Jump to content

User talk:Anonymiss Madchen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sascha Kreiger (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 30 July 2011 (→‎New section on Rape during to occupation of Germany: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Subpages

  1. User talk:Anonymiss Madchen/Genocide Denial (Talk:Rape During the occupation of Germany)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Anonymiss Madchen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Schrandit (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the quote from Patton reminds me this. Just a note, no hard feelings.Biophys (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons licensed materials

As long as you live up to the conditions laid out by the Creative Commons license you are good to go. I see a lot of Wikipedia content successfully re-used on other websites. - Schrandit (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, observe a chronological order

I moved you last post there [1]. The talk pages are not a forum to promote your views, so, please do not use the WP pages in that way. Do not forget to sign your posts. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your questionable post

Dear Anonymiss Madchen. I am still waiting you to retract this your edit:

"How would the 200,000 Germans killed in concentration camps by Nazis for being Jewish feel about the Russian genocide?"

While it may be acceptable to equate a barbarous political organisation with animals, it is quite unacceptable to do the same in the case of a whole nation. In my opinion, it is quite necessary to remove this statement (as well as other statements of that type), otherwise sanctions against you may follow.
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, but I have to return to this issue again. You placed the quote from the primary source that is a direct insult of the whole nation [2]. I would like you to explain what idea did you want to convey by that. If you really share the idea that "the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks", and you really want that idea to be implemented in the article, you probably should not edit Wikipedia. That is my last warning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Taking into account that the full Patton's quote ("The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.") has such a profound idea that "good Russian is a dead Russian", I see absolutely no use in this quote for the Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany talk page. You either remove this post completely or I report you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PPS I also expect you to immediately remove all racist crap from your user page [3]. You have one day for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Anonymiss Madchen. Do not forget to read the play [4], and, importantly, please, watch the film.
Cheers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide denial

By self-reverting this your post [5] you did a right thing: that was a legal threat, so you could be blocked indefinitely for that. Of course, I myself would ton report you (I hate this type things and I try to avoid that), however, any other user who monitor my talk page could do that.
Regarding the essence of the post you deleted, I concede, I had to make myself more clear. Rummel worked during the times when no reliable information were available for the USSR and other Communist countries. He elaborated his own approach to estimate the number of victims and this approach has been criticised by other scholars in general (see, e.g. Barbara Harff. Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119), in a context Yugoslavia (Tito's Slaughterhouse: A Critical Analysis of Rummel's Work on Democide. Author(s): Tomislav Dulić. Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 85-102), and in a context of the USSR (Geoffrey Swain. Reviewed work(s): Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 by R. J. Rummel. Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766). All these authors argue that the Rummel's methodology gives numbers that are systematically skewed towards the largest estimates. The works of these and other scholars my conclusions are based on are published in Western scholarly journals, so they have nothing in common with Communist propaganda.
Interestingly, Rummel's claims that he published in peer-reviewed journals are much more modest, he never use the terms like "decamegamurderers" in his scholarly articles. I strongly recommend you to read scholarly sources instead on propaganda web sites, because, despite your good faith, your brain is simply poisoned with this bull&h&t.
Re GULAG, I didn't claim 2 million were killed there. 2 million is the amount of those who died there from various causes. See, e.g. the opinion of Robert Conquest:

"We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. However taken, these are surely 'high' figures." (Victims of Stalinism: A Comment Author(s): Robert Conquest Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319)

Note, this figure (18 million) is the total number of intake to GULAG (i.e. Siberian camps) PLUS labour colonies (which were situated in less remote areas, and where the terms were less than 3 years) PLUS labour settlements. The maximum amount of prisoners in GULAG (1953) was ca 2 million (less than in contemporary USA). Total mortality (including mortality from diseases, hunger, mostly in 1942) was ca 2 million, and executions were just a minor part of these deaths.
To avoid possible misunderstanding, please, try to understand that I fully realise that the conditions in GULAG were terrible, the death of even 2 million people (plus 1.2 million executions during Great Purge and similar events, plus 5-8 million famine and disease deaths, plus deportations) is a great tragedy. However, that does not mean anyone who inflate these figures beyond any reasonable limits is a freedom fighter, and, accordingly, anyone who argues that the figures were less impressive is a fascist or a Nazi.
I am absolutely convinced in your good faith, however you definitely need to educate yourself. Please, do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a schmuck

[6] <-- change this or I'll report you myself. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing OK?

I noticed your requests on RSN which led me to the article you were interested in editing. I had to revert one of your edits, then I saw that a lot of people have been shooting you down left and right. I don't want you to come away from Wikipedia with an impression that the encyclopedia is a bunch of bureaucratic jerks that block everyone's ideas...it can seem that way sometimes, particularly if you start out with a certain viewpoint to express and are still learning the finer points of neutrality. Just remember that whatever project you have outside of here, this is a community of equals and we strive for (and occasionally achieve) an unbiased article representative of all viewpoints.

It's better to be headstrong and make mistakes than too timid to get your feet wet. Mistakes happen but the important thing is that you apologized and expressed willingness to learn. I'm putting this on your talk page in case anyone is considering implementing a block: we're all new once and the most important thing is to not scare newcomers away from contributing. There are complex standards and policies, and the ever-present reminder to ignore them, so a little confusion is unavoidable for every new user. Above all remember that this is not a place to promote personal ideas and always follow the basic rules. Treat others well, stay neutral, and everything else falls into place (well, usually). 96.228.129.69 (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name-calling

I'm not a neo-Nazi and I take offense at your comment. --Habap (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Anonymiss Madchen, 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:Anonymiss Madchen. 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.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Please self-revert your move and start a discussion on the talk page

Please self-revert your move and start a discussion on the talk page. This kind of move requires consensus and reliable sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at WP:AN/I Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Mass rape by the Red Army. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rape WWII

Hello AM. I haven’t really followed the debates at Rape during the occupation of Germany involving Paul S, but it's not hard to guess the discussions. Me too I find rape and murder by the Russians in Germany and Finland horrific. But in the context of WWII, I think we can expect otherwise reasonable people to say "so they're f...ing Nazis aren't they". I don't think it's accurate to compare opinions about WWII events to opinions of someone who had a bad time in school evolving into a rapist. SlightSmile 02:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Rape during the liberation of Poland, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Toddst1 (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'd strongly caution you to focus on writing articles, not on trying to score points in debates - particularly, if the comments are not necessarily civil. Wikipedia does not take kindly to flaming, or other discussion fora-like behavior. Over the years, I've seen many editors blocked and banned for being to frank in expressing their views. Take this as a warning, and try to focus on improving articles. An article is going to be read by thousands, a passionate discussion posts, by few dozen at best - and may get you in trouble. I'd hope that this makes the priorities clear. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Could you please remove from your userpage your comments about Germans and J. Robert Lilly, both of which to be against the Digwuren sanctions and in the second case violates WP:BLP guidelines. TFD (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (Hohum @) 00:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New section on Rape during to occupation of Germany

I started a new section about propaganda claims; you can go add to if you want.

Sascha Kreiger (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymiss_Madchen&oldid=442216020"