdered military in Poland in this period are to do with the Katyn massacre. If you do not see the to do with massacre of prisoners of war in Poland however, I entreat you to consult with anybody other in Wikipedia team about this simple questions: 1. Are the Nurenberg trial decisions is the fringe theory?! 2. Are the Nazi soldiers executing civilians on this foto? 3. Are the image's description is entirely sourceless? 4. Are in the number of murdered militaries in Katyn not have Polish and Soviet Jews? 5. Why the Wikipedia's opinion for the Katyn massacre is so firmly? (The national coat of arms in the document "decision of massacre" is in use from 1946). 6. Why so many times you change the reason for deletion of this foto?

Best regards, Santimento (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The place of the photo is Poland (apparently). The place of the Katyn massacre is Russia.

No, the image is not fake, the allegation that it has something to do with Katyn is.

No, Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles are an entirely different thing. They took place in occupied Poland, for starters.

1. Nuremberg trials dismissed the Soviet claims of German responsibility of the massacre. Therefore, these claims are not mentioned in any of the court decisions.

2. Hard to tell. The one you provided says that these are Polish and Soviet Jews.

3. The claim that it has something to do with Katyn or 1941 is indeed entirely sourceless.

4. No Soviet Jews there, that's for sure.

5. I already suggested you to examine the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Please do so now.

6. The deletion nomination mechanism on Commons is kinda awkward. --illythr (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Illythr,

You say that this is not Katyn. Well tell me then where is this mass grave? Where except in Katyn is dressed in greatcoats, shot behind scull corpses and tied back with his hands? Give me the exact name of this massacre? In Babi Yar the execution is by machine-gun. Site rules do not exclude the photo to speak for itself. Importantly, it is not fake. Recognizing that the photo is authentic, you acknowledge that it has to do with the Katyn massacre. The source indicates that these are the Poles and that it happened in 1941. The opinion of legal experts at the Nuremberg trial is shown the last quarter of 1941. In criminology, there is the concept of "handwriting of the killer", which is accepted by any court as evidence. Even if not 100% proof that it's Katyn, you may not delete the photo and I will notify the owners of Wikipedia. This is the site of people and you have to expose all perspectives. People have a right to know. You can not disable them so. It is possible that part of the officers have been killed by the SS. This does not conflict with other photos (and paintings). We can reach agreement without having to get help of the highest instances of Wikipedia. Tell me how we can reach this agreement. The rest are political considerations.

Santimento (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Recognizing that the photo is authentic, you acknowledge that it has to do with the Katyn massacre. - ehh, because you slapped a bit of text onto it? I sense a great disturbance in Causality. It is as if a million of logicians have cried out in agony and were suddenly silenced. Anyhow, there's no need to duplicate the same text. The deletion discussion is over there. --illythr (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Illythr, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Illythr. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, eh, of course, officer, these trinkets, uh, they just appeared on my talk page, uhh, accidentally... By themselves, you know? It's not that I uh, took them for someone, honest! No-no, I'd never ever do something like that, nosirree! Ehhehheheh... --illythr (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)