User talk:Virago250

Herero and Namaqua Genocide

Hi Virago, I removed your addition to this article because it was not referenced. I also do not think that the statement holds water--to claim that it was the Nazis who set up Shark Island, decades before the Nazis were formally founded, seems to be unsound. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on: Also on Shark Island, Namibia: If you cannot provide a reference for the claim of an extermination camp then you cannot write it that way, as it would be considered Original Research. --Pgallert (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the references for both articles. It does not need five of them, but without any we cannot let it stand. --Pgallert (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, one more issue I got aware of: You're certainly not the author of the "Blue Book", so you shouldn't claim the scan as your own work, even if it is your scan. I believe for a book older than 75 years "Public Domain" regulations apply; maybe you want to change the license information accordingly. Furthermore, as the Blue Book is still a somewhat scarce resource, it would be really great if you could scan the entire book. I write about the history of Namibia on Wikipedia, and I have never seen a copy of this book, although I know of its existence. Again, this would be a GREAT resource to work on the German history in Namibia. If you could make the time available, I would appreciate it very much. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Pgallert!

Thank you for explaining why you removed my addition to the articles on Shark Island and the Herero and Namaqua Genocide. Thanks as well for acknowledging what I did right, in undoing your removal and adding references. (I realize that five references may seem excessive, but these are all legitimate and reliable references.) The .jpg of the 1918 Blue Book cover is indeed my own scan, but I'll change the copyright information so that it conforms to Wikipedia and legal policy.

As for scanning the Blue Book itself: since the 1918 Blue Book was taken out of public distribution in 1926, copies of the original are now quite rare. I located the copy whose cover I scanned, in a restricted library of a well-known University at the West Coast of the U.S. The public is normally not permitted to copy more than 10 pages of such documents at a time, and the original Blue Book is over 300 pages long. An annotated reproduction of this same Blue Book was made available in 2003, and the text is available as an ebook. Try:

http://ebookee.org/Words-Cannot-Be-Found-German-Colonial-Rule-in-Namibia-An-Annotated-Reprint-of-the-1918-Blue-Book_270820.html

The service through which the text can be downloaded, is NOT free, but it is possible to get a free two-week trial.

Best regards,Virago250 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Virago, will try this. --Pgallert (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your contributions in the topic of German Empire's genocide in early XX century Africa. There aren't many contributors with that knowledge on wiki and any contribution is welcomed that expands the article in helpful and scholarly matter.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also to add my thanks (but I must ask you to be a bit more cautious. The subject is of an extremely delicate nature). I'm particularly interested in this translation: "I will annihilate the rebelling tribes with rivers of blood and rivers of gold. Only after a complete uprooting will something new emerge.". Could you please provide us with the precise source (author, book, chapter, page, translator)? Is it a part of a larger quote? Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Study

Hi, I backed out the section on political studies which is a very lengthy quote, most of which is highly contentious: Twin studies don't presuppose genetic influence: they can find there is none. They don't fai to separate out genetic and environmental influences: They are one of the few designs that can separate these, and do so. Most of what is in your quote appears to be a repetition of the criticisms already covered in that section of this article. As research from any area can be used for political purposes, I am not sure I see the rationale for such a section. Shall we have t-test used for political purposes when group means are compared? Tim bates (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Astrocog Re. Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive

Hi. How can you note that this article mainly relies on one external source, and see that the article is almost entirely quotes from that source, but also tag it as possibly containing original research? This seems utterly contradictory to me. Please disambiguate! Thanks, Virago250 (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about format of Phenogenetics

When I created the Phenogenesis article I expected to see a Table of Contents with my second-level headers. However, there is no Table of Contents. What code does this article lack, that needs to be added to display a TOC?

Hello buddy. I will be back in 5 secconds to help!

Levonscott User talk:Levonscott User:Levonscott 04:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am back! What was the page? Can you please give me the link by using [[Pagename]] please! Reply here please!

Levonscott User talk:Levonscott User:Levonscott 04:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phenogenetics. Thank you!

Thanks! For the issue, can you please adress the section of the page you need helping with? Thanks! Levonscott User talk:Levonscott User:Levonscott 04:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have revised your question and saw what you are asking for. Please disregard my last post... As for the question, to get a TOC you need to have more than 4 sections to get it. To get a seccond level header you must use ===TopicName=== There you go, it should work! Fingers crossed... Reply here if it doesn't work. Levonscott User talk:Levonscott User:Levonscott 04:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can force a TOC to appear by putting __FORCETOC__ if you really want. See WP:TOC. Chzz ► 05:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Copyrighted Images Found in the German Wikipedia

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The JPG "Symp 300 swakop kz schaedel.jpg" can be viewed at the German Wikipedia site (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Symp_300_swakop_kz_schaedel.jpg).

The photograph identifies workers at Swakopmund Concentration Camp crating skulls. Tne English language Wikipedia does not indicate in any way that Swakopmund was ever a concentration camp, but this is easily verified if required.

The creator of the page displaying the visual states clearly that you cannot copy a copyright-protected photograph. However, a page on the German Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_Island_(Namibia) successfully displays this photo. I do not wish to violate their copyright or protections, but would like to display this image in a Wiki article on the English Wikipedia, just as they do. How can I link to the German Wiki page without using an HTTP reference, but using a standard double-bracket Wikilink?

If this can't be done, what is the distinction between copyright and censorship?

The photograph in question is very sensitive. Attempts have been made to censor material dealing with the people and photographs of the Nazi Era as well as personnel and photographs referring to the same people active both in the Second Reich and Third Reich. Eugen Fischer is well known to have obtained skulls from German South-West Africa (possibly Shark Island, Namibia) in 1908, and then used these same skulls while Director of the KWI-A, before he joined the Nazi party. The photo in question shows how skulls from German South-West Africa were made available to Germans in Berlin.

On an article, you can put de:**German article name here**, such as is done on Shark Island, Namibia with the de:Shark Island (Namibia) which will link the articles (look at the left column). Since the image is dated 1905/6, it could be transferred here or Commons under the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} license, & the image could then be used in the article/s that you'd noted. Skier Dude (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

Sorry, you switched on my alarmbells with your edits of Eugenics in the United States. With a known sockmaster active on the same field of interest (eugenics in relation to Nazi-Germany), I had to ask for an investigation. See here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClaudioSantos. If I am wrong, your name will be cleared and I will openly apologize! Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a checkuser pointed out that you are really a different user then ClaudioSantos. So I sincerely apoligize to you about my unfounded suspicion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Night of the Big Wind:

I'm glad that you realize that I'm not ClaudioSantos.

I make every effort I can to seriously research the topics I write about, obtaining books or other written material of high scholarly quality. If possible, several sources. I would consider it unprofessional and morally wrong to write about topics using nonsense or gross personal feelings, etc. Although at times I have made mistakes, as the mistakes are pointed out I correct them. Almost always, the mistakes have been things that have required judgement, such as something not appearing to be immediately relevant (though not false). On occasion I go back and change the phrasing to make sure that I've captured the precise sense of how something was meant, not to include or exclude information that was intended in the source.

I'm curious about what ClaudioSantos has done or said, and hope that you and I have a similar attitude about writing done on Wikipedia.

The only other failing that in my mind I could be accused of, is that sometimes I enter information and need more time to add further information or more sources. Until the further information or sources are provided, my material is somewhat vulnerable (because I'm not quite finished).

Thank you for your honesty, and best wishes,

Virago250 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put it short: endlessly POV-pushing and relating euthanasia, eugenatics, abortion, family planning and everything related to that in relation to the horrors van Nazi-Germany. Good enough to earn the broadest topic ban ever issued and driving quite some people almost insane. Any for of discussion was just a waste of time. He said yes, but did no. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

Your contributions to Wikipedia are of great value. I would like to express my deepest thanks that you devote time and effort to improve its content in scholarly way. Thanks and once more thanks again. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your support, MyMoloboaccount.

As I said, I don't object to a name change for German Ost (East). However, perhaps we could suggest that "German Ost" be prserved in some manner? The reason is that at the end of the article, I point out that Max Planck Archive personnel are censoring "Ost" material. This is not personal research, but is the reason why I link to "Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive. Thus the "Ost" is the link between "German Ost (East)" and "Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive".

Censorship is very difficult to establish, so maintaining this record is important.

Best regards,Virago250 (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topics are interesting, and they should be included of course. For example the Heimat literature is worthy of an article. Also a word of advice;having been on Wiki for years, I would suggest just reporting facts and avoiding engagement in personal debates or anything that can be misinterpreted as personal attack etc. There are many people who will want to delete information you provide and could use that as pretext to block you. So just write articles and concentrate on facts and it will be ok.Otherwise you can be drawn to useless baits that only serve to have you blocked and information removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuscation of the Historical Record Due to Conflation and Deletion of Material

Itsmejudith's modifications to Shark Island, German South West Africa, though well-intended, have obscured two extremely important areas in the historical record:

1. Shark Island, German South West Africa was renamed Shark Island Concentration Camp. However, great efforts were made to provide citations that substantiate that Shark Island was the world's first extermination camp, not merely a concentration camp.

2. A great deal of research to find the proper citations to find officials of German African colonies who worked during the Second Reich and also worked during the Third Reich; thus, bridging the Second and Third Reichs. This bridge was not insignificant, as is noted by one of my citations by Hannah Arendt. Furthermore, one of the officials worked during the Third Reich to establish an 'internal colony' by Germany in Eastern Europe. This official, who links the Second and Third Reich, became a central person in another Wikipedia article. The removal of Bridging the Second and Third Reichs thus destroys quite a few Wikipedia pages.

Some of the related issues:

The changes above impact approximately fifty Wikipedia articles. I wish that all the Wikipedia articles were independent, but in fact very few are. This applies not only to articles I have created or modified, but articles created by others as well.
Extermination camps are quite different from concentration camps. Consider List of Nazi concentration camps, not written by me, with a redirect of vernichtungslager, which links to Extermination camp -- also not written by me. The point is that the distinction between an extermination camp and a concentration camp applies especially in German South West Africa, and has now been obliterated from the historical record, totally disregarding citations given. This is exactly the objective of the deniers in history, in spite of the fact that the German government has issued an official apology, admitting this fact. I don't believe that Wikipedia should ally itself with positions that are historically false.
Officials who bridged the Second and Third Reichs are referred to in other Wikipedia articles. Removal of this list of officials now destroys the historical record. No amount of citations with a link to "Bridging the Second and Third Reichs" for support, will have any meaning, since the information that it refers to has been removed. (Such links now land the reader on Shark Island Concentration Camp, at the top of the page, where no "Bridging the Second and Third Reichs" now exists.)

I agree with you that editing information in Wikipedia to make information easily available and easily assimilated, is a laudable objective; but not at the cost of changing the historical record and removing vital information. Please take care that other edits of this nature do not take place without careful investigation. In fact, since I am fully aware of the intricacies, when you see things you want to change, rather than making extensive changes, why not consult me first? I realize this is extra work, but in the end it might actually result in less work. There are some related articles that are even more complicated; this is especially true for them, even though I made strenuous effort to write plainly.

Itsmejudith, please comment.Virago250 (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have brought to our attention at least four highly reliable and useful sources relating to the development of scientific racist theory and practice. This is incredibly helpful, and if it's all you ever do in Wikipedia, we should be very grateful to you for it. Any factual information in these sources can be added to the encyclopedia. You, as a new editor, shouldn't be expected to do that on your own, you should have more help and support. Therefore I will alert some relevant WikiProjects, as well as some editors who have good track records in history of eugenics, history of Africa etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why my contributions can't be used, and have to be deleted, thereby censoring the information. You claim that there are people who have "good track records in history of eugenics, history of Africa etc." at Wikipedia, who can help me. What do you mean by "good track records"? Do these people have any expertise in the subject matter that is in the citations? If so, why haven't they detected the changes that I have already put in and stepped forward before now? Moreover, if they have expertise in these areas, why have these people waited for others to add this information and not added it themselves? Also, why have some of the Wikipedia experts on some of these subtopics strongly supported what I have entered?

It seems to me that the way to alert these individuals whom you say have "good track records in the history of eugenics, history of Afirca etc." is not to first remove this material (so they can't see it in context) because it is "unencyclopedic" or "off-topic", and then bring it to their attention, but to bring this material and its citations to the attention of editors with "good track records", and let them decide if the material should be deleted wholesale or repurposed (preserved) in a more "encyclopedic" fashion. Otherwise, it would appear that the "encyclopedic" way of editing is to exclude information that does not seem to fit neatly into the "encyclopedic" template, thus effectively censoring it. (In academia, diputed materials are never removed wholesale for reasons of form alone; if the material is acknowledged as being worthy, help is given to prune it into the proper form without sacrificing detail.)

You imply that these editors with "good track records in these areas have greater subject matter expertise than yourself. In the interest of neutrality, please restore the material before you bring it to the attention of these editors, for evaluation. Please desist from more such removal of information and citations until those individuals have reviewed my contributions. If it will help, I have maintained copies of my drafts in both PDF and text form, and at a moment's notice would be glad to send them on. I also have maintained copies of public domain images that have been deleted without reason being provided. If you like I can specify the images that have been removed without a stated reason, as well. This includes images I created myself and donated to Wikipedia.

In consideration of how extensive your modifications have been, and how much has been deleted, and how the material left remaining has been misclassified (and that you don't disagree has been misclassified), I think this issue should be resolved as soon as possible -- if for no other reason than to show good intent and neutrality.Virago250 (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The users I was thinking of edit in related fields, and we can't all be everywhere at once. They are, in the first instance, User:Malik Shabazz, User:Mathsci, User:Fifelfoo, and User:Maunus. You can look for yourself at their contributions records. Yes, the editors who have already helped you should also be invited to comment. This is not a competition to see who is the best editor. It is a collaboration to get the very best articles we can on these issues of great historical importance. I can't do it on my own, neither can you. We need to bring together not just subject knowledge, but also theoretical and methodological knowledge and last but not least, knowledge of Wikipedia principles and procedures. By the way, any experienced editor will use the History tab at the top of the page to compare versions of the article. If you don't know how to do that, or how to revert edits, anyone will be happy to explain. I will, or you can ask on WP:HELP. You might also want to look at WP:BRD. Please be assured that your contributions are much appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for connecting me with User:Malik Shabazz, User:Mathsci, User:Fifelfoo, and User:Maunus. I have looked at each of their contribution records and I think they are all well-qualified to help bring together subject knowledge, methodological knowledge and knowledge of Wikipedia principles and procedure. (I am quite familiar with the use of the History tab, and know how to revert edits. I am even more familiar with the use of the Toolbox's "What links here" utility, which I would think any experienced editor would use to assure that their edits did not break links on other pages.)

I appreciate the restorations you are making, and I am certain that your renaming of subheadings is completely well-intentioned. However, in most cases your renamings are not inappropriate but have broken some links, thus causing problems on a number of other pages. For example, you renamed "Bridging the Second and Third Reichs" to "Continuity with Nazi extermination". The original name was given for a deeper reason that simple prosody, and I think it's a better name for a number of reasons:

(1) I don't believe the Nazis should come directly into this article: it confuses issues. I think it is more neutral to refer to the regimes involved as the Second Reich and the Third Reich.

(2) In my opinion, the word "Continuity" is an extremely poor choice. In a different article, I make reference to the historiographer Lucy Dawidowicz's use of "continuity". Dawidowicz consciously uses "continuity" in the same sense that a mathematician would, which is decidedly not the sense in which you are using it. When the "See also" link from Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive invokes Shark Island, German South West Africa#Bridging the Second and Third Reichs (a link that is currently broken) and instead (if the link is repaired) invokes a subsection named "Continuity with Nazi extermination", this creates confusion. (Please note: I have mentioned just two articles for which the links are (now) broken, and sense and meaning changed without any support (citations) in historical fact, omitting the many other links that are also now broken. It is not simply a matter of creating a redirect; I wish it were.)

Another edit that disturbs me involves the removal of the "Bridging the Second and Third Reichs" section entirely from the articles on Shark Island, German South West Africa, Okahandja Concentration Camp, Swakopmund Concentration Camp and Windhoek Concentration Camp. In Hannah Arendt's books dealing with totalitarianism, she explicitly states that German South West Africa was a school for German African colonial officials (administrative and military) who enacted policies they learned in the German African colonies under the Second Reich, and then employed those same policies during the Third Reich. Thus to refer to "continuity" here, as opposed to the different governments in Germany, is bending what Hannah Arendt wrote about. (Excuse me for not Arendt's using exact verbiage here.) Doing a great deal of research to get exact wording and citations is significant, as there are those who deny the facts; I hope you'll agree.

Third, you renamed Shark Island, German South West Africa to Shark Island Concentration Camp, turning the old article into a redirect. However, Shark Island was not a Concentration camp, but an Extermination camp; in fact, it is considered the world's first extermination camp. If this article needed to be renamed for the sake of consistency with the names of the related articles in this "suite", it should have been renamed appropriately.

Finally, the table of extermination and concentration camps that existed in German South West Africa was originally repeated in four different articles in Wikipedia: one for each of the major camps. The nature of the various camps is clearly labeled and highlighted in color in the table, which was created in a similar manner to the table of concentration camps and extermination camps in in List of Nazi-German concentration camps. I deliberately duplicated the table of concentration camps in German South West Africa in all four of these articles, in the same manner that software programmers might duplicate code routines when performing global program optimization. This technique is called hoisting. (See Marvin Schaefer, "A Mathematical Theory of Global Program Optimization", Prentice-Hall, 1973, p. 115 and Alfred V. Aho and Jeffrey D. Ullman, "The Theory of Parsing, Translation and Compiling Vol. 2: Compiling" Prentice-Hall, 1973, pp. 924-25. Though this deals with code improvement the ideas and methods apply just as well to information structure.) The reason I "hoisted" the same table into each of the four articles was to avoid the need for readers to continually click back and forth between two different articles in order to compare information. (It is considered poor programming practice to force a reader to use multiple keystrokes to get relevant information.) I may be wrong in my choices, but at least I was conscious of what I was constructing, and why. Very often names are chosen, and articles structured a particular way, for a multiplicity of reasons. Prosody is only one of them.

If you are having difficulty restoring the original sense and meanings to the articles that you have modified, such as Shark Island, German South West Africa, perhaps the best way to proceed is to restore the original structure and subheading names to articles, and then allowing others to join the discussion about how to improve these articles before making structural or naming changes. I am not in love with my own writing by any means; rather, I welcome assistance from you and others to improve this work without sacrificing references, photos, maps and context that provide visual proof that these horrible events occurred.Virago250 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the talkback notice, I normally prefer new content on my talk page posted at the bottom (even back to USENET days). Hello itsmejudith. I am a labour historian who chiefly works in the area of citation quality, source quality, appropriate encyclopaedic research (ie: avoiding new claims, correctly representing existing claims), quality improvement and other support skills areas. I produce little content myself. I did three quarters of an undergraduate year on genocide in a double BA History degree. I have been deeply (and unfortunately) involved in the Mass killings under Communist regimes article where I've demanded improvement to meet encyclopaedic standards. I have been heavily involved in Holodomor related articles where problems have existed about differentiating national myth, scholarly opinion, and local versus generalised famines. I see you've got a scholarly background from your citation style and selection of sources. One problem that scholars who edit wikipedia face is the difference between what we know to be correct when we are, for example, historians versus the rules we must use to know what is correct when we write encyclopaedic articles. Another problem is that we're like cats—we have unique individual personalities, a strong sense of personal space, and a willingness to fight on almost any occasion. I can read some of that above in your comments. Usually, it isn't necessary to be that defensive on wikipedia. When you have a problem, it is often a good idea to bring in other editors who value quality (as itsmejudith did), or to raise the issue on a noticeboard that has a history of valuing high quality like WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. I'm watching this page, and Shark Island Concentration Camp. Generally, as I've said, I don't participate in content generation; but, I do often make evaluative judgements about whether an editorial direction is helpful to the project or not, with a great deal of sympathy for scholarly sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I looked at Shark Island Concentration Camp. I found that the article seems to be written in a slanted way. The writing style is essay-like and pushes a point of view—that this camp was the precursor of Nazi concentration camps and Nazi medical experiments—which could well be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Several primary sources are used and the actual history of the camp (1904-1908) is patchy, with far more material devoted to the supposed aftermath and legacy. The main texts should appear in references with notes that point to the sources. The text should primarily concern the history as found in the sources, prefereably summarising easily verifiable substantial passages. The pictures of severed heads, etc, are unlabelled. Captions should be provided linking them to the text. At the moment my feeling is that it is unreasonable to write an article in this way, claiming these camps were the precursors of Auschwitz. I looked to see what is written about the comparable treatment of aborigines in Tasmania under British colonialism (Truganini, Black Line, the aboriginal skeletons in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1]). While not perfect, the accounts in those articles seem more neutral. Editors trained in anthropology, like Slrubenstein and Maunus, might have different views which are certainly worth hearing. Mathsci (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of work on it - just to make it conform more to style. And I've boldly moved it to Shark Island (Extermination camp) - pending what sources call it we can continue to move it around a bit. Not having looked at the literature I cannot say whether the pre-nazi angle is warranted. I think Mathsci's cautions are well founded and should be taken into consideration in the article's further development. It is a topic that certainly lends it self to sensationalism - but we should strive to follow the sources faithfully, and not jump to conclusions not made by the sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for coming along and for comments that I find helpful and hope Virago does too. One thing I was going to assure Virago was all the editors I mentioned were people who would not see it as defence of Itsmejudith versus Virago but would certainly think for themselves. On a couple of the substantive points mentioned. Article named. Shark Island, Namibia is about the place, and is correctly titled. For this article, I would be happy with Shark Island Extermination Camp, as that categorisation is in the scholarly literature. Brackets in article titles are used for disambiguation. Hamlet (1921 film), Hamlet (2011 film) etc. On the link between the 1904-1908 events and Nazism, this is in the sources that Virago has brought to our attention. We need to bring out what they are saying, but by letting the facts speak for themselves. Eugen Fischer's role is a clear link. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate being invited to help, but I'm too busy right now to give adequate attention to Shark Island, which is outside my comfort zone to begin with. I'll check back in a week or two when other things have settled down a bit and see if I can help then. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Shark Island (Extermination camp) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Shark Island Extermination Camp. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Sparthorse (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

Please take note of the three revert rule before continuing your campaign at Eugenics. It's quite broadly drawn and you could be seen to be in breach of it already. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith

We're aiming for the same thing. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC) has asked you to join her for a nice cup of tea and sit down.[reply]

(Should say 'her', not 'him' in the message.)

Hi. You and I need to be able to talk amicably. As you know, I really appreciate that you have come here to draw attention to some very important well sourced findings that ought to be included in the encyclopedia. If your edits are reverted or altered, that isn't a reflection on you, but is part of the normal process of collaborative editing.

Looking back at your earlier posts, I think there may be confusion, for one thing, about the role of photographs. Illustrations are used fairly sparingly in Wikipedia 1) to inform and 2) to make articles more attractive. (Obviously 2) does not apply in the case of articles on racism and atrocity.) I'm aware that photographs played an important role in establishing the veracity of the Holocaust. The recent historians tracing the linkage between German colonialism and Nazism seem to be using photos in the same way, to document facts that may be denied. How far we can do the same in Wikipedia is not clear, and I think we should seek advice from people who have worked on the pages about Nazi Germany.

Another point you make above which is a misconception, is about repeating the same information across pages. I see that you say it good practice in the IT fields you are expert in, however we don't do it in Wikipedia.

Apart from that, all I am really saying is that there is valuable information in the sources (Schmul, Sarkin ... you have used). These are good scholarly sources so all the factual information they present is likely to fit in somewhere, and their interpretations can be used as well. It's just about putting the right information in the right place, that's all.

Finally, you mentioned arbitration in a recent post. If you think we're in dispute (I don't think we are), you would need to go through the means of dispute resolution before considering arbitration. See WP:Dispute for the explanation. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Itsmejudith,

Thank you for your support with regard to User:Allens well-intentioned suggestion. I can assure you that I am as concerned as you are, about the proper placement of the information about Venezuela. As you can see, there are many opinions.

I would really like to work with you; I think issues could be handled much more intelligently and efficiently if we work together. For example, I suggest that if you disagree, please don't remove anything; just write me a note and we can talk about it and come to some understanding.

You have suggested that JPGs be used sparingly. I absolutely agree. I am concerned about space (JPGs do take up room), also, JPGs often actually distract the reader from the text. I really try to be very sparing, and usually when I use a JPG (mine or others'), it may have use in several articles.

I am currently traveling. Can we postpone a more detailed discussion of issues you have raised, for a couple of days?

Sincerely,Virago250 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem if you need to delay more clarification in response to my Talk page comments - I have other things that I should really be working on... (BTW, I also fixed the "him/her" in the "cup of tea" template; I trust this is not a problem?) Allens (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Itsmejudith, I am still travelling, but I made a few small modifications to Eugenics. I believe that these modifications answer objections raised by you and a couple of other editors. Please have a look at the latest version of Eugenics and see what you think.Virago250 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal case

Hello Virago250! You have been named as a party to a mediation cabal case. Before I volunteer to mediate fully, I would like to confirm your intention to participate in mediation and your assistance in the process by watch-listing the case page. Please feel free to respond on my talk page. Best Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer your questions first: (1) usually, a single mediator will work on a case at the Mediation Cabal; (2) I understand this case may have features in areas I am not an "expert" on, but I find most conflicts seem to be based on more common-place misunderstandings or disagreements. I think this case may fit under such a category.

As to the rest of your comments on my talk page, we will certainly discuss all issues at mediation; just note I prefer to keep such discussion localized at the mediation case page. Let's begin our process by limiting down our negative comments about the other party -- for this to be successful, we must all keep cooler heads. Cheers & Best Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your agreement to begin mediation! Please proceed to the case page here and sign your agreement to abide by the ground rules. After that, I will ask that you post a statement (no more than 250 words) indicating what you think the issues in dispute are and what you see as the proper solution to those issues. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Khaua-Mbandjeru Rebellion--your opinion?

Hi Virago250, as the main editor of Khaua-Mbandjeru Rebellion I would like to ask you to check the article's talk page and give input. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Virago250: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/25 December 2011/Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Lord Roem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab case question

I've asked a question from your statement; if you could respond on the case page. Please remember to keep the page watchlisted so the mediation can move promptly. Lord Roem (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]