No edit summary |
Jax the Great (talk | contribs) →Who owns Hitler?: new section |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
I couldn't make up my mind whether [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism&diff=prev&oldid=464986087 this edit] fell within the restrictions set out in the lede at [[WP:CANVASSING]], or whether it was "done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion" and thus OK. It probably won't surprise you that I share User:Sayerslle's view that "you are a lobbyist really", but let's not jump to conclusions over this particular summoning up of like-minded assistance. Please do read the linked article, though, if you haven't done so already. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] ([[User talk:Old Moonraker|talk]]) 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
I couldn't make up my mind whether [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism&diff=prev&oldid=464986087 this edit] fell within the restrictions set out in the lede at [[WP:CANVASSING]], or whether it was "done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion" and thus OK. It probably won't surprise you that I share User:Sayerslle's view that "you are a lobbyist really", but let's not jump to conclusions over this particular summoning up of like-minded assistance. Please do read the linked article, though, if you haven't done so already. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] ([[User talk:Old Moonraker|talk]]) 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
:The fact that you appealed only to WP:Catholicism and not to, say, WP:History or WP:Germany is, actually, suspicious, particularly given your history of canvassing to that project. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 19:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
:The fact that you appealed only to WP:Catholicism and not to, say, WP:History or WP:Germany is, actually, suspicious, particularly given your history of canvassing to that project. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 19:53, 9 December 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]]) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:12, 12 December 2011
RELIABLE SOURCE?
Is this a reliable source? It has no references or footnotes and appears to be one long opinion piece. Just curious. Thanks, Quis separabit? 01:51, 2December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks but I wasn't referring to Tuck; I was referring to the reflink itself. I accept Tuck's credentials as you describe them, but without any footnotes or sources or even Tuck's CV, it comes off as one man's opinion or even screed. That is what I meant. Sorry I was not clearer. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
die tagespost
I looked for the mention of faulhaber being a member of amici israel 1925-28 , typed in faulhaber at the conservative catholic newspapers homepage - you always find your way to those kind of sources dont you ? - anyway, , there was an article for 29 Jan 2008, not 28 january, about a nun but it didnt mention faulhabers membership of amici - was it further down the article . what does it say? the devil and pope book said he 'supported it' didnt mention membership. please give a proper reference , date and everything , and could you put on he talk age the translation for the bit from tagespost that says he was a member. you kind of twisted the book material too, the devil and pope book anyway didn't you - didn't represent the pages in that book at all adequately 89-90 as they related to Faulhaber imo - still, thats life - you are like a lobbyist really, i call it corrupt. Sayerslle (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- You reaffirmed what article was in the paper? which article calls him a member? I'm still not clear. I couldn't find any article for that day - which article called him a member? Sayerslle (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- When you checked it is irrelevant - just repeat what you did then - the home page and the site will be the same as it was weeks ago. which article did you reaffirm?Sayerslle (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you not replying to this request. Sayerslle (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Which article? we do need it for the 1925-28 membership info. did you read an article from the tagespost that said he was a member 1925-28 or not? what is your problem with replying to this? you call me a brain-dead jackass, - well, for you, which part of 'which article?' do you not understand? Don't whine 'oh it was weeks ago' - doesn't matter because the site still exists www.die.tagespost - catholic politics every day - for you to find your mainstream academic info, that and catholiccultur.org and catholicheroesofholocaust.com and rychlak, who isnt even a historian and bokenkotter, and musty cold war encyclopedias - Sayerslle (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't make up my mind whether this edit fell within the restrictions set out in the lede at WP:CANVASSING, or whether it was "done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion" and thus OK. It probably won't surprise you that I share User:Sayerslle's view that "you are a lobbyist really", but let's not jump to conclusions over this particular summoning up of like-minded assistance. Please do read the linked article, though, if you haven't done so already. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that you appealed only to WP:Catholicism and not to, say, WP:History or WP:Germany is, actually, suspicious, particularly given your history of canvassing to that project. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 9 December 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.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Jax the Great (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)