→Request: declined |
Jax the Great (talk | contribs) →Who owns Hitler?: new section |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
==Request== |
==Request== |
||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I would like to say sorry to everyone that was offended. My suggested edits, trimming very obscure laws that were passed during the Obama term were not all needed for the article, was and is a good idea but I now realize that there are strong emotions about President Obama so will let those with heated feelings just edit the article themselves. I am not asking for unblock but posting so that someone will read this (unblock requests are automatically read by someone). Thank you | decline=You're not asking to be unblocked. Please keep in mind, unblock requests are ''not'' read by "everyone." When this block is up, don't edit war and don't stir things up by making more threats. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I would like to say sorry to everyone that was offended. My suggested edits, trimming very obscure laws that were passed during the Obama term were not all needed for the article, was and is a good idea but I now realize that there are strong emotions about President Obama so will let those with heated feelings just edit the article themselves. I am not asking for unblock but posting so that someone will read this (unblock requests are automatically read by someone). Thank you | decline=You're not asking to be unblocked. Please keep in mind, unblock requests are ''not'' read by "everyone." When this block is up, don't edit war and don't stir things up by making more threats. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)}} |
||
== Who owns Hitler? == |
|||
This is pure vandalism, meant to annoy an arrogantly ignorant elitist admin named Gwen Gale. |
|||
Relax, we probably don’t know you, your name was probably on a list. You can disappear this, or some admin probably will, anyway. |
|||
If you want to contact us privately, you can try theplutonpack@gmail. Otherwise, we probably won’t bother you again. Thanx. |
|||
== "And pretend that he just doesn't see?" == |
|||
This is long, and mostly garbage, I expect almost no one to make it through. I hope that someone will skip down to the closing, though. |
|||
'''Admin abuse damaging an article?''' |
|||
The first part of this was posted in Jan 2011. There are two additional sections, one from Nov 2010, one from Mar 2011, and a closing. Sorry about the formatting, (losing Bold and Paragraphs): |
|||
Should Wm5200 be blocked? Here is some background, edited for length and with some words bold for emphasis. Please check the originals for accuracy. |
|||
Posted under Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler--random questions-- |
|||
I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them... 99.41.251.5 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC) As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this). |
|||
As the article lead says... This said, this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic, it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text. I say this because the article seems to already cover, with thorough citations, most if not all of what you've brought up. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw in general, and specifically to Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these wonderful resources. |
|||
In view of this information, and hopefully with the help of Gwen, I propose edits similar to the following...Reference others may include Trevor-Roper and Beevor. Wm5200 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Posted under Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler--aftermath-- |
|||
The first paragraph...claims. Wm5200 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Everything in that section is sourced and/or highly verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Have you read either Kershaw or Joachimsthaler? Wm5200 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Why do you ask? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time.99.41.251.5 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources. In view of this information, I propose edits similar to the following:Wm5200 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Posted on Talk:Wm5200--Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler-- |
|||
Article talk pages are not meant as general forums or question boards about a topic. Moreover, they are not meant as outlets for your original thoughts on topics, even if you put those thoughts as questions. Please either start citing sources (along with thoughts about how to echo those sources in the text), or stop posting to Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler. If you would like to know more about how to deal with (and skirt) plagiarism worries on en.Wikipedia, you might have a look at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
'''Is this the way you were welcomed to Wiki?''' |
|||
'''Look at the talk page. Did Wm5200 bring up valid points? Did he attempt to reference them? Did he try to improve the article?''' |
|||
It is now January 2011. Wm5200 has been permanently blocked for trying to introduce Sir Ian Kershaw to Gwen Gale. Gwen Gale has collected more stars. Kierzek and Farawayman fixed up the article some, but still no Kershaw acknowledgment by Gwen Gale. |
|||
Is this how you think Wiki should work? Should Wm5200 be blocked from improving the article while Gwen Gale is rewarded for not assisting him? |
|||
Or should Wm5200’s block be reconsidered? |
|||
This is not about outing Gwen Gale, as some say. No one cares who Gwen Gale is. This is about holding her accountable for things she has said and done on Wikipedia and signed Gwen Gale to. Hiding behind those who have a real reason to hide is a bit hypocritical, don’t you think? |
|||
Does this conflict have political overtones? Wm5200 says “Cabal” and “they” and is ridiculed. But Farawayman has been blocked, and others have been intimidated. Be careful. |
|||
In November 2010, under the heading “Lead In”, the following was posted: |
|||
That greyfalcon source is indeed trash. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Going "with scholarly books" (that are balanced and objective, as far as secondary sources/authors can be) has always been my aim on Wiki; and as to this article, specially; Farawayman, who has worked hard of late, herein, I am sure would agree. "Time" and other duties are something that keeps many of us from more Wiki editing/writing and cross-checking at a more expedient rate. So, present what you will for consensus; there is plenty of "time". Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not offering [1] it as a source, Gwen. Only to demonstrate that a lot is floating out there. There's enough trash being passed off as sources in this article as it stands, without any more needing to be added. What the article especially needs to do is to bring forth that seventy years after the fact, the exact circumstances regarding the event remain uncertain and are contested. Naturally the scholarly "consensus" needs to be presented. The WP article on Hitler deals with the generalities regarding his death. This article needs to also deal with the subject's controversial nature. Not cigarette smoking. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
My main worry here is that there is utterly zero, aught evidence, that Hitler or Braun were alive after the late afternoon of 30 April 1945, however they died and the lead should steadfastly echo this, one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Gwen, maybe I am missing something.... the lead currently says "Adolf Hitler committed suicide by gunshot on 30 April 1945 in his Führerbunker in Berlin..." Surely that "steadfastly echo's" death on the 30th April. Why is it necessary to pertinently state that he was dead by the afternoon? Farawayman (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
For starters, the Russian autopsy bore overwhelming evidence he not only shot himself, but bit down on a cyanide capsule. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Slow down, one thing at a time!!!! Above, you insist the lead must "echo" that he was dead by the afternoon of the 30th. Explain? Farawayman (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Can you cite any meaningful sources that he was alive after that afternoon? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I removed the Beevor quoted cite; per points stated above; not needed, anyway. With that said, as for hearing the shot, yes, the two you mentioned are on record as having heard it, but Günsche and Linge are on record as NOT hearing anything; although Linge has changed his story on that point. In the famous "The World At War" T.V. series on DVD (originally from the 1970's), Linge stated he heard it; but in his book on page 199, he wrote: "I smelt the gas from a discharged firearm...Hitler had shot himself in the right temple with his 7.65-mm pistol..." As for the evidence of the "Russian autopsy", that bears close scrutiny through the published works. Kierzek (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Gwen, I am not talking about "original research"; I am talking cross-checking and putting forth what the published reliable sources state; as I refer to above in my reply to Dr. Dan as to editing on Wiki and this article, in particular. Kierzek (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Whatever you may be talking about, I'm talking about your own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I am NOT doing OR; I am editing an article to try and improve it; enough said. Kierzek (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
So at the very least Gwen the circumstances shouldn't be "steadfastly echoed" as they currently are.correct?.70.28.7.229 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Your rhetoric is lacking, IP. Please cite sources or stop now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Gwen...... The lead says he was dead by the 30th! No-one is disputing that! Who said he was alive after the late afternoon of the 30th? I recommend a good Brunello, I'm having one too! Set this aside, and lets move to a thorough copy edit of the first section. Farawayman (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
All I'm saying is, I think the new lead is not on. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
That's what I'm saying.Why the hostility?.70.28.7.229 (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Gwen, we had a grey, green, yellow, blue and dark blue (whatever) version of the lead in the above section! I agree its not perfect in terms of prose, but its factually correct! I concur, it needs polishing to make it read better, so why not give us your version - That's much more constructive. Farawayman (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
On 12 Mar 2011 , under the heading “When making large edits please be careful with citations: the following was posted: |
|||
(OD) While I agree ... This was further complicated by certain editors constantly preventing information that they objected to being placed in the article, which IMO, somewhat bordered on violating the guideline concerning ownership of a Wikipedia article. Rejecting information that was sourced and then demanding "sources" for information that was objectionable to them. Thankfully things have calmed down a bit. ... Dr. Dan (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Closing. |
|||
Using “Dr. Dan (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)” is not really fair, he does not name anyone. And neither he, Kierzek, or Farawayman have been contacted or informed of this post. Gwen, either. |
|||
Unblocking the Wheelman is a moot point, he’s long gone. But we do not see where Gwen has ever apologized to Dr Dan, Kierzek, or Farawayman, either. She was clearly counterproductive to the article, but there has been no sign of accountability. |
|||
This is hardly her first dispute. Does the average admin have this amount of conflict? |
|||
Thank you. |
|||
'''P.S.''' Clearly the above is outside the rules, we expect this account to be rolled up. But while you were ignoring us, another person posted the same kind of crap on our favorite admis’s talk page. And once the numbers change, we will be back. Power to the people, not the elite.[[User:Exwheelman5200|Exwheelman5200]] ([[User talk:Exwheelman5200|talk]]) 13:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Jax the Great|Jax the Great]] ([[User talk:Jax the Great|talk]]) 18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:13, 12 December 2011
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Hi Balloon Boy, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Invitation for the typeface collaboration
There is currently an oppened collaboration which aims in improving articles related to typefaces and font categorization. If you´re interested in this subject, please visit the collaboration page, add your self and see how you can help. |
I hope you can contribute in this section. Happy editings! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I did clearly discuss why some trivial bits should not be in the article. The removed parts were a few sentences of laws that President Obama did not actively campaign for or make it a signature issue. If these are included, the article ceases to be "Barack Obama" but becomes "The World during President Obama's Life" Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. v/r - TP 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Balloon Boy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please unblock. Before being blocked, I clearly stated on my page that I would step back from the Obama article. Please also see that I am making valid and constructive suggestions (noting that some laws are not a significant part of the Obama bio). Note that some others have been very rude and TParis did not block them. By unblocking me, you will create a congenial environment for Wikipedia. Remember, that I voluntarily pledged to step away BEFORE being blocked and I was also not warned by TParis. If you do not unblock me, you just poison the atmosphere and make wikipedia look savage. Thank you very much. Please assume good faith and unblock me. A new promise....if you unblock me, I will not edit any Obama articles for 1 month-----a win win. If you don't unblock, the block expires in 24 hours and you'll have a person very upset (maybe mad) for being unfairly treated. Thank you.
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but blaming others and claiming that a refusal to unblock "make(s) wikipedia look savage" will not get your block lifted early. Please read this and try again. TNXMan 15:42, 24 October 2011 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I am not an admin, but I suggest strongly that threats are not helpful here. PhGustaf (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am not threatening, merely stating the facts. My block expires in 24 hours. If unblocked now, I will look at that as a sign that some people in Wikipedia are reasonable and, in return, will not edit the Obama article for one month. See, I am generous in return. That is generosity, not threatening. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- You said that you would step back two days ago and yet today you were engaging in the same edit war. I see plenty of warnings above the block notice and some significant competence issues. You're failing to understand what your behavior warranted the block and you continue to blame other editors (and Wikipedia) for doing wrong.--v/r - TP 15:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I said I would step back for a day and did so for longer than 24 hours. See, I am honest and do not lie. I also do not falsely accuse, like some others (Scjessey and others). I just made some very good suggestions about portions of the Obama bio that are not significantly related to his bio. In retrospect, I have to admit that there is a very strong gay lobby and they want mention of gay issues. Maybe I should tread carefully and not offend gay people even though it makes the Obama article bad. Maybe I should select other areas to improve the article and give gay people space to promote their pet issues? Sorry, I have nothing against gay people. In fact, I don't mind gay marriages. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Balloon Boy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
TnXMan declined my unblock request and asked me to read a link on unblocking and then ask for unblock. I have read this carefully. Please unblock me. I am also complying with an administrator who asked me to both read the policies and then ask for unblock. I see why some people are mad. Further unblock is only punishment and blocking is not supposed to be punishment. I agree to follow every Wikipedia policy. I have never knowingly violated any and will not do so in the future. Thank you.
Decline reason:
Your earlier unblock request cinches this one. You threatened that, if you weren't unblocked, we'd have a very "upset" person on our hands. If you're not ready to deal with the consequences of your actions, as demonstrated in your earlier message, I don't think simply reading a policy will help here. Please don't make another unblock request for the duration of your block, and please do not make threats. Thanks, m.o.p 16:04, 24 October 2011 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- You really should specifically address the reasons for your block- your behavior and what you will do to avoid blocking in the future. A vague "I see why people are mad" is not really helpful. TNXMan 15:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Dave Dial (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The result was NOT a confirmed. It was closed as not conclusive because I am not a sock.
Request
Hi Balloon Boy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to say sorry to everyone that was offended. My suggested edits, trimming very obscure laws that were passed during the Obama term were not all needed for the article, was and is a good idea but I now realize that there are strong emotions about President Obama so will let those with heated feelings just edit the article themselves. I am not asking for unblock but posting so that someone will read this (unblock requests are automatically read by someone). Thank you
Decline reason:
You're not asking to be unblocked. Please keep in mind, unblock requests are not read by "everyone." When this block is up, don't edit war and don't stir things up by making more threats. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2011 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Who owns Hitler?
This is pure vandalism, meant to annoy an arrogantly ignorant elitist admin named Gwen Gale. Relax, we probably don’t know you, your name was probably on a list. You can disappear this, or some admin probably will, anyway. If you want to contact us privately, you can try theplutonpack@gmail. Otherwise, we probably won’t bother you again. Thanx.
"And pretend that he just doesn't see?"
This is long, and mostly garbage, I expect almost no one to make it through. I hope that someone will skip down to the closing, though.
Admin abuse damaging an article?
The first part of this was posted in Jan 2011. There are two additional sections, one from Nov 2010, one from Mar 2011, and a closing. Sorry about the formatting, (losing Bold and Paragraphs):
Should Wm5200 be blocked? Here is some background, edited for length and with some words bold for emphasis. Please check the originals for accuracy.
Posted under Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler--random questions--
I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them... 99.41.251.5 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC) As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this).
As the article lead says... This said, this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic, it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text. I say this because the article seems to already cover, with thorough citations, most if not all of what you've brought up. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw in general, and specifically to Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these wonderful resources.
In view of this information, and hopefully with the help of Gwen, I propose edits similar to the following...Reference others may include Trevor-Roper and Beevor. Wm5200 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Posted under Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler--aftermath--
The first paragraph...claims. Wm5200 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Everything in that section is sourced and/or highly verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Have you read either Kershaw or Joachimsthaler? Wm5200 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do you ask? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time.99.41.251.5 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources. In view of this information, I propose edits similar to the following:Wm5200 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Posted on Talk:Wm5200--Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler--
Article talk pages are not meant as general forums or question boards about a topic. Moreover, they are not meant as outlets for your original thoughts on topics, even if you put those thoughts as questions. Please either start citing sources (along with thoughts about how to echo those sources in the text), or stop posting to Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler. If you would like to know more about how to deal with (and skirt) plagiarism worries on en.Wikipedia, you might have a look at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this the way you were welcomed to Wiki?
Look at the talk page. Did Wm5200 bring up valid points? Did he attempt to reference them? Did he try to improve the article?
It is now January 2011. Wm5200 has been permanently blocked for trying to introduce Sir Ian Kershaw to Gwen Gale. Gwen Gale has collected more stars. Kierzek and Farawayman fixed up the article some, but still no Kershaw acknowledgment by Gwen Gale.
Is this how you think Wiki should work? Should Wm5200 be blocked from improving the article while Gwen Gale is rewarded for not assisting him?
Or should Wm5200’s block be reconsidered?
This is not about outing Gwen Gale, as some say. No one cares who Gwen Gale is. This is about holding her accountable for things she has said and done on Wikipedia and signed Gwen Gale to. Hiding behind those who have a real reason to hide is a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?
Does this conflict have political overtones? Wm5200 says “Cabal” and “they” and is ridiculed. But Farawayman has been blocked, and others have been intimidated. Be careful.
In November 2010, under the heading “Lead In”, the following was posted:
That greyfalcon source is indeed trash. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Going "with scholarly books" (that are balanced and objective, as far as secondary sources/authors can be) has always been my aim on Wiki; and as to this article, specially; Farawayman, who has worked hard of late, herein, I am sure would agree. "Time" and other duties are something that keeps many of us from more Wiki editing/writing and cross-checking at a more expedient rate. So, present what you will for consensus; there is plenty of "time". Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not offering [1] it as a source, Gwen. Only to demonstrate that a lot is floating out there. There's enough trash being passed off as sources in this article as it stands, without any more needing to be added. What the article especially needs to do is to bring forth that seventy years after the fact, the exact circumstances regarding the event remain uncertain and are contested. Naturally the scholarly "consensus" needs to be presented. The WP article on Hitler deals with the generalities regarding his death. This article needs to also deal with the subject's controversial nature. Not cigarette smoking. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
My main worry here is that there is utterly zero, aught evidence, that Hitler or Braun were alive after the late afternoon of 30 April 1945, however they died and the lead should steadfastly echo this, one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, maybe I am missing something.... the lead currently says "Adolf Hitler committed suicide by gunshot on 30 April 1945 in his Führerbunker in Berlin..." Surely that "steadfastly echo's" death on the 30th April. Why is it necessary to pertinently state that he was dead by the afternoon? Farawayman (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
For starters, the Russian autopsy bore overwhelming evidence he not only shot himself, but bit down on a cyanide capsule. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Slow down, one thing at a time!!!! Above, you insist the lead must "echo" that he was dead by the afternoon of the 30th. Explain? Farawayman (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you cite any meaningful sources that he was alive after that afternoon? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Beevor quoted cite; per points stated above; not needed, anyway. With that said, as for hearing the shot, yes, the two you mentioned are on record as having heard it, but Günsche and Linge are on record as NOT hearing anything; although Linge has changed his story on that point. In the famous "The World At War" T.V. series on DVD (originally from the 1970's), Linge stated he heard it; but in his book on page 199, he wrote: "I smelt the gas from a discharged firearm...Hitler had shot himself in the right temple with his 7.65-mm pistol..." As for the evidence of the "Russian autopsy", that bears close scrutiny through the published works. Kierzek (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, I am not talking about "original research"; I am talking cross-checking and putting forth what the published reliable sources state; as I refer to above in my reply to Dr. Dan as to editing on Wiki and this article, in particular. Kierzek (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Whatever you may be talking about, I'm talking about your own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I am NOT doing OR; I am editing an article to try and improve it; enough said. Kierzek (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
So at the very least Gwen the circumstances shouldn't be "steadfastly echoed" as they currently are.correct?.70.28.7.229 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Your rhetoric is lacking, IP. Please cite sources or stop now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Gwen...... The lead says he was dead by the 30th! No-one is disputing that! Who said he was alive after the late afternoon of the 30th? I recommend a good Brunello, I'm having one too! Set this aside, and lets move to a thorough copy edit of the first section. Farawayman (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
All I'm saying is, I think the new lead is not on. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying.Why the hostility?.70.28.7.229 (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, we had a grey, green, yellow, blue and dark blue (whatever) version of the lead in the above section! I agree its not perfect in terms of prose, but its factually correct! I concur, it needs polishing to make it read better, so why not give us your version - That's much more constructive. Farawayman (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
On 12 Mar 2011 , under the heading “When making large edits please be careful with citations: the following was posted:
(OD) While I agree ... This was further complicated by certain editors constantly preventing information that they objected to being placed in the article, which IMO, somewhat bordered on violating the guideline concerning ownership of a Wikipedia article. Rejecting information that was sourced and then demanding "sources" for information that was objectionable to them. Thankfully things have calmed down a bit. ... Dr. Dan (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Closing.
Using “Dr. Dan (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)” is not really fair, he does not name anyone. And neither he, Kierzek, or Farawayman have been contacted or informed of this post. Gwen, either.
Unblocking the Wheelman is a moot point, he’s long gone. But we do not see where Gwen has ever apologized to Dr Dan, Kierzek, or Farawayman, either. She was clearly counterproductive to the article, but there has been no sign of accountability.
This is hardly her first dispute. Does the average admin have this amount of conflict?
Thank you.
P.S. Clearly the above is outside the rules, we expect this account to be rolled up. But while you were ignoring us, another person posted the same kind of crap on our favorite admis’s talk page. And once the numbers change, we will be back. Power to the people, not the elite.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Jax the Great (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)