User talk:Goodoldpolonius2

I find it biased

Polish deaths are disputed as to they were part of Holocaust but Russian POWs and outspoken Lutherans aren't ? Seems very biased towards one nationality.The above mentioned groups would fill even less criteria then Poles. Thus it doesn't seem balanced view. --Molobo 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Thank you for your explanation. Moved then to proper place. Should be divided between Russians, Poles, Belarussians, what other nations classified as Slavs by Germans were subject to mass murder ? --Molobo 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Btw-according to Szymon Datner all Poles who had Jewish ancestors down three generations ago, were classified as Jews by Germans in many cases. --Molobo 01:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodoldpolonius2, the statement you made on Molobo's page that the sentence was the "only" acceptable one is .... wrong ... to put it kindly. You were the one that changed my edits into that sentence.

> :I really think the section ought to be moved, it flows much better in the > Slavs section, and doesn't demean the number of Poles killed, which is mentioned > repeatedly. I may try to move it again. Can you bring it up on the Holocaust talk > page if you disagree, so other editors can give an opinion? --Goodoldpolonius2 05:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodoldpolonius2, the issue was already in the Holocaust talk page and other editors already had opportunities for comment. You have single-mindedly moved the content without yourself placing its move up for discussion. Perhaps you are the one who should have placed the move up for discussion?

Temporarily I have placed the number of Polish deaths in the top three paragraphs. Your repeated removals of Polish death counts from top paragraphs, in various ways it gets written, after you consent to them, is noted.

AP

I agree with your summary on Anti-Polonism that the term mixes in a very peculiar way the three notions. This should be properly documented in the article. alx-pl D 09:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

I suggest removing the quote on "milions" and giving a sentence-some people believe that comparision between antisemitism and antipolonism of Jewish society isn't possible as antisemitism led to one of the greatest genocides of human history, while antipolonism fills the criteria of standard if regretable variant of xenophobia.

This is of course a rough draft that we can work on. --Molobo 09:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism

can you give me a detailed explanation as to why you deleted paragraph 2 of Zionism article. It is correct information, factual, and neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarins01 (talk • contribs) .

RE: Zionism

"Although Zionism of the nineteenth century may have been secular to a certain extent" - Founders of Zionismm such as Theodor Herzl made little if any mention of a secularism or a secular state of Israel. Their works repeatedly mention and emphasise on an all Jewish homeland with Judaism as the sole religion, and rules made by Jews to be followed.
"Many zionists, including a large portion of (former) Israeli Prime Ministers such as Golda Meir have held the belief that Jews are entitled to all of the Holy Land which includes all of Palestine and other Arab lands" - No Israeli Prime Minister (all being Zionists) have been willing to stick to the land they purchased from the Arab/Palestinian Sherifate. Jerusalem was the Arabs, till it was invaded. Furthermore, Arabs managed to keep a hold of East Jerusalem, which was taken in 1967, till now all Prime Ministers have refused to bargain on Jerusalem beside Yitzak Rabin. Ben Gurion was the man to lay the foundation for invasion of other lands. He was the one that expelled the Brits and took what he felt. Netanyahu, Meir, Sharon all are responsible for expanding Israel at the expense of Palestine. Other Arab lands: are you saying that Israel is not colonising parts of Arab countries since 1967? If the statement is wrong, Israeli Prime Ministers would've abided by UN resolutions. None have so till now.
"despite the existence of the Canaanites (modern Palestinians) before the arrival of the Biblical Jews to Palestine. " Palestine is the Land of Canan. The Canaanites were in their land before Moses bought the Jews there. So how did it become the land of the Jews when the Canaanites were already there? The Jewish homeland given to the Jews by God is in the core of the Zionist ideology. Its repeatedly been argued that Jews are entitled to Palestine because they were there first and God gave it to them. This is totally absurd as its anthropological fact that Canaanites were the first inhabitants. The Book of World Anthropology makes clear that the Canaanites evolved to being modern day Palestinians as no mass shift of human races took place.
"Zionists do tend to keep the issue of a Palestinian homeland out of their agenda as it is contradictory to their beliefs." Again, the Zionist belief is to have a Jewish governed land in Palestine. Palestine doesn't appear on the world atlas anymore as it has been consumed by Israel and its Zionist rulers. For Zionists agreeing to build a Palestinian land means giving up some of Israel.

Thanks for your time. I look forward to reinserting Paragraph two after your reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarins01 (talk • contribs) .

Yessir Yessir 3 Bags Fo

I hope you don't mind...per our discussion of several months ago, I've reinserted the text of the [fictitious] decree at Abrabanel's response to the Alhambra Decree. Tom e r ^talk 09:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Zionism

Thank you..Your argument makes sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarins01 (talk • contribs) .

Template:Israelis

Good luck with that. Trying to improve the logic, size, and appearance of that template seems to get one called ignorant of the topic, a POV-pusher, etc, etc. I'm still of the view that it really should be made more hierarchical (the better do deal with the size, and genuine link-relatedness), mind you. Alai 08:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redesigned template.

Please review Template talk:Jewish language#redesign. Thanks for your time. Tom e r ^talk 22:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katyn

The quotes you mentioned were removed by Balcer. I still think its right to say that it was one of the largest Alled POWs massacres(I didn't wrote "largest" as you claimed), but I realize that entering such information would be controversial and result in opposition from many users. --Molobo 19:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to why it is regarded as Genocide by Polish institutions : http://www.ipn.gov.pl/eng/eng_news_high_katyn_decision.html

The principles of international law adopted in the Statute of the Nuremberg Tribunal and subsequently expounded in the verdict by that Tribunal were confirmed in the UN General Assembly resolution no. 95(I) of 11 December 1946. That resolution also declares that genocide is a crime against international law, contrary to the spirit and objectives of the United Nations, and condemned by the civilised world. The term �ludob�jstwo� is the Polish equivalent of the English word �genocide�, which was introduced to legal language and practice towards the end of World War II. The subject of genocide was expounded in the Convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes of genocide, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948. In art. II and III, this Convention lay down the definition of genocide and the punishable forms thereof, and placed the parties under an obligation to make it enforceable by introducing suitable legal provisions to their domestic legislation (art. V of the Convention). Because of the circumstances of the Katyn Massacre, i.e. the fact that it was planned down to the very last detail by the highest party and state authorities of the USSR and carried out by the state apparatus under their authority, and on account of the scale and cruelty of the extermination of thousands of innocent people and the motives of the perpetrators, there is justification in considering the permissibility of applying the qualification of genocide within the meaning of art. 11 of the convention of 9 December 1948. It should be noted that the application of the conventional term genocide to the events that are to be investigated may arouse reservations especially with regard to an assessment of the motives of the perpetrators, i.e. whether their act was committed with the intention of eliminating the entire population or parts of it, and whether the provisions of the Convention are retroactive. Regarding the first matter, i.e. the motives of the perpetrators, in order to reach a conclusion it is necessary to refer once again to the contents of the ACP (B) Politburo decision of 5 March 1940 and its definition of Polish citizens as �avowed, incorrigible enemies of Soviet authority.� In this context, it becomes fundamentally important to determine the circle of victims of this Massacre and find out whether the motive of those who issued the order on 5 March 1940 was to eliminate Polish citizens on account of their nationality. It is generally known that the overwhelming majority of the prisoners of war and civilians selected for extermination were of Polish nationality. There were also members of other nationalities, including Jews, Ukrainians and Belorussians, but they all constituted a group of Polish citizens. One should bear in mind that the Republic of Poland was a multinational state in which various nationalities existed side-by-side and were treated under the law as "ethnic components� of the Polish Nation. This formulation was adopted by Polish criminal law doctrine in a commentary to art. 152 of the 1932 Criminal Code (�Whoever publicly insults or defames the Polish Nation or State...�), which included in the legal concept of �Polish Nation" all the citizens of the Polish State, regardless of their nationality. The selection of persons for extermination was also characterised by the fact that they formed part of the intellectual elite of the Polish Nation which, under the appropriate conditions, could assume leadership. It transpires from the surviving documentation on the prison camps at Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov, where, as was mentioned earlier, reeducational tasks were undertaken, that this group of people did not change its attitudes and views and was determined to struggle for the return of its Fatherlands independence. Hence, L. Beria's note of 5 March 1940, recommending the shooting of the Poles, contained the remark whereby the prisoners of war expect liberation in order to be able to join the struggle against Soviet authority.The physical elimination of these people was meant to prevent the rebirth of Polish statehood based on their intellectual potential. Therefore the decisions of elimination were taken with the intention of destroying the strength of the Polish Nation and liquidate its elites. This thesis is confirmed by the careful selection of candidates to be shot, out of hundreds of thousands of other Poles in Soviet prisons and camps, on the basis of their social and professional status and their functions. Therefore one can conclude that the murder of Polish prisoners of war and Polish civilians by the NKVD was dictated by a desire to liquidate part of the Polish national group. Hence, this action assumed the status of genocide as described in art. II of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. The view whereby the extermination of Polish citizens is an act of genocide was also expressed in the USSR�s stance during the trial of Nazi war criminals before the Nuremberg Tribunal after the end of World War II. --Molobo 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the main arguments of Polish side that it should be regarded as genocide are following:

The selection of persons for extermination was also characterised by the fact that they formed part of the intellectual elite of the Polish Nation which, under the appropriate conditions, could assume leadership.

The physical elimination of these people was meant to prevent the rebirth of Polish statehood based on their intellectual potential. Therefore the decisions of elimination were taken with the intention of destroying the strength of the Polish Nation and liquidate its elites.

Therefore one can conclude that the murder of Polish prisoners of war and Polish civilians by the NKVD was dictated by a desire to liquidate part of the Polish national group

The view whereby the extermination of Polish citizens is an act of genocide was also expressed in the USSR�s stance during the trial of Nazi war criminals before the Nuremberg Tribunal after the end of World War II.
Having conducted evidentiary proceedings which did not confirm the opinion that the atrocity was carried out by the Germans, the Nuremberg Tribunal in its verdict did not make any substantive reference to the charge regarding the Katyn Massacre.

--Molobo 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pexcilumbo

have a look here and there. enjoy the easter egg links. :-D Tom e r ^talk 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey lookie here...it's my synagogue. :-D Tom e r ^talk 05:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jews and Koestler

Hey, GOP2. I've been involved in a bit of a debate on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews page regarding the value and relevance of Koestler's work, and exactly how much mention (if any) it should received in the article. If you have a chance, would you mind weighing in? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced by a log entry of 4 July 2005 for Ashkenazi Jews at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=18114132&oldid=18097775 Goodoldpolonius2 improperly removed my journal article examining "The Origins of East European Jews" while leaving my outdated book that was written 5 years prior. Judging from the rationale he used for removing it, I suppose he thought my article was only a rehash of the book, but in fact it is not; it reexamines the issues entirely and adds new evidence from DNA and documents pertaining to migrations, names, and origins. I re-added the article and removed the book, until such time as the 2nd edition of my book comes out (anticipated October 2006), at which time the book will be a sufficient reference. - KAB 71.234.139.31 02:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

message for Goodoldpolonius2

Hello, maybe duplicate entry appeared around this time: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=35824344&oldid=35815819

The link is to an edit by you.

Thank you for contacting me regarding this matter. Good day. 69.57.226.137 03:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 69.57.226.137 12:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodoldpolonius2, I placed the paragragh and figure in top portion a minute ago. 69.57.226.137 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request your assistance

Hi. I have a concern about a situation in the area of the 9/11 attacks. I don't know if you are familiar with the fact that people who question the official story of 9/11 are often smeared because of infiltration by anti-semites and people who try to pair 9/11 research with holcaust denial (it's an easy way for average people to dismiss anyone who questions what happened that day when they are also associated with anti-semitic remarks). At the moment there is a 9/11 researcher who I feel should not be listed on wikipedia because his website links to what I consider antisemitic comments. I also feel this inappropriate for wikipedia to be hosting this person's website information given that he damages the credibility of others who have real questions about 9/11 by pairing that information on his website with antisemitism.

Please see the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11#Proposal_to_remove_a_9.2F11_researcher_because_of_offensive_links and please click on the links. Thanks.

Thanks for your comment.

Your response -- staying away from those pages -- is what I believe people like him want to happen, and exactly why SO many 9/11 sites are paired with holocaust denial. Two good resources for how that's done in the 9/11 truth movement are:

http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html
http://911review.com/denial/holocaust.html

It's one of the best ways to shut down a real investigation. A professor in Utah just gave a talk last night (7 rooms were opened up to deal with the overflow) and there was bomb scare. People don't want these questions asked. Pairing the info with antisemitism is one of the best ways to do that. Thanks for the suggestions.

Vandalism Reversion

Well, all right. I was just tired of seeing so many soulless 'rvv's everywhere, but I guess it's time to join the machine ;D -- Saaber 18:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why did you deleted the part you were saying that you met some nazis?

Image copyright problem with Image:Childwarsawghetto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Childwarsawghetto.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 08:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to Image:Nurembergracechart.jpg as well. Thanks. Superm401 - Talk 15:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawthorne effect

At this article, you made some changes to the introduction that I am interested in hearing more about. Unfortunately, felt the need to remove the changes for now, as there is no reference, and the material drastically changes the content. I haven't heard anything of this being debunked, and am intrigued to know more, but you've given no reference to follow. Please let me know where you found this information so we can include it and cite it correctly. If it is true, then it really needs to be included. Thanks. --DanielCD 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is wonderful. Thank you for that effort! --DanielCD 15:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the article, and am happy to see you have returned the material with references. It is on my cleanup list, as it is very sloppy. Hopefully I will be able to pay it some attention soon so I can rewrite it and make it shine. Thank you for all your efforts here. --DanielCD 05:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Thanks GOP2 for the credit, but I am not the author of any of these assertions. I will try to do some research, but maybe we should ask these questions at some widely-read forum. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Hi, thanks for your note on my talk page. I've replied to your fixes on the fac page. Regards, Mikker ^... 16:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message; I'll reply on the nomination page when I go through the FACs again. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Regarding this edit: Could you please include your sources? Thanks, Aucaman^Talk 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work

I like you (not in any other then respect). You're a good historian and a realist. Unlike many people you realize such facts as that allies weren't "saint saviors and heroes that destroyed the evil force of axis" or that even big historical figures have some "dark" parts. User:Kniaz

I created a short

Stub involved with Holocaust you might be interested in expanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderaktion_1005 --Molobo 00:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial

Given the sensitivities touched upon by the Holocaust article, I think it would be useful for each claim to be at least footnoted. Simply pointing to the links and saying (essentially) "find it yourself" isn't very helpful to the reader. On the other hand, it isn't a "critical" problem requiring an RV war. It can wait for the next re-write. Rklawton 18:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent (and speedy) work. I find the whole subject so strange that it just begs credulity. The documentation you provided will really help. I hope future editors for this article will strive to do the same. Rklawton 05:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Congratulations!

... on getting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to FA status.

I know I was a bear during the nomination process, but really I only wanted the best for this article. I hope you appreciated my suggestions and commentary. I could have just looked over it and made one or two minor suggestions as (I think) too many people do with FAs; but I felt I owed Wikipedia the fine-tooth comb treatment. And I think the article is much better off for all this.

It also helped because I have a couple of articles I have nominations in mind down the line for. I want to make sure they go in as ideal as I can make them. I'll let you know when they're up if you're interested (it will be a while, I think). Daniel Case 03:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.

I notice no one's made the main page nomination yet. Would you like me to? Any date we have in mind (I think it might be a good idea to avoid Passover, given the subject). But I think it should be there, given that Triumph of the Will is coming up soon. Daniel Case 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done. I suggested not any particular date but realized that mid- to late April has a bunch we might want to avoid. In fact, I said, maybe it should wait until early May. Daniel Case 04:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The date is set: March 19. Next Sunday. Doesn't have any of the overtly antisemitic connotations of the dates I told Raul to avoid (Passover and Hitler's birthday), but it is the third anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Daniel Case 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just giving you a heads-up: the Main Page featuring starts in less than an hour. There will be vandalism. Keep an eye on it whenever you're on so you can quickly revert. Daniel Case 23:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judeofascism

Hi Goodold: Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Judeofascism. Thank you. IZAK 09:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Originate" @ Zionism

You revert the introductory paragraph of the article Zionism within the hour, and have the capacity to send me to Talk:Zionism to defend the correction I made to reflect the historic reality of the Jewish people's relationship to the Land of Israel (unnecessary as the history class on the Jewish people should've been, at least for you). Now I have been waiting two days for your decency to at least reply? Could you make your way just as promplty to the talk page (seeing that it was you that sent me there) as you do to your reverts. Thanks. Al-Andalus 08:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Jacrosse

Just thought you might want to know that there are already two pending Requests for Mediation involving Jacrosse and his behavior on Neoconservatism and French Turn.—thames 15:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iaşi pogrom

"The Iaşi pogrom of 27 June 1941 was one of the most violent pogroms in Jewish history" Is this compared with what happened in Germany or with what happened in Poland? I think the big picture tells us otherwise. "Romania also joined Germany in the invasion of the Soviet Union." I can't see what this has to do with the pogrom that took place in Iasi. It has no relevance to your article. "the death train that left Iasi for Călăraşi, southern Romania, which carried perhaps as many as 5,000 jews" Highly speculative. I don't understand why put unknown data in your facts. Maybe an official number it will be more correct? "Romanian authorities reported that 1,900 jews boarded the train and “only” 1,194 died." At least that "only" is malicious. I really think no one told that in any official way. And if the romanian authorities say 1900 jews, the most correct thing is to accept it (it's no small number). You may be right that some numbers say 2700, but the reverse is also true. The official numbers are the most correct to put in.

Image copyright problem with Image:Diffusionadoption.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Diffusionadoption.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 18:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion

John Sack's "En Eye for an Eye" ? I would be interested since you seem to posses much information about such issues ? --Molobo 14:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new page

Just wanted to alert you to this page. I don't know the history here but was surprised to find it had no proper references at all to his background, so threw in a few examples but don't have time to really work on. Bov 00:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp PR

Hello there! I remember seeing you contribute to various Holocaust-related articles. I have recently expanded the article on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp and asked for a peer review. I thought you might want to take a look at the article and perhaps improve it or tell me what's missing. //Halibu tt 00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi mysticism page

I noticed that you have tried to distinguish fact and fiction at the Nazi mysticism page. You may be interested to know that there is a mediation case about this at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-08 Nazi mysticism. If you would like to contribute to this, it might be valuable. Thank you! Hgilbert 16:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hi! Man you just provoked me to tell that stupid messages about the holocaust and all the thing. Of course the Holocaust was a very very said thing. Why do you really like to stop other people opinions? I only told my opinion about the page of Iasi. A page about a city must promote that city and not to blame it for the past. I lived in a communist country and I do not like to be stopped to tell my opinion no matter who you are. Dacodava 10:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in Romania

You should admit the truth even if you do not like it! Some of the Jews were good Romanian citizens, but some of them, like the Jews from Transilvania were magyaryzed and faithful to Budapesta and a strong example is today Congressman Peter Ecstein Kovacs (his mother a Jewish woman and the father a Slovak!) and he is in UDMR a ethnical party of Hungarians in Romania. Also some of Jews from the east of Moldavia (Bessarabia) were soviet agents like Ana Pauker who was Foreign Minister of Romania and sign the paper to give Soviet Union the Snake Isle. So stop blaming other people for what happened in the past because the Jews had their own fault. Of course the Holocaust was a stoopid thing. Next time try to understand the point of view of the people instead of acusing them! Stop doing a false propaganda!Dacodava

Fear ?

Do you want to make from Jews another kind of super people, like nazi considered themselves? That is not the right solution! And I am not afraid of you and your propaganda! Dacodava

User:Dacodava

I've reblocked this editor; your attempt to indefinitely block him didn't take because a shorter, previous ban was in effect. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadagora

I have started a stub on Sadagura (Sadagora) -- would you like to contribute? I think the topic is quite fascinating, and frankly I am surprised that nobody has written about it before .... Eugen Ivan 05:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

It's fascinating for us as Holocaust survivors to read many of the comments on this list. We shake our heads and are sad. We are learning rapidly what seems to be going on in the "intellectual/professorial" community in this country. We had no idea of some of these view points, and assume that is what is being taught to our youngsters today? We now are beginning to understand a little more why our youngsters act and think the way they do, at least with respect to the Holocaust.

No Rush to Judgment: by moving too slowly against Balkan atrocities, the world community is encouraging still more war crimes - by James O. Jackson (The Hague, November 1995). With reporting by James L. Graff/Zenica, J.F.O. McAllister/Washington, Nomi Morris/Berlin and Colin Soloway/Vitez

WARSAW, Dec. 21 -- A group of Roman Catholic nuns have agreed to remove their religious symbols and give up ownership rights to a cloister adjacent to the Auschwitz (``AUS'-shveetz) concentration camp.

The Polish news agency PAP says the nuns got $460,000 from the state for the deal, which could end three years of protests by Jewish groups against the Catholic institution.

Anti nazi

The British National Party's attempt to hold a fundraising event with the French Nazi leader Jean-Marie Le Pen backfired spectacularly on Sunday 25 April. A campaign organised by Unite Against Fascism trashed any hope the BNP had of favourable press coverage for their "respectable" black-tie dinner with Le Pen.

The Nazis were forced to retreat to BNP leader Griffin's farm in Wales. The anti-BNP mobilisation was reported in the press, along with details of Le Pen's Nazi beliefs and criminal convictions. Some 1,000 people joined Unite's rally in Birmingham on Sunday. They cheered as Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism, explained what the protest had achieved

Nazi propaganda

Propaganda was central to Nazi Germany. This page is a collection of English translations of National Socialist propaganda for the period 1933-1945, part of a larger site on German propaganda. The goal is to help people understand the great totalitarian systems of the twentieth century by giving them access to primary material. The archive is substantial. If you are looking for something specific, try the search function available at the bottom of the page.

American nazi

A piece of American nazi propaganda: The year is 2025, White people HAVE become a MINORITY in America. On our streets hang Aryan men who refused to accept the "New Way," or perhaps they just looked too White. Perhaps they never thought MUD RULE would really come.

White girls who refuse the advances of Negroids, are publicly gang-raped so as to serve as examples to other shuddering Aryan females. Children are now taken from their houses, by force, to be brought up in a "Multi-Cultural" home of Negroids, Arabs, Muslims and Gooks, all in the name of "brotherhood and love"...

Image copyright problem with Image:Majdanek-1944.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Majdanek-1944.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Jewishtownpostcard.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jewishtownpostcard.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Colaberators

Goodoldpolonius2, I have recently being doing research on Baltic colaborators, particularly the Arajs Commandos and other Latvian people. I found that your summary of Arajs commandos to having killed 26,000 Jews is... well I am concerned about the accuracy of figure. The essay you linked mentioned nothing of 26,000, but as another editor pointed out, it was only a preface to a book I have not read. Every essay I have puts the number of Jews killed in Latvia at around 65,000, but the last large massacre to take place was a year before the Arajs was formed. Personally I doubt it could be as high as 26,000, and no historian that I have read has given an estimate, let alone one that high.

To be clear: I am not convinced I am right. You certainly seem more well read than I am. And I am a new user of wiki. It is just that: a) Your reference (at least what I can access) does not support the claim b) I have read nothing that suggests it to be 26,000 c) I have read things that imply the number to be significantly lower.

Because of these three things I thought the need to bring it up. I am sure there is no need to stress how hard accurate numbers are due to original German propaganda followed by the USSR's "altered" history being the only one studied until 1991.

Because of your post about taking a "wiki break" I am not even sure this message will get to you. If it does than drop me an email or use my talk page or something, because I would love to discuss it. Even if the message is a simple "I am right, you need to read book x" I would appreciate knowing that the figure is somewhat accurate. DrDisco

Okay well I did some reading on this last night making sure that I fully knew what I was talking about. Turned out I got the dates of Arajs confused with that of the Latvian Legion, Arajs were formed nearly straight after the German occupation of Latvia. I now am not as convinced of my point of c) but still a) and b). DrDisco

Image:GhettosinPoland.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:GhettosinPoland.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Immigrationtoisrael.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Immigrationtoisrael.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Majorcampseurope.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Majorcampseurope.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WarsawGhettoMap.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:WarsawGhettoMap.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 19:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Childwarsawghetto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Childwarsawghetto.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Iamunknown 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to County class cruiser

Hello. Just wanted to leave you a friendly note regarding your edit to County class cruiser. It would appear that your addition of disambiguation text accidentally deleted most of the article [1]. Another user reverted your inadvertent deletions, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up regarding the issue. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Bolshevism & The Jewish Bolshevism & Żydokomuna

Hi Goodoldpolonius: How have you been? Long time no see. In the past, you have been involved with articles about Jews in Poland. There are very troubling developments at Jewish Bolshevism & The Jewish Bolshevism & Żydokomuna. Why three articles about the same antisemitic and hateful subject? Maybe it's time to look into this a little deeper. Your help and expertise would be most appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 17:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Bukharanjews.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Bukharanjews.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 13:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found where I assume the image was taken from: here. I am sure that the image falls under PD, but am writing them for confirmation. Tomer ^talk 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the image itself: [2] Tomer ^talk 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dr. Mitchell Bard of the Jewish Virtual Library, the image was used there by permission from here. Tomer ^talk 05:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Beilis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beilis.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Biglvov2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Biglvov2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Biglvov2.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Biglvov2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 16:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for Image:Biglvov2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Biglvov2.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:May311944 auschwitz.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:May311944 auschwitz.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Childwarsawghetto.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Childwarsawghetto.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in England

Hi, I have had the pleasure of translating the article to Norwegian Wikipedia. I am not sure who is main author of the article, but I take the chance that you might have some weight on it. The article is good, but it stops kind of abrupt. I believe there several Jewish communities in London, some quite orthodox. Perhaps this and a paragraph leading up to nowadays with be appropriate? --FinnWiki (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Höfle Telegram

You appear to be the "author" of this article, and specifically of a link to a document on the Web site of the National Security Agency that is not found by the link. I'm unable to ascertain whether the link was ever valid. I've marked the link "Dead Link" in keeping with practice I've observed. So far, on the NSA Web site, I've been unable to browse to any document containing the text quoted in the article from the putative NSA document.

Do you care to review the original data for the link and see whether a transcription error or other such inadvertence occurred?

On the matter of the Telegram, I have other questions you might be able either to answer or to give me further guidance on. The Telegram is described as a "fortnightly report." This makes me suppose that there might have been other "fortnightly reports" at least preceding and presumably following this report, numbering I should suppose in the dozens. Have any other fortnightly reports come to light, or is this one (which happens precisely to cover year-end 1942) the only one that has been noted?Joe (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feature article review

I have nominated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. I'm notifying you since you first nominated the page for FA status. -Verdatum (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Childwarsawghetto.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Childwarsawghetto.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email

Hi there, I am not sure if I am posting this correctly, but I have sent you an email message. I hope to hear back from you at your convenience. Thanks so much for your time and help. Best, Sandy Sfazeli38 (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:K POGROM.JPG needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:K POGROM.JPG appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which:{{subst:usernameexpand|Goodoldpolonius2}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
or use the {{own}} template..

If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nazi race map Koe.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nazi race map Koe.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Majorcampseurope.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Majorcampseurope.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NAZI copyrights

Why is it whenever you post photos taken by Nazis you make mention of copyrights? Don't you know that after the war all Nazi copyrights, like patents, were revoked and taken by the allies? OMG I am soo cool (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Treblinkagrave.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Treblinkagrave.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:DrancyConcentrationCamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DrancyConcentrationCamp.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 [email protected], 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 [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} 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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 13:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]