User talk:Gmw112252

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Gmw112252, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- PBS (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

August 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Lemberg Ghetto, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please ensure that any changes such as you made are backed up by sources that support your claims - things such as "Ukrainian anti-semitism" being the reason for the Nazi's saying "it was the Jews that did it" cannot really be considered factual as the Nazis had fairly anti semitic views of their own. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)



"...collectively accused as a group by the Nazis of having somehow been responsible for the massacre, mostly due to Ukrainian (and to a lesser degree in Lemberg, Polish) anti-Semitism."

While it is beyond saying that throughout European history Jews have collectively been accused of being culpable for things they never had any responsibility for, or were only tangentially connected to (e.g. deicide, the plagues, Judeo-Bolshevism, and just about everything else that went wrong in Europe), I accept your position regarding the "short-cut" I took in order to avoid the deep and controversial topic of the Ukrainian prisoner massacres proportedly done by the NKVD and retreating Soviet forces in Lvov.

The reason I used this traditionally (see above) accepted "short-cut" is due to the topic of this article which is not "Ukrainian Nationalism" or a platform to write (or re-write) the history of the massacre of the Ukrainians in Lvov in June of 1941 or of Hetman Simon Petlyura, or the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists OUN (UNO)- and I note that there are many other forums in which to do that. Rather I respectfully point out to you (as you did to me that "...the Nazis had fairly anti semitic views of their own[.]") that this article is about the "Jewish Ghetto of Lemberg."

Now, that ghetto has very deep and rich historico-political background and much significance. It was the third largest Jewish (Nazi-created) ghetto in all of the Holocaust, yet very little is known about it due to the paucity of surviving Jewish witnesses. I don't know what the intentions are of contributors getting, in my estimation, side-tracked by red-herrings on subjects at best, only tangentially related to the ghetto or completely off-subject at worst, but that is another discussion.

There is alot of work to do to this article in order to describe the plight of the 150,000 or so Jews that lived in Lemberg and died in that ghetto many included in the 200,000 that died in Janowska, and the 500,000 or so that passed through Kleparow Station as a transit point, all much more relevant to the subject of the Lemberg Ghetto than trying for the umpteenth time to second guess the Einsatzgruppen or Kruschev's strategy with regard to Brigdiski.

Really... many still don't know what to call the ghetto (Lemberg, Lwow, Lvov, Lviv, Lowenberg... and so forth). And to me that is step one, not to resolve the mystery of the Brigdiski killings because as I reiterate, there are other places to do that. In this article it is a red herring.

Oh and BTW, with regard to sources, the information I posted is so basic that to objective minds who understand what happened in Lemberg it should almost go without saying or sourcing. Forcing the sourcing of such rudimentry facts is a form of revisionism, like the statement "prove to me that the Germans used gas chambers to kill Jews..." There is so much evidence on the later subject that it is common knowledge. And so one should be leery of anyone who questions such a basic and commonly accepted facts that they may be trying to deepen the ruts of Holocaust revisionism.


I reverted your recent edits to Ukrainische Hilfspolizei because the wording of the content that you added was so unencyclopaedic that it would need to be entirely rewritten to comply with guidelines. Apologies for any inconvenience. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Response: Your "form" vs. "content" revision is a thinly veiled attempt to block legitimate, well-cited discourse on the subject of providing an honest look at Ukrainian participation in the Holocaust, of which the UAP was a prime mover. If you want to engage in an erasure or delete war on Wikipedia to continue to erase, destroy, and eliminate what little traces of Jewish Galicia remain, you merely prove my point.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for opinionated "discourse". I never said that your content wasn't valid, I am just saying that it was not written in a way that suits the project. Don't baselessly accuse me of obfuscating, that is assuming bad faith. Reverting again. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

Please self-revert your last edit and take it up on the article talk page like a civil person. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Response by Editor. Subject: Tag-team Ukrainian Holocaust Revisionism.

Please explain the SUBSTANTIVE reason for all the reversions done by yourself and/or your proxies in tag-team style, done usually before there was adequate time to publish the edits in question, while this editor's fingers were still on the keyboard.

Obviously, you have an adgenda and are using the system to vandalize constructive and good-faith additions to this article. No, not even edits - mind you - but goodfaith additions. This is the crux and the only crux of the so-called "uncivil" conduct. And in its totality, what you and/or your proxies have done amounts to straight-up vandalism. Vandalism for the distinct purpose of supressing the facts of history. The history of a very brutal, Nazi directed "police force" known as the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police (UAP), which played a VERY major role in the Holocaust against the Jews of eastern Poland, hundreds of thousands of them in Lwow (Lemberg) alone.

If you are so interested in encyclopaedic content, then perhaps you will add a section to this article, as I tried to do but was promptly stopped in my tracks (deleted by you), about all the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police who entered the United States and either concealed or hid their membership in the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police... grounds for summary loss of U.S. citizenship by the courts and then deportation. Now let me ask you, who do you think is correct about the mass murders comitted by the UAP? You and a couple of your cronies, or my statement of the facts as you have deleted - which mirrors the rulings of the judges of several United States District Courts?

The answer should be obvious, but you will continue to hide behind smoke-screen edits to supress the truth. And it shows because if you were acting in good faith you would instead correct errors of form, format, or other procedural matters if accuracy was your motivation. But it becomes obvious that your ruse is not about form but purely substance.

And then of course in the end, the truth about Ukrainians and the Holocaust hurts (though not as much as what they did to the Jewish victims)but it will be known, one way or another... here or there but it will emerge one way or another.

In closing, the Germans, as bad as they were have at least owned-up to their war crimes and their perpetration of the Holocaust. When will the Ukrainians be big enough to fill those same boots?

Get it through your head: I have no issue with the content itself. I take issue with the fact that it is worded in such a way that is unfit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. What you have written would be perfectly legitimate for inclusion in a book or journal article, but does not belong here. I reasonably asked you to alter the wording of your content and you haughtily refused. And now, you accuse me of bad faith and Holocaust revisionism, which to me is tantamount to a personal attack. Since you have proven yourself to be blindered and unreasonable, let me lay some of it out for you:
"It is a well established fact" WP:WEASEL
"alleged Soviet "prison massacre"" WP:ALLEGED
"many other Jewish witnesses have alleged" WP:ALLEGED
"this is a moot issue and a red herring often used by Holocaust revisionists to muddle the discussion" WP:SOAPBOX, WP:WEASEL
"Another excuse proferred by the Ukrainian nationalists" WP:SOAPBOX, WP:LABEL
"But the reader shouldn't be misled" MOS:NOTED
"seemingly innocuous title given to this murderous unit" WP:SOAPBOX, WP:LABEL Note also that "murderous" is used but once in the Einsatzgruppen article and no times in the Einsatzkommando article.
"every bit as brutal as its sponsors" WP:SOAPBOX, WP:LABEL
"asserts on solid evidence" WP:WEASEL, WP:CLAIM
If you revise your text to make it less sensational/conversational and add more citations (this looks like possible WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to me in its present state), then it is fine for inclusion. One more thing- never use "Ibid." in citations (WP:IBID). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC) PS: You are 100% wrong, my reverts and those of editors with similar concerns are WP:NOTVAND. Read up on Wikipedia guidelines before slinging defamatory accusations. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

====Response: "You don't remove a fly off someone's forehead with a hammer"

The guidelines are irrelevant if you ignore the pillars, good faith inclusion should not be subjected to the nuclear option of instanteneous full deletion unless, of course, there is vandalism or a political adgenda afoot.

I stand by my position that you are involved in both the above. Your attempts at masking your reversions by pounding on the finer points of "encyclopaedic quality" is merely a pretext for censorship.

My goodness you spent all that time "correcting" the article and preaching your alleged skills at "Wikipaedia," on my talk page! If "form" rather than "content" was your motivation you could have more easily done the same to the content contributed to the actual article.

But no, you like to fight your battles in side alleys rather than public... and we both know why. Maybe you are familiar with this expression: "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." It applies here very well. You can be king of this tiny molehill if you want, but where will that get you?

Think about that as you ponder the accomplishment of shutting down historical fact, making yourself a toll collector for "encyclopaedic form." And to what end? Your own ends and the 54 who viewed this half-baked, hackneyed, and hijacked article in the whole year 2010. But I guess when someone is in the business of Ukrainian Holocaust revisionism, no "business" is good for business. Gmw112252 (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 h for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Ukrainische Hilfspolizei. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Gmw112252 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

please review this article for evidence of Holocaust revisionism, specifically, the deleting of entire blocks of my goodfaith contributions and properly cited text under the pretext of violation of form - which places substance over form and effectively freezes the ability to allow the community to correct, contribute, and build upon factually correct, properly cited, references.In this case the edit history indicates that the contributions were deleted before or within moments of being published. A clear signal of badfaith on the part of the deleting party(ies).

Decline reason:

This is a run-of-the-mill content dispute; exactly what the 3RR was designed to mitigate. Please read the policy on edit warring. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

I have blocked you for tedius editing and violation of the 3RR rule. In future please remember that Wikipedia is a project based on cooperation of many editors with quite different points of view. It is based on neutral point of view and attributing everything you add. If you add factual information referenced to reliable source that Ukrainische Hilfspolizei committed such and such atrocities the info will stay. If you add that a notable person described this as a proof that trident and swastika joined, etc. It would most probably stay. Your own editorializing has zero chances to stay. Also the cooperative work means that you hear concerns of other editors, avoid personal attacks, etc., avoid sterile revert wars, etc. If you cannot follow this rules you are better off writing a personal blogs, opinion pages in newspapers, knolls and other pages with single authorship. If you believe that you have significant material to insert, referred to reliable sources but you have problems rewriting it in neutral encyclopedic matter I (an many others could help). Please discuss the insertions on talk pages Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space[edit]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Gmw112252/Lemberg mosaic has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lemberg mosaic, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Lemberg mosaic, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

StandardSwan (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gmw112252. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 15:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Hatikvah, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Galicia and Galician (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lviv pogroms[edit]

Re footnote 1: It was given in transliteration without enough details: it is probably in Ukrainian Євген Наконечний «Шоа у Львові» ISBN 966-02-3363-9.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Demjanjuk, Poster Lecture on Munich Trial. jpg.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Demjanjuk, Poster Lecture on Munich Trial. jpg.jpg, which you've sourced to (Poster). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Gmw112252. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)